The "hiding among civilians" myth

Well said!!!

This could be termed the "nits make lice" theory of counter-insurgency. It is a justification for genocide.

since you're an expert on the middle east and seem to have been on all over, can you please tell me in what area these neighboring apartments are? who was the landlord?
oh, and I would like you tell me more about this "madrasah" you once talked about. Do you know what "madrasah" means in arabic? do you know about the lebanese educational system?

please inform us, oh expert!

@ sidiwda: Why do they (Hezbollah etc.) do it?

madrasah means 'school' but the fundamentalists use it in contexts that indicate religious schools. They also use the word "Kottab'. As to were we lived. We lived in both Eastern and Western Beirut. We had a home in Ashrafeyeh but we also had a home around Nijmah square. As to the Lebanese educational system I was not allowed in as a Palestinian refugee. So I cannot tell you much about it but religious education happens in separate schools that people enroll into. In other Arab countries I lived (Saudi, Kuwait and Jordan) the curriculum is fully Islamic with a heavy focus on topics around Jihad and Israel being the daemon.

You might think Hezbollah does the things they do simply because Islam has built into its core the destruction and elimination of Jews and domination over Christians. They will not stop what they do until an Islamic government is established on the earth that includes all the countries that were a part of the Islamic empire a 1000 years ago. If you really want to learn about their motivations please drop all that you are doing and watch this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en
It is worth every minute you spend watching it and is very educational and balanced.

Look at sidiwda's page and see if you believe that he's Palestinian.

What are you getting at Jimmy?

He is implying, like Zeina, that I am lying. This is a problem I run into all the time. Nobody believes that I am an Arab and a Palestinian. Well, I tried posting in Arabic for people to believe that but the system doesn't accept Arabic entries. Tell me what proof you want and I will provide it.

I will tell you one of them:

It's impossible that you lived in Ashrafiah during the civil war unless you are christian and they don't know you are palestinian as you claim. Second, both of these areas don't have Hizbollah presence.

PS
I think religious fundamentalism is dangerous, be it islamic, christian or jewish. However, I don't want to switch the discussion into that. I prefer to keep it about you LYING (I'm not even implying it).

ya zeina, we lived in Ashrafeya and yes ana maseehi (a christian) and a Palestinian. We bought the property in the 70s before the war. Eza beddek ahki ma3aki telefon bahki ashan tetakkadi min haweytei. And yes these areas don't have Hezbollah presence because they were just starting and they were under the influence of Amal. You ignored also my Nijmeh square resience. Ya Zeina 3eyb 3aleyki tettehmini bel kezeb. Law el system boktob Arabi la kont katabtellek arabi 3ashan etsadqi. Is that enough arabic for you.

Christians in Lebanon are praying for Hezbollah to be destroyed. I am not alone in my position.

you said above that Hezbollah was firing rockets from around the civilians. From the nijmeh square to Israel?

PS
OK, so you are a christian Arab that hates Muslims, obviously. Did you also cheer for the phalangists when they entered Sabra and Shatilla raping and slaughtering everybody?

Some of the Christians in Lebanon are praying for Hezbollah to be destroyed, the same ones that were collaborating with Israel during the civil war. So, please don't overgeneralize about all Christians...

Guido: This seed seems to have attracted several of them. I suspect the Israelis are committed to defending their myth, and they've been checking the trackback on this story.

It reminds me of what happened on UseNet during the Kosovo campaign. We saw a sudden influx of Serbian apologists, with a good number of them claiming to be Kosovars who wanted to set the record straight.

So has anyone watched the video to which sidiwda linked? I think everyone should take the time to watch it. It makes Hitlers Nazi movement look like the Boy Scounts in comparison. The children are taught from an early age that anyone who is not a Muslim are "Like cattle, to be sold or killed."

If only all Muslims and Arabs would just leave the Middle East and let Israel live in peace!

Israel has not asked for this. Only that they don't keep attacking her.

Or if they're gonna stay there, they should at least have the courtesy to do whatever Israel wants, whenever they want it done

The only thing Israel asks is that its neighbours set aside their goal of destroying her. Is that unreasonable? If they could manage that then Israel wouldn't need to go to war, and if they did not deliberately use human shields Israel would not get dragged into a dirty war it does not want.

I understand why most of the Middle East does not feel it has a right to exist

Let's say I don't - so explain it to me

If they are, that does not in my mind justify the Israeli tactics of bombing civilian areas in order to get the bad guys

I have my own problems with that but you're stance leaves too much unanswered. Is it OK to leave Hizbullah where they are, doing what they do? If not who will disarm them and how? If not and only Israel will, how should Israel deal with Hizbullah's human shield tactics?

There's more to this that "Oh, Israel shouldn't do that?" I sympathise but please give us something constructive. Doing nothing is not much of a solution either.

Celestina

pseudonihilist--

Here's the thing: I posted this article because all the media here in the U.S. seems to focus on one side of the story: terrorists are evil, Hezbollah are terrorists, Hezbollah is evil.

So in response you post a patently false charge, that Hezbollah, and by extension all terrorists, don't use as an everyday tactic of inter-mingling with innocents.

To use your words: "Here's the thing," not sure what US media you're looking at but my network and cable coverage is chocked full of Lebanese victims in hospitals and the wreackage of bombed out buildings.

THAT is "the thing," whether you believe it or not.

Fighting fire with fire only begets more fire.

Dennis: Are you really so ignorant of Israel's history? Do you really think that ethnic cleansing is a legitimate way to establish a state? If someone chased you out of your house and killed members of your family, would you support their contention that they had a right to live in it?

celestina :

hezbollah IS pure evil.
I'm siding with Israel, a country standing up against evil nutjobs like Sheik Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
this is not a matter of frivolously chosing sides.

Drewcifer, can you back up your claim that Hezbollah IS pure evil? The United States has perpetrated more deaths in its history, so giving me numbers of deaths caused by Hezbollah is insufficient. What exactly makes them pure evil? That's the kind of talk they use against us, but I expect us to be better than that. Can you come up with a list of things that they've done that no soldier or person of the United States has ever done or would do in the name of our country?

vas

Can you come up with a list of things that they've done that no soldier or person of the United States has ever done or would do in the name of our country?

You're such an easy target I don't know why I bother.

Hizbullah's goal is the total destruction of Israel, plain and simple. (Read the Hezbullah charter, and Hezbollah's goals in their own words.

When you're finished reading come back and let me know which US "soldier or person of the United States" has advocated that.

Celestina
pseudonihilist--

That's a rather unkind way to start a conversation, but I am going to assume your heart is in the right place and not get all mad about it.

Celestina I'm afraid that I agree that this article is crap. As a journalist-ok former journalist- I found myself growling as I read the article and the author broke into "writer's voice" and expressed his own opinion, revealing that he had lost his objectivity in covering the war. Once he does that his writings can be tossed into the same pile as propaganda from either side of the fighting. It becomes useless and the writer does not deserve his position with Salon magazine.

As to the question of Hezbollah using civilians as shields, perhaps they are. I have seen the arguments claiming so

I think nothing so demonstrated to me that the writer was untrustworthy was the disparity between this comment

the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false.

and this one

The landlord had refused to rent to Hezbollah when they requested the top floors of the building. No matter, the locals said, the Hezb guys just moved in anyway in the name of the "resistance."

The writer has contradicted himself because a privately owned rental building is without a doubt "civilian infrastructure" and taking over a civilian building in the heart of a downtown area, against the landlord's will no less, is definitely hiding behind civilians.

I don't even know why this is a topic of contention. Even when described kindly Hezbollah is a Urban guerrilla force. Urban guerrilla's by definition use urban infrastructure (read that civilian) the same way as jungle guerrillas use the jungle. it is a basic precept of this kind of warfare that cover and concealment are used to your advantage to hid your numbers and capabilities so that the enemy has to search for you and be more cautious against a much smaller force. This gives you time to strike and repeat.
the minutemen used it against the British in the revolutionary war. The French resistance used it against the Germans in world war two. The Viet Cong used it against the US in Vietnam and every Islamic Jihad group in the world is using it against every christian nation in the world right now. This should not be a revelation to anyone.

The real question is in this statement by Celestina

If they are, that does not in my mind justify the Israeli tactics of bombing civilian areas in order to get the bad guys...any more than that justification has worked for me when it was the U.S. doing the bombing and Al Qaida we were after. I just don't think it's o.k. to kill off large swaths of civilians, whether the "enemy" is hiding behind them, or not.

Therin lies the problem. While the enemy is doing everything in its power to win regardless of cost. Americans expect the western world side of the conflict (in this case Israel) to take the moral high ground and blunt its sword so as to not hurt anyone except the enemy, even when it may cost you some lives on your side.
Any fighter of any sort martial artist, boxer, policeman or soldier will tell you its one thing to be able to win a fight, but doubly difficult task to control the fight while winning it.

So if the Israeli Army is not big enough to control the fight but they are strong enough to win it, should they take the moral high ground and let themselves lose?
Israel has been surrounded by wolves on all sides for thousands of years. They are accustomed to doing whatever it takes to win with as little loss of life on their side. The Israeli secret service, the mossad, is vicious and has no qualms about performing assassinations. They have survived by doing what is necessary.
Is that wrong? I can't say that I blame them.

/DA

Hizbullah's goal is the total destruction of Israel, plain and simple. (Read the Hezbullah charter, and Hezbollah's goals in their own words.

When you're finished reading come back and let me know which US "soldier or person of the United States" has advocated that.

Um, how about Germany and Japan during World War II? Seems, if I recall correctly, that the US was pretty much hell bent for leather to destroy these two entities. A segment of the official propoganda of the day backs this up.
example 1
example 2
exapmle 3

Let's also then consider the "insidious" Soviet Union which was so devious and horrid that we turned upon our own people in fear they had been "compromised" (McCarthyism ring a bell?).

You're such an easy target I don't know why I bother.

Sorry, the following was intended to be listed as a quote:

You're such an easy target I don't know why I bother.

Please continue about your business. :)

Hizbullah's goal is the total destruction of Israel, plain and simple. (Read the Hezbullah charter, and Hezbollah's goals in their own words.

Full Throttle, do you have any source for Hezbollah's "charter" which doesn't originate from an organization which is headed by a former director of the Mossad? It seems these guys added an extra paragraph to the "charter" which specifically deals with Israel's existence. Now, I'm not saying that they're lying or anything, but it would be interesting to see the "charter" in a form that Hezbollah actually claims to have written. The document you linked to is specifically disclaimed by Hezbollah.

You are known to be quite particular in scrutinizing sources for possible bias - did it simply slip by you that your source might not be completely objective?

So you don't believe Hizbullah want Israel destroyed?

Dennis, are you putting words into my mouth on purpose, or do you simply read what you want to read? I believe I made myself clear - I'm asking Full Throttle if he has a source of information about Hezbollah's "charter" which doesn't originate with a right wing Israeli think tank. Further, I've contrasted Full Throttle's propensity to attack sources which he feels may carry a left wing bias with his eagerness to utilize an obviously subjective source when it suits his needs.

As to my beliefs about what Hezbullah wants, I don't know what they want. Indeed, I won't know what they want if I rely on right wing Israeli sources. I'm not entirely certain why you feel the need to jump in and mischaracterize my inquiry which was clearly directed at Full Throttle. I suppose it's the old "enemy of my enemy" thing, but I'm not anybody's enemy here - I'm here to "get smarter." I don't fool myself into thinking that having an open and honest discussion which carefully examines all aspects of an issue has a downside. I'm interested in the right wing Israeli viewpoint, but my interests don't stop there. I'm also interested in the right wing Hezbollah viewpoint, the left wing Israeli viewpoint, the "innocent Israeli civilian" viewpoint, the "innocent Lebanese civilian" viewpoint, and whatever other viewpoints happen to pop up.

I'm not trying to fight the Israel/Hezbollah "war," I'm trying to learn about it. I often find that I can learn more by asking questions than I can by ignoring the opposition.

They are accustomed to doing whatever it takes to win with as little loss of life on their side. The Israeli secret service, the mossad, is vicious and has no qualms about performing assassinations. They have survived by doing what is necessary.
Is that wrong?

You've just provided an excellent argument for why Israel should be destroyed.

Not a trick question. I was not sure where you were heading with this so I was trying to get you to expand a bit on what you believe and why, is all. You've done that and thanks.

You've just provided an excellent argument for why Israel should be destroyed.

Well I never doubted that's where you stood.

At least you're open about wanting a state destroyed.

You don't even need to go beyond NV to find people with that much hate of Israel.

That is why Israel has to defend itself and defend itself robustly.

I for one do not want to see Israel destroyed. But many Lebonese and Palistinians believe that the West wants their state or religion destroyed. It doesn't help undo such walls between cultures when descriptions like "pure evil" are used.

Look at how riled up Republicans get when extremists on the left call Bush "pure evil". I wish Bush weren't our president. I don't trust some of his motivations. But I don't think he is "evil".

Who said evil? I said Jimmy and others hate Israel to the extent they want it wiped out and sod the human consequences of that.

Whether that constitutes evil or not I will leave to others. That it's hate I have no doubt of.

It is not reciprocal. The vast majority of Israelis are not driven by hate, rather by a love of their country and a will to survive.

Search for "evil" up the thread, and you'll find it.

If Israeli and Palestinian positions were reversed, for example, I'm not sure what you said would be true, except with respect to the Palestinians, that is.

I agree with you about the hate. Think about the times when you feel intense hate. Then think about why.

Think about the times when you feel intense hate

Believe me or not, I don't let myself feel hate. Ever.

I am not impartial. I am four-square behind survival of Israel. But I don't hate Hamas, Hizbullah or anyone else. Doesn't mean I don't think they should be disarmed or neutralised - but that's because I want Israel in one piece.

By the way, even without switching places I'm sure the vast majority of Palestinians and Lebanese are driven by "a love of their country and a will to survive".

But the love of country and the will to survive can drive behavior desperate in desperate circumstances.

Believe me or not, I don't let myself feel hate. Ever.

That makes you either dishonest, emotionless, or lucky. Since I believe you, I'm sure it's the third.

I am not impartial. I am four-square behind survival of Israel. But I don't hate Hamas, Hizbullah or anyone else. Doesn't mean I don't think they should be disarmed or neutralised - but that's because I want Israel in one piece.

I agree!

neutralized

What a pleasant way to say "murdered."

I said Jimmy and others hate Israel to the extent they want it wiped out and sod the human consequences of that.

I think Israel should be allowed to live in peace within the '67 borders, simply for the sake of peace. That doesn't mean they have a right to that territory, it simply means they should be allowed to retain it in peace for the sake of order in the region.

However, the human consequences of wiping out Israel would probably be less than the human consequences of allowing them to continue on their murderous path. After all, if the Israelis were forced to flee, every one of them could take refuge in the US with no significant loss of well-being other than their damned pride, which is, after all, the true source of all the trouble. But forcing them out should only be a last resort if they absolutely refuse to live in peace, as several of their supporters have alleged.

hezbollah IS pure evil.

No it isn't, I've seen pure evil, it's a thick paste.

Also, try this, read the above quote with the voice of a movie preview voiceover announcer, with the emphasis as written.
How many sequels of that would you go to?
(I'd watch them all, I love stuff like that)

Guido: Do you think that it is possible to create a Palestinian state somewhere in Europe and send the Palestinians there?

Why not create a Jewish state in New York?

So let me get this straight guys, hezbollah have NO right to kill people, because they are not a state, but Israel does because it's recognized as such? This seems to be the general argument I see everywhere lately, and I think it's disgusting. Somehow the nation-state has been granted a monopoly on the use of violence and I think this is the issue we really need to rethink

Its similar to the bizarre logic that bombing areas known to be primarily civilian from a jet leads to acceptable collateral damage (see shockin and awe or today's stuff or etc) but suicide bombings are terrorists acts -- to be clearthey are both reprehensible).

But why is Israel attacking civilian infrastructure? Could it be because Hizbollah callously hides munitions and soldiers among those populations? Could it be because Hizbollah fires upon Israel from schools and hospitals knowing full well that Israel will return fire on the point of origin? Who is more in the wrong, really? Those who do the killing unwittingly, or those who would orchestrate such killings (against their own people) for positive media coverage? I think it's a fairly easy choice, personally.

And yes, Israel could go in with a ground force and not have to bomb these sites from the sky, but then Israeli deaths would skyrocket as the population banded against them. Asking Israel to take more losses to avoid a "disproportionate" response is silly: they've been attacked over and over again by Hizbollah. Lebanon did not take these attacks on Israel seriously, and is paying the price of not keeping their house in order.

Hizbollah is to blame, there's no "myth" about them hiding among civilians. It's a fact, and its resulted in a disproportionate number of Lebanese v. Hizbollah deaths. You want to take about proportionality or "right", speak first on Hizbollah's crimes.

Who is more in the wrong, really?

Well it is certainly not the dead children.

You want to take about proportionality or "right", speak first on Hizbollah's crimes.

the vast majority of people speaking out against the Israeli attack will also talk out against the Hizbollah thugs. But that does not give Israel the right to do anything. Your post is coldblooded, uncaring, and callous.

And yes, Israel could go in with a ground force and not have to bomb these sites from the sky, but then Israeli deaths would skyrocket as the population banded against them

Just playing the devil's advocate here, hristopher - if Israeli deaths "skyrocketed," at least the dead people would be actual combatants. Also, are the lives of Israeli soldiers more valuable than the lives of Lebanese civilians? Believe me, I understand that, to the Israeli military, the answer is obvious - they desire minimal loss of life, and it would be hard to expect the military to feel any other way. For everyone else, though, I ask again - do the lives of Israeli soldiers hold more intrinsic value than the lives of Lebanese innocents?

If my post is "coldblooded, uncaring, and callous" it is only so because it truly reflects the methods and the madness of Hizbollah. I'm sorry you find it so, but I have no problem condemning Hizbollah for forcing Israel to fire on civilians. Hizbollah started this war with Israel: unfortunately Israel must carry it to the end now. I sincerely hope that no more Lebanese have to die for Hizbollah's PR war, but I don't blame Israel.

It's a good question, Brad. I knew when I wrote that that it would be misconstrued. In answer:

If Israel went in with a full ground force I think it is reasonable to assume that the Lebanese people would respond badly (probably in a manner akin to the Iraq insurgency). This was the thought that fed the "more Israelis will die" comment above. The thing for me is, Hizbollah started this war, and Lebanon did nothing to stop the ongoing strikes Hizbollah was making against northern Israel. Why should Israel have to pay the "pound of flesh" if it is defending itself? In short, IDF soldiers aren't more valuable than Lebanese citizens, but Lebanese citizens, I feel, had a human obligation to disavow Hizbollah and their policies of terror against Israel. Their failure to do so does not make them valid targets, but it does make me think that Israel is right in targetting Hizbollah from the sky and not immediately sacrificing their own, especially since they've been provoked (over and over and over).

In short, humans are humans, and no racial, national, or geographic designation will make one people intrinsically more valuable than another. Situationally, I would say that Israel has been pushed into this war by Hizbollah and Hamas, and because of this they have an obligation to defend their own before those of another nation, regardless of combatant/non-combatant definitions.

I would say that Israel has been pushed into this war by Hizbollah and Hamas, and because of this they have an obligation to defend their own before those of another nation, regardless of combatant/non-combatant definitions.

I wouldn't argue with that, hristopher. You've pointed out, though, that Israel could accomplish the objective without killing so many civilians by launching a ground attack. Now you say that, because Israel didn't start this war they shouldn't have to pay "a pound of flesh." Lebanese innocents, including children, also didn't start this war. To date, Israel has not paid "a pound of flesh," but Lebanese civilians have paid several pounds. I just don't understand how Israel should be relieved of the responsibility of paying their pound while charging innocents a heavy price for something they were no more responsible for than were the Israelis. The situation is horrific. Again, I understand the position of the Israeli military - they are in the business of destroying enemies while keeping their own alive. The Israeli civilian leadership, and the rest of the world, would be well advised to take more of a moral view and less of an ethical view, in my opinion.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Believe me, I understand that, to the Israeli military, the answer is obvious - they desire minimal loss of life, and it would be hard to expect the military to feel any other way. For everyone else, though, I ask again - do the lives of Israeli soldiers hold more intrinsic value than the lives of Lebanese innocents?

Brad, I think it is worth asking the Israeli military. I don't think any soldier of honor would value on his own life over the lives of innocents, much less innocent children, and much less innocents that outnumber the soldiers. What use is it to be willing to die for your country if you are unwilling to die for innocent, helpless people? The other option is, of course, to find a solution other than war, even if it means sacrificing something else to avoid sacrificing soldier or civilian lives. I agree with you, Brad, that the responsibility for the latter rests on the Israeli civilian leadership and the rest of the world.

In short, humans are humans, and no racial, national, or geographic designation will make one people intrinsically more valuable than another.

Sure, hirstopher, from some third-person perspective. But if I were a soldier, a man who consciously and freely decided to put my life on the line, then I would consider it a greater "wrong" that an innocent child dies to prevent my death than my death itself. In fact, if I were to become a soldier, I would be doing so precisely because I was willing to die to protect the lives of others.

Admit it, hirstopher, you agree with Rabbi Kook:

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

That's why you are unconcerned about the hundreds and hundreds of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel's aggression. You care as much about a Lebanese life as you care about the the life of a steer.

I think its funny Jimmy that when you first started commenintg on Newsvine people actually responded to you. Now I read down these threads and watch you being ignored over and over. Get your inflammatory bull@!$%# out of here.

You raise a good point, vas.

Sure, hirstopher, from some third-person perspective. But if I were a soldier, a man who consciously and freely decided to put my life on the line, then I would consider it a greater "wrong" that an innocent child dies to prevent my death than my death itself. In fact, if I were to become a soldier, I would be doing so precisely because I was willing to die to protect the lives of others.

The question becomes then, what if you were a soldier in Israel, where everyone is required to do military service in defense of Israel. If you hadn't signed up to defend innocents, but rather were forced to sign up because of the ongoing arab aggression, terror, and violence against your people and your country. Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah all made your army stint a necessary reality for you. Under these circumstances are you obligated to die for a civilian from a country that attacked you?

I agree that soldiers take the risk of dying when they sign up for the army (which is why I have no patience for those who defect to Canada from the US military to avoid service in Iraq). But Israelis don't "sign up", they are required to by their government because of the ongoing threats against Israel. In this partiuclar situation, I disagree with you that IDF soldier should die before Lebanese combatants or non-combatants.

The problem is that it is Israel who caused the 'necessary reality' as you put it.

Defend that statement, Guido. I've already refuted this ridiculous argument of yours elsewhere. You want a response, you tell me how Israel "earned" the ongoing terrorization of its populace. While you're at it, justify terror attacks.

It's what you're implying, no? That the jews brought this upon themselves?

Here's a fairly comprehensive list of the things the Israelis have done to create the current situation.

You seem quite willing to push the idea that the Palestinians/Lebanese/UN observers/every known Israeli victim brought it on themselves. Are the Israelis the only innocents in the world?

As Viners we strive for TRUTH.

and what is that? Please the TRUTH you are seeking for that justifies killing women and children.

These women and children, when they exist, are enemy combatants. Pls watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en

sidiwda, thank you very much for posting that link. The movie is a dynamic and striking composition of useful information and most assuredly leaves a lasting impression (though, I'm afraid there may be more than a few viners who would find a way to discredit it in some way or other). I think your personal history provides for a much more educated opinion on the situation, and it is highly appreciated. Just having visited Israel has at minimum given me a better understanding of its citizens, so you having grown up and lived in the region is of tremendous use to threads such as these. I hope you will keep contributing.

Their deliberate use of civilians as human shields is well established and anything but a myth.

What is the difference between what we are seeing today in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on and when the confederate or unionist soldiers sought shelter and engaged in sorties against each other from the farms or in the homes of their sympathisers during the American War of Independence?? The type of weapon available to the opposing force is all.

Using civilians and their dwellings has been a tactic of war for as long as there has been war, but only since the development of aerial bombing and long range artillery has there been the level of civilian deaths as we are witnessing in the modern theatre of war. I am not supporting the idea that this (human shields) is an any way acceptable or even palatable, however it is fact.

The question is, are Hezbollah deliberately placing civilians between themselves and oncoming Israeli fire? My personal opinion is no, as evidenced in southern Lebanon where there has been fierce fighting this week directly between these two forces and there has been no civilians injured by small arms fire that I have been able to find reported.

JJ

Yes, maybe the Pax bit was a bit hopeful.

Maybe nikitab would be kind enough to update the existing repository of evidence with the new material so that every time we get shameful claims like this we can get the facts straight in short order.

And he can add these to his list Photos That Damn Hezbollah.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

Nothing like a few dead Christians for a jihadist cut throat to use as propaganda.

Full Throttle

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

There are three images on that page. Can you tell me which of the three images shows a launch pad or a rocket launcher? All I've been able to find are anti-aircraft weapons, which I'd have to speculate are to used to defend against bombing attacks.

Celestina

(and so, incidentally, does Syria, to whom the UN claims the area actually belongs).

It's "not so simple" because you failed to read Kofi's own word as quoted above. Here I'll reemphasize them:

The Council endorsed this conclusion in the statement of its President (S/PRST/2000/21) of 18 June 2000. Both the Council and I have repeatedly stated the position that the Shebaa farms area is not part of Lebanon.

Therefore, any Lebanese "resistance" to "liberate" the area from continued Israeli occupation cannot be considered legitimate. In addition, even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate...

Full Throttle, I'm interested in your full stance on the UN, because sometimes (like here), you say they have the legitimate, "Black and White" answer, but on other posts you claim he's just hot air (your exact words are, "Kofi needs to sit down, shut up, help solve the problem not add to it").

Are you just using him any way that will help your current argument?

The Israelis were driven out of Lebanon, but their pride demands that they cannot give back everything they seized, so they have hung on to Shebaa Farms.

I find that no matter what Israel tries, or how many times it gives up land, the other side will always find reasons to perpetuate the cycle. If history means anything, giving up Shebaa Farms won't do much of anything for the cause.

Even now, as Israel pulls out of parts of Lebanon, Nasrallah apparently claims that it's because Hezbollah has victoriously driven the Israeli army out. Israel, on the other hand, says that they have more or less accomplished their mission in those destinations. I think it's fairly obvious that Nasrallah will interpret any attempt at peace as weakness, and in turn, use it as motivation for more attacks. As Yaakov has said on one of his threads, none of us really can say with certainty what the solution is, and if we think we can - chances are very likely we don't know what we're talking about.

I found this interesting site talking about an interview Nasrallah gave to Lebanon's Daily Star (I would point to the original source, but you must be a registered user in order to view it). In the interview, "Sheikh Nasrallah explains quite clearly how Hezbollah now runs the Lebanese government... he told Al-Jazeera that he has assigned some tasks to government officials regarding international negotiations, and how the Lebanese government has entered into an agreement with Nasrallah to allow Hezbollah to operate at will against the Israelis."

Didn't post properly for some reason. Take 2:
Interview with Nasrallah

Ok! No idea what's up with the link not coming through, but it's really a must-see.

One last try

And in case that doesn't work,
http://tailrank.com/posts/562949953748058/NASRALLAH_BELIEVES_HE&%238217%3BS_IN_THE_DRIVER&%238217%3BS_SEAT

(;

Mogmismo

Full Throttle, I'm interested in your full stance on the UN, because sometimes (like here), you say they have the legitimate, "Black and White" answer, but on other posts you claim he's just hot air (your exact words are, "Kofi needs to sit down, shut up, help solve the problem not add to it").

Are you just using him any way that will help your current argument?

Apples and oranges my friend. Kofi is full of hot air and his "apparent deliberate" attack comment in reference to the UNIFIL outpost is a prime example.

The quotes used here are not Kofis words, he's just the messenger and agreeing with them, he is speaking of actions taken via the UN Security Council. A different animal all together.

However the UNSC has it's problems also, big problems. But that is expected in a body made up of different nations all with differing agendas and various interests to their citizens.

Nice try though.

Nice try though.

So, yes, then.

While I'd just love to leave Brad Farris's post stand as the last word on this thread, I feel that slightly guilty for thread-jacking (OK, maybe thread-tangenting) here. Full Throttle, I don't think you explained yourself clearly. Why don't you write a full article on the problems with the UN, and we'll take this up there.

I had a look at the Shebaa Farms area in Google Earth, and it's a curious thing, the Syrian border follows the ridgeline for the most part, then it veers north and makes a loop around a sweet little green patch. If it followed the ridgline, that area would be Lebanese....but then Israel wouldn't be able to claim that they had evacuated Lebanon, would they?

I don't know if this will work, but here's the placemark:

Google Earth - Shebaa Farms

35.64990707807397
33.25590376667979
2006.772744281386
78.61955657574976
73.5119087892147

root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x307+hicon=0x317

35.64990707807397,33.25590376667979,0

Oh, well here's the lat and long:

33.15.21 N, 35.39.00 E

Have a look for yourself.

What seems to be forgotten is the fact that Hezbollah brought this upon themselves and subsequently the people of Lebanon.

Let's just forget the 18 years that Israel occupied Lebanon.

Lest we forget why they occupied Lebanon.

Lebensraum, right?

No. Because it's an easy place to strike Israel and because they have won the people's support. You wouldn't stay in a country where you were not a popular entity. Bin Laden left Sudan as soon as the Sudansese government said to because they were being pressured.

Yes, yes, self-defense is always Israel's excuse whenever they seize land. We've heard it a million times before: "We only killed all those those people and drove the rest off of their farms to protect ourselves. Would you like to buy some oranges?"

Huh, disregarding all the past issues of tit-for-tat, I thought that the *current* reason Israel started bombing the sh@!$%#t out of Lebanon was because one of Israel's 19yo soldiers was kidnapped and not returned. So Israel decided to demolish certain areas of Lebanon until the soldier was returned.

Granted, the soldier was probably kidnapped to instigate this very activity.

Hurting people is WRONG, no matter what religion you follow.

Phaedrus72, People can be anti-zionistic without being ant-semetic, though others may not understand the difference. You may fall into this category.

Phaedrus, you don't know if the Israelis bombed the UN on purpose and you can't say that they did with full confidence. Phosphorous is not illegal, it is only illegal if being used as a weapon against civilians on purpose. The US used phosphorous in Iraq and were questioned on it as well.

My question for you is what do you think about what Hezbollah is doing? How do you feel about their capturing of soldiers? How do you feel about their statements about the death of Israel and all who live within its borders?

About the pictures you posted, have you seen pictures from other wars? They look similiar. Why do you think they are taken? As a propoganda statement no? Don't get me wrong, the death of inncoent people is never right and I will never support the targeting of civilians.

Stephen, is that how you sleep at night, by simply saying that we will never know if Israel really targeted the UN on purpose? or if they really targeted civilians on purpose? If it helps you to say this, then fine, say it three times,take a Tylenol PM and go to sleep. That's what Israel and their US backers are hoping for, that you and the rest of us will just stay asleep. Well some of us are wide @!$%#in awake!!

What do I think about Hezbollah firing homemade rockets into Israel, rockets which cause very little death? What do I think about their capturing Israeli soldiers? They're soldiers, they are fair game. Far different from targeting innocent women and children and civilians in general. This notion that Hezbollah is using the civilians as shields is bull@!$%#. This is where Hezbollah lives. Israel seems to think that if they have to kill 100 innocent civilians in order to kill one Hezbollah soldier, then so be it. I dont have a problem with the targeting of Hezbollah soldiers and I dont think many people do. The problem is with the obvious targeting of civilians. Israel is supposed to be using precision bombs. Now either they are not or they are and are targeting civilians. Yes they dropped leaflets telling the civilians to leave. Then you know what happened when they did leave? Their convoys of cars were bombed on the roads out. The civilians are damned if they leave, damned if they stay. So stop asking me about how I feel about Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is the killing of innocent civilians. And if you want to call the act of calling attention this death and destruction by showing pictures to the world propoganda, once again, I hope you can sleep at night telling yourself that. I myself call it the truth. It would only be propoganda if it wasn't true.

They're soldiers, they are fair game

The father of one of the kidnapped soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser) and the father of Ehud's wife were in Manchester this afternoon.

I'd like to know whether you'd have had the balls to say that in front of them.

Yep sure would. Soldiers are fair game. Civilians are not. Soldiers get kidnapped Dennis. Soldiers die, sent to their deaths by people like you who think war is just swell. Sent to their deaths by those in government who profit quite nicely from their deaths. No balls needed to speak the truth Dennis. How in the world you can compare the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers, who are still presumably alive, to the bombing of killing of innocent women and children and civilians is way beyond me. Do you have a soul, Dennis?

Stop talking about Hezbollah? How can you ignore one-half of a conflict? You completely left out one part of my question. How do you feel about Hezbollah's statements about the death of Israel and everyone inside of its borders? How do you feel about the people who are dying from Hezbollah rockets? Do you feel the same way you feel about the people dying in Lebanon? Or is your sadness merely reserved for those on one side of the conflict? See, we have got to get past the "who is right or wrong in this thing" and figure out the solution. That's the question. What's the solution. People who are one sided in saying that this is all Hezbollah's doing or that this is all Israel's doing are one, ignorant and two, doing nothing to better the situation. If I say that all of this can be blamed on Israel, what am I doing, I am merely instilling a hatred for them. The exact same goes the other way. When I look at this conflict I look at the facts, things we know are true.

1. Hezbollah capture two soldiers and held them for ransom.
2. Israel retaliated.
3. Hezbollah gets angry, retaliates back.
4. The Israeli military makes some mistakes and kills people that should not have died.
5. Hezbollah fires rockets into Israel killing more people

And the cycle continues. This whole thing goes beyond the three soldiers, it goes to both sides killing innocent people. Do not ignore one half of this thing because you can. That's soulless.

 
You cannot tell me that you are 100% sure that Israel targeted the UN compound on purpose. It's impossible. Let's just look at the facts. What did they have to gain from doing something like that that would enrage the world? Do you think Israel wants to turn people against it?

Yep sure would.

I'd like to be there to see it if it happens

sent to their deaths by people like you who think war is just swell.

I think war is abhorrent and upsetting, but there are situations when you have to fight.

Sent to their deaths by those in government who profit quite nicely from their deaths.

How is Israel profiting from the deaths or kidnapping of its soldiers?

How in the world you can compare the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers, who are still presumably alive, to the bombing of killing of innocent women and children and civilians is way beyond me.

Ah, the proportionate response argument. If the kidnapping had been an isolated incident I would agree with you. However, proportionate must be measured against the threat not the specific trigger incident. Hizbullah has a large trained force and 12,000 missiles (initially) and exist solely to "resist Israel". They had been making raids and shelling northern Israel sporadically for months beforehand (with no response, proprtionate or otherwise). The war is not a retaliation for the kidnapping - it is a strategic operation to disarm an enemy threat. As such proportionality is not at issue. You fight to win or not at all.

Do you have a soul, Dennis?

If anyone does, I do too.

The Israeli military makes some mistakes and kills people that should not have died.

Dropping thousand pound bombs is not a "mistake." Calling it a mistake is lying, plain and simple. Those bombs were dropped on purpose, for the purpose of destroying Lebanon and killing Lebanese. They didn't accidentally fall out of bombers which were accidentally off course.

You honestly think that it is better to have attacked Lebanon and kill all these people rather than just exchange prisoners? And if it backfires?

Israel attacked Hizbullah because it is a real and serious threat to Israel. An exchange of prisoners would have been an invitation to kidnap more, would have left Israel with an armed enemy on its borders harrassing it, left UN resolution UN 1559 unimplemented and Lebanon a puppet of Syria and Iran.

The attack did not backfire. This is a strategic action by Israel to eliminate a threat.

It's not changing your views much!

However, it seems to be changing the views of some of the people I work with. They are generally very anti-Arab, but they've been expressing disgust at the wholesale killing the Israelis have been engaged in.

Bush's anti-ceasefire position isn't earning him any popularity points, either, even among people who were adamantly pro-Bush a year ago.

Incidentally, Dennis, what a curious idea! Someone I regard as having low character acts in a way that demonstrates that low character, and I am supposed to change my opinion? I'm more interested in the fact that your opinion hasn't changed, despite the widespread carnage Israel has sown among the innocent. Oh, I forgot, that was accidental...you know, like driving your car into a crowd while shrieking with rage is accidental.

Zylphryx

Since Israel has mandatory military service (and before anyone says anything, yes I know it is possible to get an exemption from military service and work in a social service capacity instead ... it is, however, not extremely common), is then Israel not also having it's military intermingle with civilian populations? And by sending missiles at what are, in effect, civilian areas, is not Hezbollah doing the same to Israel as what Israel is doing to Lebanon, albeit in a much more limited capacity?

Are those Israeli civilians that are intermingled within the population in uniform? Yes, they are subject to military service but they are not in the service as they walk, shop, play and now cower in bomb shelters as Hezbollah rains illegal (by international standards) rockets indiscriminately over northern Israel.

Not even close to a valid argument.

Yes, it is a valid argument, thank you Zylphryx.

Gen. Yigael Yadin is quoted by saying "The civilian is a soldier on 11 months' annual leave."

Israel's historic stance on who is a civilian and who is not is that a civilian is still a soldier. They consider the IDF the "People's Army", and everyone is still a member to be called back (Exceptions for pregnant women, and children). Think of it as everyone is a National Guard member.

In the IDF code, the first rule taught is:

Military action can only be taken against military targets.

and the IDF code is taught to everyone in Israel that doesn't opt for civil duty or go to jail instead of serve the required conscription.

Seems that that training has gone out the window here.

Are those Israeli civilians that are intermingled within the population in uniform?

The same could be said for the fighters who are intermingled with Lebanese civilians who, in turn, are being targeted as members of Hezbollah.

Yes, they are subject to military service but they are not in the service as they walk, shop, play and now cower in bomb shelters as Hezbollah rains illegal (by international standards) rockets indiscriminately over northern Israel.

You see, they are only soldiers for the 8 hours when they are on shift, not for the 16 hours they are off duty. Hezbollah needs to check timecards before they are allowed to kill anyone.

On the other hand, Palestinians and Lebanese, like all non-Jews, are mere animals who can be wiped out as convenient.

I didn't attack the guy, I stated a fact, that the guy knows little of modern weaponry, no matter how many military operations he covers. It seems to me that the basis of that statement was to immediately give readers a bad taste in their mouths about Israel. My mother was visiting northern Israel and southern Lebanon in the early 80's and the situation was the opposite. Lebanon and Hezbollah were indiscriminantly launching rockets against Kibbutzs killing a lot of innocent people, why do people ignore history when they talk about current situations?

I understand that the situation is complex. I also understand that it's basically vicious cycle. Also, it's obvious now that most people are taking one side or the other while they could take a middle ground, that only wants peace. Such as what happened this morning, with the deaths of so many children and other civilians by an Israeli rocket attack. It's a tragedy and needs to be looked at with a fine tooth comb. The problem comes in when people say that Israel does this on purpose. Let's think about that, if Israel wanted to take over and kill the people of Lebanon, they could have done that long ago.

I watched a good interview with Israeli and Lebanese people and it was obvious that they wanted the same thing and understood the effects of the war on their children. Their children grow up in this confict and are influenced into despising one side or the other.

Now I'm rambling...

Stephan said:

I watched a good interview with Israeli and Lebanese people and it was obvious that they wanted the same thing and understood the effects of the war on their children. Their children grow up in this confict and are influenced into despising one side or the other.

That is the crux of any issue where violence is being used to push an agenda - regardless of what & where the "instigation" was (community, country, world). The people who experience the majority of the violence are people who just want to live their lives and be left to do so, happily, day-to-day, without any violence or upheaval.
Ideally, this would be what goes on in the US (land of the free-to-be-you-and-me), except that we have slipped from contentedly living out our lives of quiet desperation, to being fully asleep at the wheel, unwilling (or unable) to *care* enough about anything outside of our personal spheres of interest that we then are willing to move out of our complacency into action. The people in the US seem to have surrounded themselves in bubble-shields of "That's Sombody's Else's Problem". It's all well and good to debate these issues online (and thank you all for doing so, and so astutely and respectfully), but what can/will we DO to solve these issues?

We have rules in my house - 5 of them, one for each finger. Be polite. Be kind. Pay Attention. Have Fun. Remember that You Are Loved. When people are not getting along here, I remind them of the rules (and sometimes they remind me). If necessary, I sit down and discuss which rule(s) were broken, and what can be done to remedy the situation. Often we end up with apologies and hugs & kisses. Sometimes culprits get sent to their rooms for 15 minutes to cool off, and then there is a discussion.

Any reason this cannot be implemented on an international level? I volunteer to be the one who sends folks to his/her room to cool off for 15 minutes. I nominate Celestina to be the one who sits down with them to explain which rules were broken & how they were broken. Anyone is welcome to offer suggestions of how to make amends. Rules also apply during negotiations. Storming out in a huff is impolite, by the way, and will get you sent to your room for 15 minutes. :-)

We have this already. It's called diplomatic and economic isolation via sanctions. Doesn't always work, but sometimes it does.

Also, not a bad set of rules. But I'm sure you're well aware that the reason they work for you is that you and the other "superpower" in the house obey these rules yourselves, and teach these rules through example every day, regardless the fits and phases your children might be in.

Hmmm... explains why sanctions, U.N. resolutions, diplomacy and the like don't always work so well.

Sam, you make some very good points. But in the spirit of why Celestina posted this seed in the first place, have you examined our behavior? Our support of authoritarian regimes because it suites our interests? And while it may not be as overt as what Hezbollah does, have we not sent hundreds of thousands of young soldiers, thousands of whom have died for a cause? Many would argue that we sent them on a suicide mission.

You might be surprised if you took your post above and placed it side-by-side with Hezbollah arguments to Lebanese civilians to support their "War for Survival".

I'm not siding with Hezbollah. But neither am I siding with hypocracy on our side.

Sam, thanks for being intellectually honest.

@VAS
No other "superpower" in my house, just lil' old me :-) The "other" superpower decided the responsibility of raising children was better left to me.

@SAM - yup, this is how I raise MY girls, and it works. And I have fought for their rights and for their protection, fists raised. There is no mention of my personal religious philosophy, because my house rules ARE my religious philosophy.

I stand by my original post (#11.6) wayyyy on up there - Hurting people is WRONG, no matter what religion you are.

Sam, it appears that you believe that if you want other people's stuff enough, it's OK to kill them for it.

I think that you need to protect your stuff and, sometimes, depending
on how aggressively somebody is trying to take your stuff you must
fight.

Then you support the Palestinians. Glad you cleared that up. However, this line

sometimes you have to fight. To the victor goes the spoils.

seems to imply that killing people to take their stuff is a legitimate action.

Never mentioned the Palestinians.

Not by name, but you described their situation very clearly. Israel has stolen their property, and they are being forced to fight for it.

Don't know why you think that I think killing people to take their stuff is legitimate

I read the words you wrote, that's why. What do you think "spoils" are? When you say, "to the victor go the spoils," you are endorsing theft through war.

Seems like you think that there is no place for fighting - great ideal just not real.
Seems like you will roll over and give all your stuff up without a fight to ensure that
you are true to your words. Again - great ideal just not real.

Wrong. I won't give up my stuff to a thief, I won't let a thief rob someone in my presence, and I won't steal.

The Israelis are thieves, pure and simple. The property they are protecting is not theirs, because they stole it, and they are assaulting the owners of that property on a continuing basis. They are doing it in my presence, using my tax dollars (as well as money they got by selling US weapons and secrets to the Chinese), but the only thing I can do about it is to point out that they are criminals.

You are defending people who are using you, to your detriment. They steal from you, they lie to you, they harm you and your country. If you have something they want, they will take it, and murder you if you object. All it takes is a close look at the history of Israel to see that.

Then you do endorse killing people and taking their stuff. Why deny it? Your morality is the morality of whoever has the most bullets.

Just because you said something is yours doesn't make it yours, even if you kill the person who owns it. The fact that the Zionists had to drive out and kill the residents of Israel is evidence that they stole it.

The concept of Manifest Destiny is and ideal based on some folks believing that they have a better
way and are committed to helping fellow world citizens through efforts which often result in war.

Religious fanatics who believe in a "higher cause" and threaten others way of lives may not reason with our way of life.

Do you actually understand what you just wrote there? "Manifest Destiny" and "religious fanaticism" are the same thing. You seem to think that killing people is a good way to help them.

Your entire argument seems to be premised on "we are the good guys, therefore anything we do is justified." That's not morality, it is self-serving lies.

God said it was theirs

No, he said it was mine. I guess that settles the question.

But more seriously, here's a different position.

Neither the founder of political Zionism nor any of the prime ministers of the Zionist state believed in the divine origin of the Torah nor even in the existence of G-d. All prime ministers were members of a party that opposed religion in principle and that considered the Bible a document of ancient folklore, devoid of any religious meaning. And yet these same Zionists base their claim to the Holy Land on this same Bible, the divine origin of which they deny. At the same time they conveniently forget the Jewish holiday prayer "and for our sins have we been exiled from our land," and ignore the fact that the present exile of the Jewish people is divinely decreed and that the Jewish people are neither commanded nor permitted to conquer or rule the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah.

believe we do need to defend our property, and our way of life, and if it requires killing then unfortunately it requires killing.

I can't argue with that. The Palestinians are trying to regain their country, and unfortunately, it involves killing.

It is not though expected even under international law that you cannot ever conduct a military operation where you know there is a risk of civilians being affected.

The rules are conveniently summarised here.

The rules are conveniently summarised here.

Yummy, Israeli propoganda.

Yummy, Israeli propoganda.

You checked out the details quick! That's really impressive work.

Please now share your research and analysis with us.

List all the places where it is not accurate and objective.

Please identify all the elements which constitute spin.

Perhaps I missed something Dennis, but your link goes to the main Ministry of Foreign Affairs site, not to a quick summary. Not intending to be snide or anything, but where on that site is the convenient summary? Truly, I would like to read it.

I see what you mean. I can't get the link to go direct.

Suggest you use the link above then click on "Issues of Proportionality: Responding to Hizbullah attacks from Lebanon"

In order to kill the robber do you go and bomb the bank to catch the robber and kill the 20 hostages as well?

You do if the bank robber is shooting at the police.

umm, no you dont! Maybe in Russia you do, but not here in America!

You do if the bank robber is shooting at the police.

If bombs were the only tool at the disposal of the police, maybe. In the real world, however, there are a wide range of options available, both to "police" and to "states." As a result, taking the decision to "bomb" the "bank" would lie far down on the list of options in a situation like that.

There is a system to win a war. You start with air then artillery then tanks and finally ground. So if you do not mind waiting until its time for the ground troops while other civilians are in harms way then ok.

tal6620:

Then I guess we should supply Hamas with airplanes, artillery and tanks, so we can get this damned thing over with.

I do not get your point.

If this is how you want to win the war, then we, the international citizens, should ensure that you lose enough, as an example to those who would repeat it in future, so that the next time you wage war, you think twice.

You are talking about Hezbollah right?

tal6620: that's because you assume that Israel should be the winner, no matter how many non-Jews get hurt in the process.

Not non-Jews but terrorists. That is something every educated person living in a free society should be for.

Almost every Israeli Prime Minister was a terrorist. Israel just engaged in a terrorist war against Lebanon. Are you advocating they all be killed?

You are really beyond help. Jews used terrorism to create a country after millions of them were killed in Europe. Beheading people, forcing them to convert to Islam, flying planes into buildings for religion is just nuts.

Jews used terrorism to create a country after millions of them were killed in Europe.

The Holocaust does not justify Israel's crimes. Why should the Palestinians/Syrians/Lebanese pay for the crimes of the Nazis?

If Jews were using terrorism to combat the Germans during WWII, that would be justifiable. But WWII is over now. The death camps have been liberated. Perhaps the Zionists should have asked for a homeland in the Sudetenland.

That is where the UN agreed to place Israel (that is the name of the country not the Zionist state like you like to call it). The Arabs have 20 something other countries. Israel is about the size of New Jersey (very small) Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq are much larger. Egypt and Jordan accepted Israel maybe its time you, Syria, Iran, and Iraq do as well. The terror attacks before Israel was created was against the British.

that is the name of the country not the Zionist state like you like to call it

You are hallucinating again.

The Arabs have 20 something other countries. Israel is about the size of New Jersey (very small)

That is immaterial. Israel was created by chasing out 700,000 residents. If the Zionists chased the residents of New Jersey out and established Israel there, arguing that there are 49 other states wouldn't be very persuasive to me.

I am of the opinion that if Israel would simply accept its '67 borders, it should be left in peace. I think the US should pay reparations to those who were displaced by the establishment of Israel, since we have had such a large part in funding their suffering for half a century.

If Israel is still attacked (something which I don't think is likely, given that they have nuclear arms) then I would support US military aid (including troops) for the purpose of protecting them, but not for the purpose of expanding their borders.

Now you are making sense. So if Israel went back to the 1948 UN state you would defend Israel if attacked. Then I can respect your opinion.
Case closed.

They don't even have to go back that far. The '67 borders are enough. THat's all their neighbors are asking for.

If you look at the original partition, it is much smaller than the '67 borders.

Israel has set up a number of humanitarian corridors to facilitate civilian exit. That they have not been taken advantage of more fully is at least partly down to Hizbullah deliberately blocking them (can't have the precious human shields all scarpering). Also Lebanon appears to have singularly failed to organise the necessary rescue effort.

Israel collaborated with foreign powers to get their nationals out safely. It set up the corridors. It would cooperate with Lebanese authorities.

Dennis (as I said elsewhere): reading some of your other posts. You actually believe the above to be true. Amazing. It shows you lack any understanding of what is happening in the region.

You haven't read/listened to the endless stories of the poor that are to afraid or too poor to leave the region.

You haven't heard the endless reports from hospitals that most of the injured were in the process of fleeing (from CNN )

You haven't read that Israel is targeting all 4 wheel vehicles.

You haven't read the daily World Health Organization reports on the ever escalating humanitarian crisis in Lebanon.

But you have read that an Israeli minister feels that he has given enough time for children to flee. And according to him the dozens of kids killed this morning were terrorists. YOu think that there were cooridors set up that were as easy as getting on a bus to Beirut.

You haven't even seen an Israel official that admitted on CNN that hitting the building wa sa mistake.

------------------------

You also haven't realized that Israeli's strategy is backfiring before its eyes. Hez have never been more popular. Violence breeds violence.

Israel is destroying a fledgling democracy that could have been (given some time) a voice of a reason in the middle east. But now it will certainly be a poor and violent place full of endless unemployed and angry young men that hate Israel.

This gets thrown around a lot, can someone please back it up?

"Hez have never been more popular. Violence breeds violence."

and this:

"Israel is destroying a fledgling democracy that could have been (given some time) a voice of a reason in the middle east. But now it will certainly be a poor and violent place full of endless unemployed and angry young men that hate Israel."

I, for one, don't understand how long you expected Israel to be provoked, fired upon, and terrorized. Give them some time? Is Isreali peace and security worth less than Lebanese peace and security?

Hez have never been more popular. Violence breeds violence

There is something in that but it is an unavoidable side effect of disarming Hizbullah. They do have to deprived of their military capability and that can't be done without a war.

Israel is destroying a fledgling democracy that could have been (given some time) a voice of a reason in the middle east

This one stunned me. The Lebanese official government is unaffected by all this. In fact with Hizbullah disarmed it will for the first time become truly self-determining rather than a puppet of Iran/Syria.

This one stunned me. The Lebanese official government is unaffected by all this. In fact with Hizbullah disarmed it will for the first time become truly self-determining rather than a puppet of Iran/Syria.

Stunned you?

After final starting to recover from a horrible recent history much of the recently rebuilt infrastructure of Lebanon has been destroyed

And do you not recall that direct Syrian control of Lebanon has only recently been eliminated?
I assume you have read that the Lebanese Army is unable to control Hiz. You also realize I assume that Hiz has a political party with representation in the Lebanese Government.

YOu understand the ethnic split of Lebanon as well as its Army?

Now add to this the fact that Hiz is surviving the Israel attacks remarkably well --- especially from a reputation point of view.

Further add the hatred being generated towards Israel as the Humanitarian crisis grows. Read the who.org updates. 800,00 displaced (do you know how big a % of the total that is?). Thousands wounded. Hundreds killed - and growing rapidly.

And you are stunned that this might destabilize a new, weak, peaceful, and democratic government. If FREE elections are held now, might Hiz win? (Hasn't it been wonderful since Hamas was elected in the west bank).

Or outright civil war between the rival ethnic/religious groups, army factions, and militias?

etc.

Do you honestly think Israel is helping its own cause?

(Hasn't it been wonderful since Hamas was elected in the west bank)

Gaza -I meant

Stunned you?

Yes

And do you not recall that direct Syrian control of Lebanon has only recently been eliminated?

I do

I assume you have read that the Lebanese Army is unable to control Hiz.

Yes

You also realize I assume that Hiz has a political party with representation in the Lebanese Government.

Yes

YOu understand the ethnic split of Lebanon as well as its Army?

Not my specialist area - happy to be educated

Now add to this the fact that Hiz is surviving the Israel attacks remarkably well --- especially from a reputation point of view.

True. Israel though are developing a plan based on the assumption they will lose the war

Further add the hatred being generated towards Israel as the Humanitarian crisis grows. Read the who.org updates. 800,00 displaced (do you know how big a % of the total that is?). Thousands wounded. Hundreds killed - and growing rapidly.

Yes it is a dirty war.

And you are stunned that this might destabilize a new, weak, peaceful, and democratic government. If FREE elections are held now, might Hiz win? (Hasn't it been wonderful since Hamas was elected in the west bank).

Are elections due soon? I guess not during a war. Things will look different if Hizbullah are forcibly disarmed and an international force move in.

Or outright civil war between the rival ethnic/religious groups, army factions, and militias?

There will be no armed militias. That's the point of the whole exercise. Just the regular army, and by then so cooler heads.

etc.

Do you honestly think Israel is helping its own cause?

Sitting around with Hizbullah swarming on their northern border, armed with 12,000 rockets, making raids and firing missiles, was a better option? I think not.

In fact with Hizbullah disarmed it will for the first time become truly self-determining rather than a puppet of Iran/Syria.

Lebanon just managed to throw off the yoke of Syria, but the destruction Israel has rained down on them has put them in a position where they will be subject to Syria again.

Why does Israel want Syria to control Lebanon? Or are the Israelis too stupid to see what they are doing with their reflex spasm of terrorism?

For the record, could Celestina, Phaedrus72, Jimmy Havok, jess jessup, cjlewis, helpmeimpeachbush, jallahabad jones, mogmismo, and jpbrubaker please do us the honor of posting their academic and experiential credentials with regard to the Middle East for us?

I can't help but notice that while you are requesting credentials from those whom you seem to disagree, you do not do us the honor of supplying your own. This seems a bit one sided.

Given the diatribe comments being levied against Israel, I want to make sure that their myopic pontifications are at least backed up with suitable education and experience on the ground.

Again, I see a call for one side to provide "academic credentials" but no call for supporters of Israel's current policies regarding Lebanon. Again one-sided requirement.

Additionally, to require "academic credentials" in order to discuss specific topics is trite and elitist. One does not need to hold a degree in order to have an informed and valid opinion. To claim the contrary is to blast the very basis of the entire academic institutions you seem to hold in regard.

And, "for the record", I hold a degree in Biology and Anthropology from UNC-CH, the main foci of study being botany, ethnobotany, ethnomedicine and cultural anthropology, specifically in regards to traditional belief systems. And, while I would not make the claim of expertise in this realm, over the course of study, I have delved into various belief systems including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism and Hinduism.

Aside from your ability to be basically insulting in a multi-syllabic style, what are your "qualifications". Oh wait, could this cover your experience?

Generally speaking, I prefer to read and learn if possible before (or if at all) I get involved in online discussions.

And you immediately assume anyone who has an opinion contrary to your own has not "read and learned". Sad, just plain sad.

myopic pontifications are at least backed up with suitable education and experience on the ground.

Gotcha. So in your view, myopic pontifications are a-ok if you have an advanced degree.

I just bought a degree online last week. Is it ok if I start with my myopic pontification already, or do I have to do an internship? You seem to be a master at myopic pontification - do you have any internship positions available?

Brian, yes... I have internships. But you must have short term vision. ;-)

You're on a loser with this one Celestina. You do not have the benefit of evidence on your side.

Seeding this was not the smartest move. Time to make a graceful exit.

Dennis, this is impolite at best. Asking Celestina to excuse for her seed is just lame and immature. Particularly when it's in respons to an answer she clearly took herself some time to answer throughly and politely.

Not only that. But it was a reply to a truly ignorant comment. Yes, I'm referring to you, Periculum. Why on earth does some who take one stance as opposed to another on a certain topic have to show their credentials!?

This is a news and discussions forum last time I checked. That means we gather information and discuss it openly. It does not mean that certain sources should be blacklisted or certain opinions/interpretations should be banned or tabued.

Dennis, this is impolite at best. Asking Celestina to excuse for her seed is just lame and immature

No offence intended to Celestina.

I was suggesting what seemed to me to be in her best interests, but then it's not up to me and I take it back.

Seeds are not written by the person seeding them. They are routinely seeded by people who don't even agree with the position. This is not Celestina's "side". This is an article that got a lot of comments here and on Salon where it ran. It seems like a very valuable seed.

Mitch Prothero is currently a freelance journalist who has done a lot of reporting in Lebanon and in Iraq. He was previously the United Press International bureau chief for Iraq. You're free to disagree with his opinion. But not because he doesn't know what he's talking about

Periculum:

(aka possible Israeli "Defence" Force Internet Bot)

Let me just quicly state that a) the thing about blacklisting in the last paragraph of my comment wasn't directly aimed at you, rather it was generalizing on some of the other totalitarian comments and b) you are welcome to ask people about their backgrounds just like they are welcome to ignore or embrace you - but you were implying that when someone questioned the necessity of bombing hundreds of innocent civilians that person must be ignorant of the whole Israel-Middle East thing which is an offensive suggestion on Newsvine.

Personally, I have a buddy with Israeli ties and family. He got mad at me for sending him a link to the Al Jazeera website. However, that was coupled with a paranoia - "they will know I visited that page" (what "THEY"!? I never found out). And I have spent quite some time with an Israeli lady. She'd come up with offensive racist remarks on local Arabs every now and then, but usually I was paying attention to her body ;) Like I do with few people, these two and I don't agree on everything. But talking to Israelis help. I also met a bunch of Israeli guys in Guatemala of all places. One of them told me about how him and his squad would do night time commando raids into foreign lands to kill terrorists using laser guided missiles and specially trained dogs. At the time I had to agree on the gross simplification that "terrorists must die" not to get him too agitated. Besides, he was more enthusiastic about doing construction work without paying taxes anyway...

You're quite welcome for the response.

Given that we've had no dialogue thus far, and you have little to go on in terms of content from my two posts, I would like to know how you were able to ascertain my positions on so many things?

So many things? If you look to my post, you will notice I point out (1) a one sided request for credentials from folks who do not support Israel's actions while not supplying your own; (2) a reiteration of the same one-sided request for credentials because you "want to make sure that their myopic pontifications are at least backed up with suitable education and experience on the ground" while not requesting same justification from those who do voice support for Israel's actions; (3) that you have the ability to make insulting posts by using large words; and (4) that your preference "to read and learn if possible before (or if at all) [you] get involved in on-line discussions" is apparently not good enough for the rest of the folks who grace these pages as they require "suitable education and experience on the ground".

That was pretty much it as far as ascertaining your positions. And given your choice of language, your position was fairly clear, even to those who may not have "suitable education".

Do you honestly feel you have sufficient evidence to know exactly what I am thinking? Surely you do not approach all of your decision making with such wanton abandon.

I make no claim to know exactly what you are thinking, as no person can ever truly know exactly what another person is thinking. I can, however, make an educated guess based off the terminology and tone of your posts. The second part of the above quote, for instance, is a classic example of attempted misdirection by inspiring a sense of anger within the target of the comment. However, as the comments I made in my original response were not made with "wanton abandon" but instead divvied up your initial post and responded to it part by part, I feel pity for you instead.

My specific request regarding your background along with that of the others who are more vocal in opposition to Israel's actions are simply that: since you are the most fervently opposed, it is you who interests me and you who I wish to understand.

Hmmm, that seems to be a somewhat different stance than you wanting "to make sure that their myopic pontifications are at least backed up with suitable education and experience on the ground." As the dogma can, and does, go BOTH ways, I would imagine that you would want to know the players on both sides. But maybe that's just me ...

Though you do not all agree in entirety, you do appear to be on a given "side" if you will, and in fairness, it is your side that I want to better understand. Thus far I have made no assumptions.

Quite the contrary, you started out by making your assumptions well known in your initial post. For example:

"myopic parrot chatter being slung in this thread"
- inferring those who are voicing the opinions you are wanting to "better understand" are nothing but short-sighted, unthinking individuals.

"Generally speaking, I prefer to read and learn if possible before (or if at all) I get involved in online discussions."
- inferring those who are voicing said "myopic parrot chatter" are doing so out of ignorance.

"I want to make sure that their myopic pontifications are at least backed up with suitable education and experience on the ground."
- inferring those who are voicing the above mentioned opinions must not have any level of formal education.

Yes, you did come into the discussion waving your assumptions wildly like a person blinded by nationalistic pride waves their flag at a parade. Do not make claim to the contrary as you will only look foolish in doing so.

Trite and elitist; how so? Please elaborate.

First, let's put this in context. I stated:

Additionally, to require "academic credentials" in order to discuss specific topics is trite and elitist.

Putting someone's comments and opinions into question based on their level of academic advancement and level of academic credentials IS trite and elitist. It does not require a degree in Middle Eastern Studies to had a measure of understanding of the situation, nor to have an informed opinion regarding events occurring in the area. The concept that only those who hold degrees can have any measure of understanding IS trite in this age where information is at one's fingertips. To consider those who do not hold a degree to be less knowledgeable than those who do IS elitist as it strives to set one group above another with really no legitimate basis.

I'll get back to you on this... too many other threads going on and I have to get ready to leave for the Middle East. And yes, if you have not been there and have not spent time objectively looking at it with significant study, you ARE ignorant.

That is, you simply do not know as much as you could, or likely, as you THINK you do. I would not proport to be as skilled as a MD just because I was a Medic. But, that is for later.

I see your points. Some are valid in terms of how it came accross.
For that, I will say I am sorry.

Periculum

And yes, if you have not been there and have not spent time objectively looking at it with significant study, you ARE ignorant.

Then the study of subjects such as history, archeology and paleontology (to name a few) would be called into question because you could not be at or within the event, culture or era that you are studying.

No, my statement is not legitimate, but it is what is inferred by the quote.

And yes, I agree with you and would even go one step further that NO ONE knows as much as they could or that they think they do, even if they have spent time there, objectively observing and studying the topic.

But then that's kind of the point, isn't it? If everyone knew as much as they could there would be no point to discussion or debate; we would all be drawing from the same pool of knowledge, with the same experiences and the same points of reference. It is because we do not all hold the same knowledge, the same experience, the same point of reference that we come into conflict, bang each other around and, hopefully, realize there may be something more to what the other person is saying than just "I'm right, you're wrong".

Life is about learning. We all do it from the day we are born until the day we die. Life does not give degrees or credentials. It is what it is and everyone who is playing in this game, dancing this dance and untangling this knot we call Life does hold some measure of knowledge that is best not ignored but rather revealed. In this can one start to get a true understanding of the world around them.

Agreed. I think we are beginning to converge.

Periculum -

Welcome to Newsvine.

Don't take this stuff too seriously. You'll find that if you treat others with respect, they'll pretty much do the same. Well, not everyone, but most people. On the whole, we're here to learn from each other. To the extent that you have something to add to the conversation, I for one will always respect your opinion and your right to express it.

Think of Newsvine as a kind of coffee house where people gather to discuss the news. It's not a "think tank," it's not an intellectual society, it's just a bunch of people sitting together and talking. If you find that the level of discourse is not to your liking at a particular table, just move on to the next. If you find that there are certain people whose opinions you are not interested in, just skip over their articles, seeds, and comments. These are a couple of tips which I found to be useful when I first started hanging around. I hope that you will find them useful as well. Either way, welcome. I'm looking forward to learning about your point of view. Maybe you'd be interested in expressing your opinion on the topic at hand. I'd be interested in knowing how you feel.

Brad, this is an excellent attitude, and an excellent model for what Newsvine discussion forums should be. Could you please pen a full article on this?

I'm just going to clarify one thing here: I didn't accuse you of saying to others they are ignorant, I took it upon me to bluntly state that your request for people who posted Israeli-critical to put forth their "credentials" were! Is that clear enough for you?

I then went on to quickly present you a few personal relations I've had with Israelis to supplement the bio I've written with this profile. I wasn't trying to rant about anything in particular, I was just being honest I think.

As for your credentials:

...several graduate degrees to include a Masters of Science in global security and counter-terrorism; my PhD research is in military science, history, and sociology.

Very impressive. You should be able to provide some valuable information on the whole conflict. People usually appreciate information. How about your thesises? Some of the other stuff you've come up with people usually do not appreciate. Like being called "Tremendously childish". And the whole censorship-like argument you did on Celestina, I for one took offense to.

Over and out...

Benno:

I think your point of being more interested in her body is, well, childish. If that offends you, oh well. Frankly, I don't much care. It says a lot about you in very few words.

I will try not to assume you are a child in terms of age (how old are you?), but comments like that are, IMHO, very much so. It is something a young college kid would say who has yet to mature, may not yet have moved out of his parents house, entered into a career, or found a meaninful relationship with a woman he respect and where sex isn't his only objective.

If that describes you, it is only because your post reveals that *may* be the case. You tell me? Do you honestly feel that comment was appropriate? Is it possible that you could have learned from her something other than what she looks like undressed? Do you have the ability to think deeper than that? Because putting such a comment into such a serious topic is pretty sad to me. But hey, you are allowed to think and act as you like; I'll even fight, and indeed have, for your right to enjoy that freedom.

Over: end of transmission, waiting for a response.
Out: end of transmission. no response expected.

In this case,

OUT.

How about CHILL OUT!?

I did the paragraph you call a rant to show you that through all the atrocities and war crimes, I still believe Israelis are just humans like you, I, the Palestinians and everyone else. And to illustrate that I too am just human, setting aside arguments over a friendly encounter. (I didn't undress her, just for the record.)

If you must know: I'm 31 years old. I live by my self (damn mortgages!). I'm single, but I never thought of women as mere sex objects for that reason. Though I desperately hope I still find them to be sex objects if/when I do engage in (another) "meaninful relationship with a woman". (Your whole comment on the sexism issue is disturbing to me, and I was about to tell you about something that recently happened to me... but that will have to wait untill someday we have a drink.) I am straight out of university - which is another fact I put in my bio. I hope I'll never grow up much more than I already have.

Hope you solve the crisis down there. I skipped the army back then, so I shall refrain from more misused lingo ;)

Benno: Sorry, tend to take things seriously. As you age (I mean all of us humans) I think that becomes both a curse and a blessing. I can chill out with the best of them, but I just choose, perhaps, different ways than you may. Who knows. I am sure you can I could sit and have a drink (though, I don't drink but you get the gist) and get along just fine. WISH I COULD solve the issue, but, I think you and I can agree on this one thing: I can't fix it and doubt anyone else can anytime soon.

Sam: I am assuming you are being serious; to some degree I am finding it to be true regardless of your intent with the post. I do not spend a lot of time posting myself and have found many of the people (of course not all) to be children despite many are over 25, which is astounding. I think we screwed up pretty bad somewhere along the line with regard to the rising generation (say, 1974). Though I am happy to report that the man I serve with on the ground are nothing like many of the people I encounter online. Perhaps that is a part of it too. I hardly have time to do this and know that it has already taken WAY too much of my time; time I SHOULD be spending with my family before I leave again to go overseas. It takes away time that I SHOULD be spending reading, learning, growing, and even praying for our future. Go figure. I guess I still have much to learn too. Damn it!

Periculum

Okay, late and my typing sucks: problem started with children born 1974-ish plus and I serve with more than one "man" ... LOL. You get the point. ha ha. It is just that most of the idealist that end up serving pretty quickly grow up and then get home and can't relate to the beer-drinking, getting laid, party til' they drop, hang out cuz they have no real life "friends" that they grew up with. A lot of these people 19-35 year olds just don't get it. They "think" they do, just like all kids do before they grow up and have real responsibilities or get exposed to the fact that the rest of the world is NOTHING like what they have in the backyard. Some of the people I have worked with in places like Iraq have NOTHING. They still wipe with their left hand, know what I mean?

Sam:

Yes, I know what you mean. My younger brother, who is 30, spends a considerable amount of time online "meeting" people. That is not to say that you cannot develop "friends" through this medium, but I am more inclined to approach it differently.

More like: "Hey, you appear to be a nice person and I am mildly entertained by our online conversations, but let's face it, I don't know you from Adam; we are not really friends; more distant acquaintances. Perhaps some day that can change if we are able to meet offline and spend both quality and quantity time together."

Then, before meeting the person I will have pulled their record up on NCIC and took the time to do due diligence; checking to assure the information the say is accurate, really is.

My biggest problem with this medium is that it is too easy for people to act in ways they would never do in person with me (or you, or anyone else for that matter); making comments that would get them knocked out in real life.

It is almost as bad as alcohol; you drink enough and you become Superman; you snort enough coke and you can fly. Well, I guess if you spend enough time in front of your computer screen you suddenly are intelligent beyond your years, experienced as if you've held down a real job for longer than 90 days, and have the physical prowess of Bruce Lee (after 1973). LOL

Suddenly, the college kid living on hand-outs from Mom and Dad who doesn't have enough courage to talk to the girl working down the street at Starbucks has the nerve to talk total crap (online) to the SF guy just returning from three back-to-back combat tours because the kid doesn't agree with the terrible things happening to innocent terrorists.

Yeah. Okay. Right.

Strange world we are living in these days.

PS - My pleasure; very nice of you to say that. Thanks.

Hmm.... so when I'm posting on Newsvine in the future I should probably lay off the booze and coke :)

Brian: yeah man, you might want to watch that bro. LOL

Sam: Dude, I about fell out of my chair think of some guy wearing shades (you can't see me) cutting people off walking down the street in a hurried pace. OMG funny. I know that's not the image you intended, but dang, that popped into my head and made my cry I was laughing so hard. Not sure why! I think that would be a great cartoon.

I try to avoid people who drive like that; just have no interest in colliding with them. If that extra truck length helps them out, well, they can have it. On rare occasions it will provoke me to turn on my strobes—just as a warning—and that tends to induce a spasmodic break light patterns and a prompt slowing of their vehicle.

About two years ago I was in FL on vacation with my family and some punk (turned out to be 19) nearly clipped our car. He was driving like an absolute maniac. In and out of traffic, weaving, speeding up, slowing down—crazy. He reached speeds over 100 MPH on a two lane highway and changing lanes with very little room between us.

Finally, I had enough. Called the State Troopers and began to follow him (which he soon realized) and he took off. He must have been hitting 125-140 MPH; I sort of just hung in the distance and watched him. One of my friends pulled out binoculars and kept an eye on where he was going.

Well, he snuck into a gas station and pulled behind a wall next to other cars hoping I didn't see him. I pulled up behind him, blocked his car in, and yanked him and a friend out of the vehicle. Snapped some quick cuffs on him and waited for the police to arrive.

Well, wouldn't you know it; was driving Mom's car. Well, she (a prominent local MD) and I along with the police had a wonderful conversation with her on the phone.

Anyway, glory story; my bad. Just ticked me off. I'm a nice guy, but damned if I will sit by and watch this kid kill himself (or worse, mom and child on the way back from the park) because he has his head of his butt. Well, I might not have been upset if HE got hurt, but I've responded to scores of accidents with DOAs—families torn apart because of pure immaturity. Heartbreaking.

As to the liberal minded, I've always found that one ironic. It is often the most vocal people screaming out for justice that wouldn't do a thing to fight for it. The same people who preach kindness but laugh at the homeless guy on the street and turn the other direction.

I was in London not long ago and there was this group of young protestors bitching about, who knows what this time. I took a photo of them. When I returned on another trip some six weeks later, I KID YOU NOT… the SAME people were there!

Don't they have jobs?????

Have you ever seen the David Lynch movie "Lost Highway"? It has a great scene where the mob boss guy is out driving and some jerk starts tailgating him and flashing his lights. He calmly waves the guy to pass, waits a few seconds, and then slams on the gas to catch up to the guy and start ramming him and force him off the road. As soon as the cars are stopped his goons hop out, drag the guy from his car, give him a little bashing and the mob boss steps out to deliver the line "Never @!$%#ing tailgate" and then drive off. Pure catharsis to watch.

Yeah, great movie (and move). Now, in my younger years I was more apt to do that kind of thing. But I like to think I have calmed down and, well, stopped being such an A$$. Hmmm.

That reminds me of when a crack head moved into my nephew's neighborhood. One night he slapped my nephew in the head with a brick. I found out about it and went to have a word with the crack head. I simply told him, "Love thy neighbor, or I'll @!$%#in kill ya". Mike never had another problem with em.

Oh, you ain't gonna catch a crack head!

I never did hafta kill em. He eventually moved.

I second Brad's motion (below). You should convert this into a stand-alone article. You make some powerful points that deserve to be read, and responded to, by a wider audience.

Let us be clear here: terrorism is not justified even if it is perceived as the only means of a "desperate" people.

Unless it is Israel engaging in the terrorism, then it is merely a sad necessity of achieving security. Not that we would ever admit that Israel was engaged in terrorism, that would be obscene.

@Periculum,
Great comment.

@Jimmy,
So they are terrorist because innocent people die? So, by that view, a bank robber who kills someone is a terrorist correct? A cop who shoots a kid who he thinks is holding a real gun but it turns out to be a toy. Is he a terrorist? He killed someone because of a mistake. Something out his control. I guess he's a terrorist.

Again, I do not like the deaths of innocent people but I think there is a difference between intending to kill and mistakes. That gets into the deep ethics of Kant, Smith, Singer, and Rawls.

Rather than saying that you "want to find a peaceful solution" offer one; what would YOU do? If you had both the authority to make the decision and the backing of the International Community, what steps would you personally take to end this?

Take the airplanes and helicopters that are used to combat forest fires. Fill them up with LSD. Saturate the whole Middle East. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Take the airplanes and helicopters that are used to combat forest fires. Fill them up with LSD. Saturate the whole Middle East. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Hey, we've got terrorists over here where I am, too - why should we be left out?

;-)

Take the airplanes and helicopters that are used to combat forest fires. Fill them up with LSD. Saturate the whole Middle East. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Best comment so far. I'm all for it.

Jimmy Havok:

Define terrorism for me without Google-ing it.
Then, do me the favor of getting all sides to agree on it.

Even though just about everyone recognizes the made-for-TV terrorism shown nowadays in the media, few can adequately define exactly what it is. This is because the term is increasingly being overused by academics, politicians, security experts, military personnel, and journalists to describe a variety of violent acts.

If I knew how to post an article, I'd give you a link. There is more to this, obviously. But I think before we can agree or agree to disagree on this, we must first have an agreed upon meaning.

Periculum

PS –

If you think Israel is conducting terrorism (state or otherwise) prove your point. I am wiling to listen, but you need to come up with more than sarcasm to sway me.

Some definitions focus on motivations and characteristics of terrorism, others will look at the modus operandi of the individual terrorists themselves, and still others focus on the outcomes of the acts committed.

Authors Schmidt and Youngman in their book Political Terrorism compiled 109 different definitions which they obtained from leading academics in the field. This is a literary smorgasbord that helps illustrate the problems; definitions of terrorism are as wide and varied as the people using them.

In terms of elements, the authors were able to isolate reoccurring themes which are delivered to the reader in order of statistical relevance. They are:

-Violence or force appeared in 83.5% of the definitions;
-Political motivations appeared in 65% of the definitions;
-Fear or an emphasis on terror occurred in 51% of the definitions;
-Threats occurred in 47% of the definitions;
-Psychological effects or reactions occurred in 41.5% of the definitions;
-Intentional or having been planned in a systematic or organized fashion occurred in 32% of the definitions; and
-Specific methods of combat, strategy, tactics were used in 30.5% of the definitions put forward.

The people surveyed were asked, "What issues in the definition of terrorism remain unresolved?" Some of the answers given were:

1. Whether government terrorism and resistance terrorism are part of the same phenomenon.
2. What, if any relationship exists between crime and terrorism.
3. What is the boundary between terrorism and other forms of political violence seen today?
4. Can terrorism be legitimate or justified in its use?
5. The separation of terrorism from simple criminal acts open war between consenting groups.
6. Is terrorism a sub-category of coercion? Violence? Influence? Power?
7. What is the relationship between guerilla warfare and terrorism?

The main elements of terrorism may seem obvious to some, namely violence, civilian non-combative targets, the intentional spreading of fear and terror to influence the government, but putting together an ironclad definition has been tremendously difficult for those concerned with such a task.

The FBI has labeled such groups as the Earth Liberation Front as terrorists despite the fact that they are non-violent against people and limit their activities to destroying property.
In a recent poll conducted by the Christian Science Monitor, 79% of the people polled thought that the deliberate targeting of noncombatants to achieve political ends was terrorism.

Author and terrorism expert Brian Jenkins states that, "Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change."

Another example forwarded by Walter Laqueur is, "Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."

Author James M. Poland says that terrorism is the "[P]remeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience."

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) defines terrorism as the use of illegal force or violence "for purposes of intimidation, coercion or ransom," but does not require it to be politically motivated.

Yonah Alexander, a terrorism expert and the director of the Institute for Studies in International Terrorism at the State University of New York states, "In a nutshell, [it is] the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals."

And so the list goes on...

My point about asking for credentials, backgrounds, and education levels was to understand the people I would be addressing. IT DOES MATTER. There is much more to this than just reading a few posts and "poof" you are a subject matter expert.

Periculum

When I see a Palestinian, it's usually a refugee. When I see an Israeli it's usually a tourist. That's just my first clue. I'm not going to break down a list of issues with Israel. But check out Keld Bachs blog.

AND... I'm getting a nagging suspicion that academic texts on terrorism ignores state terrorism!? Academic studies are usually under some form of government control. Thus, I imagine they percieve 'terror' as one of several threaths to the state. Not a possible strategy by a state. Correct me if I'm wrong. I see you're working with a whole menu of definitions there, Periculum, but what more will it take for Israel to get their Terrorist State approval?

Celestina:

Thanks. It is a daunting task, as I think you have already found out. I've writen several papers on this, so I will try to contribute where possible.

Benno: You and I seem to be having, well, a Jeckel/Hyde posting relationship. While you annoy the heck out of me, I also enjoy some of your points.

However, you made NO effort to define anything. You just did the "well I know it" argument. What good is that? Surely, you can do better than that my friend.

Not all academics are influenced by the gov. In fact, I would say it is much the opposite. Most of my profs were very liberal and opposed to that king of thing.

There are a number of decent texts that address this very issue. How many legitimate books have you read on terrorism? What have YOU done other than read blogs. Did you study this topic in college and seriously look to understand? If you did not go to college, have you made the attempts on your own? (you should do both).

There are at least four out there I would highly suggest; they are objective and well researched. If you want, I can give you the details.

As to the tourist thing. Well, I do not know that is defacto proof in the slightest. If anything, it is illustrative of socio-economic issues, not terrorism. An associate of mine is Palestinian and is very well off. Are the people he serves doing well? Nope. But that is for another time I think.

It is certainly a point that SHOULD be looked at though.

Periculum

Periculum,

I do agree with you that the term is both difficult to define and much overused; I must say you raised some very good points. And delving into the myriad of possible definitions may best be left to the thread Celestina linked to. I would strongly recommend you posting the issues you have raised on that thread as well (or at the least supplying that thread a link to your above post) as you do raise valid questions in that realm.

My point about asking for credentials, backgrounds, and education levels was to understand the people I would be addressing. IT DOES MATTER. There is much more to this than just reading a few posts and "poof" you are a subject matter expert.

I don't believe anyone has stated that simply reading a few posts makes anyone an expert on anything. And I still disagree that credentials, backgrounds and education levels are not an automatic means to gauge the level of aptitude or knowledge a person possesses, but that is a debate for another time and place.

And yes, that is a "hot button" issue for me. Sorry.

There are at least four out there I would highly suggest; they are objective and well researched. If you want, I can give you the details.

Yes please, I would be most interested in the works.

If anything, it is illustrative of socio-economic issues, not terrorism.

Socio-economic issues can play a role in the rise of groups and organizations that could be labeled as terrorist. As can environmental issues. Or issues of faith. And, of course, old fashioned politics. Bottom line is any issue a person or people can rally behind can be used as a basis for labeling a person or persons terrorist.

Oops, I began to delve. ;)

And I still disagree that credentials, backgrounds and education levels are not an automatic means to gauge the level of aptitude or knowledge a person possesses

Mistype. Should read:

"And I still disagree that credentials, backgrounds and education levels are an automatic means to gauge the level of aptitude or knowledge a person possesses"

I've been staring at computer screens too much today ...

There are at least four out there I would highly suggest; they are objective and well researched. If you want, I can give you the details.

Sorry, maent to include this witht is initial post.

Yes please. I would be interested in any material you would be willing to recommend.

Zylphryx:

Thanks for the post; it was nice to hear from you again. I have the citations in one of my papers at my office, so when I get there I will post it for you.

So you know, the reason I take education so seriously is this: I was a high school drop out. I joined the service as one and then "earned" a GED, if that is possible. It wasn't until I was in my late 20s that I returned to education.

But you are right, there is a better place and time to talk about this "hot" topic to you. But, just so you know, I AM interested in just WHY you feel this way. Perhaps we could pick this up off forum?

Regards,

P

Guido: You should read my posts first then get back to me. Give me specifics not generalizations. Tell me who, what, where, when, why, and how and THEN contrast that with the other side. THEN we have something to sink our teeth into.

Guido,

The "issue" here is your lack of factual content: the reason you'd like to speak in a macro sense is because you don't have the background necessary to speak in a micro sense, and without that micro-knowledge, I don't consider you qualified to speak on the issue effectively, macrotically or otherwise

Guido,

Here's the problem: I don't disagree that military actions by states have caused more death than terrorism, but I do disagree with the term "misuse". As such, I can't answer your question more frankly than I've already done.

What I disagree with (and I'm not talking about Iraq here, as that's a totally different story) but rather Israel's right to defend itself. I don't consider Israel's current incursion to be a misuse of force: In fact, I consider it to be quite justified.

Where we differ here is your bizarre insistence on things that don't necessarily prove anything. Take this statement of yours:

Between terror and war crimes, I believe that states have the greatest destructive power in this world, more than non-state entities.

Therefore war crimes and other misuses of state power, are more evil in that they are more powerfully malignant. You entire argument is based on fighting terror, but you seem to wish to use fighting terror as a justification to do worse.

Certainly, bombing of civilian infrastructure, bombing people who are trying to escape after you told them to is misuse of state power to me. Illegally and mistakenly invading a sovereign nation, the deaths and misery that happened after that are far more worthy for us to pursue.

You make these broad generalizations about evil, and the disparity of power between a state and a non-state entities. If things were as simple as you make them out to be, then you'd be right about the malignancy of a disproportionate force as a means to end conflicts. But the situation isn't simple: Hizbollah isn't going to lay down its arms because Israel does, The UN wasn't enforcing resolution 1559, Israel was being bombarded with rocket strikes on a regular basis from Lebanon, and then Hizbollah had the audacity to enflame the situation by kidnapping more soldiers? I'm going to boil this down to a simple question for you: How many rockets should Israel have let fall on its citizenry before they responded?

There's also a tremendous disconnect between your first and second quoted sentences. You say that states have the most destructive power in the world, and then you immediately jump to "war crimes" this, and "evil" that. But you don't prove that war crimes are happening: you simply ask that Israel behave moderately when war crimes are comitted against their people, but that Hizbollah has a free pass because they can't do as much damage?

People in northern Israel were living in fear: fear that their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters or friends would be suddenly obliterated by a random rocket attack from Hizbollah.

I'll ask you again: how many rocket attacks should Israel have allowed before responding?

Stephen:So they are terrorist because innocent people die?

No, they are terrorists because they are killing in order to induce fear for a political purpose. The attack on Lebanon is intended to wreck the country and cause the population to turn away from Hezbollah. For example, exactly what tactical purpose was served by bombing the Jiyyeh oil depot? Were Hezbollah hiding there? Or was it done in order to ruin Lebanon's resort areas for years to come, so that the Lebanese would be afraid to provoke the Israelis? Even if no one was killed, that bombing was a terrorist act, since it was intended to cause the Lebanese people to be frightened of Israel.

Similarly, the checkpoints that Palestinians are forced to pass through constantly are intended to rub into them how much they are at the complete mercy of Israel, and are thus terrorist in intention.

Periculum, I mean no ill will towards you, you seem well educated, but allow me to say that with your advanced degrees in anti-terrorism and such, it would seem to be in your best interests, career wise, that there never be an actual end to terrorism. Without terrorism, your advanced degrees are worthless and you are jobless. Without war, there are no warriors. I am only saying this because in my estimation and research it would appear to me that there are those in the West who are profiting quite nicely from this supposed war on terrorism. Without the fear of terrorism, this country would have "thrown the bums out" of office long ago, as well. What say you?

Hey Phaedrus72, see my post in response down the page. There was a day when (for many years) I made a LOT of money doing totally different things. But when Sept 11th hit, I signed back up -- so to speak.