Just want to gauge opinion...

A provocation by Israel, sending soldiers into Lebanon, Aya ash Shab to be exact. (not the other way around.) to provoke a new bloodbath against Shiite citizens of Lebanon. An attempt by Israel to draw Iran into the quagmire seems obvious: Wantonly destroy the Shia region of the country, kill as many civilians as possible and draw in the USA. In doing this Israel finally gets to boot out (and bomb of course) UN observers/witnesses to their atrocities and provoke Iran, the only country in the region capable of inflicting serious pain to the zionists. Drawing them in will ensure US aid in neutralizing Tehran. A chickenhawk neo-con prez also guarantees the US will line up behind the Israel Lobby and whip up hysteria about Iran. Classic Israeli tactic; Misinform and wail for sympathy. Will the US population support a THIRD BushWar? We'll see soon enough.

Primarily, I am against the Hezbollah because they use terrorist techniques to attain their objectives, which prevents a long term resolution of the issues and actually is an obstacle to their resolution. In addition I believe the Hezbollah, though they may have gained politically from this war, have been , along with the Israelis, equally complicit in the large scale disruption and death of the innocent Lebanese civilians. Perhaps they may be fractionally excused in that they did not expect such a disproportionate response; however they are the ones most familiar with Israeli history of aggression in that region and hence cannot be completely excused.

On the other hand, the Israeli practice of overly disproportionate and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, which led to the formation of Hezbollah during the last occupation, combined with their repeated attempts to justify their actions as self-defense is an indication of their inability to calculate the long term adverse effects on their country of their extreme and violent methods. It is also the major obstacle to their establishing credibility and trust among their neighbors. I am also against their inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, although I will say that there are several Israelis (mostly women) who speak up on behalf of the Palestinians.

I also believe that it requires only one rational person in each government with selfless resolve and the desire to achieve real peace, to bring about a lasting resolution. But it looks like a distant objective right now.

Primarily, I am against the Hezbollah because they use terrorist techniques to attain their objectives, which prevents a long term resolution of the issues and actually is an obstacle to their resolution. In addition I believe the Hezbollah, though they may have gained politically from this war, have been , along with the Israelis, equally complicit in the large scale disruption and death of the innocent Lebanese civilians. Perhaps they may be fractionally excused in that they did not expect such a disproportionate response; however they are the ones most familiar with Israeli history of aggression in that region and hence cannot be completely excused.

On the other hand, the Israeli practice of overly disproportionate and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, which led to the formation of Hezbollah during the last occupation, combined with their repeated attempts to justify their actions as self-defense is an indication of their inability to calculate the long term adverse effects on their country of their extreme and violent methods. It is also the major obstacle to their establishing credibility and trust among their neighbors. I am also against their inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, although I will say that there are several Israelis (mostly women) who speak up on behalf of the Palestinians.

I also believe that it requires only one rational person in each government with selfless resolve and the desire to achieve real peace, to bring about a lasting resolution. But it looks like a distant objective right now.
How else does one fight a superpower or a country backed by a superpower? There is no army, navy and air force to fight your occupier/invader. Then what do you do? Something tells me the Israelis would respond to a flower being placed in the barrel of their guns by opening fire, razing the town and destroying all ways out of the region. You have to fight, however you can with whatever you can. It has kept Israel in a virtual state of seige, scared them into building a wall and proved to the world they are a fully failed state. Our military hardware just keeps them just enough distance from the edge to survive another year. Their tactics are a boon to freedom fighters throughout the world.

How else does one fight a superpower or a country backed by a superpower? There is no army, navy and air force to fight your occupier/invader. Then what do you do? Something tells me the Israelis would respond to a flower being placed in the barrel of their guns by opening fire, razing the town and destroying all ways out of the region. You have to fight, however you can with whatever you can. It has kept Israel in a virtual state of seige, scared them into building a wall and proved to the world they are a fully failed state. Our military hardware just keeps them just enough distance from the edge to survive another year. Their tactics are a boon to freedom fighters throughout the world.

Yes, but who are the victims?
And where is the resolution?
If it is such a great method then why is it that 20 years of terror tactics have not brought peace and security to Palestine or Lebanon?

Blowing yourself up it is a strange way of saying you want peace.

Yes, but who are the victims?
And where is the resolution?
If it is such a great method then why is it that 20 years of terror tactics have not brought peace and security to Palestine or Lebanon?

Blowing yourself up it is a strange way of saying you want peace.
The victims are your countrymen when it comes to being targeted by the zionists. Or do your countrymen live in squalid refugee rubble, under foreign occupation without complaint? Just Obey your Masters? No. Many Americans died fighting British rule, many innocents were targeted because of the revolutionaries, including entire towns. The war on the zionist state must press onward. The Palestinians and muslim neighbors of Israel can't defeat the US military, with Israeli killers at the controls. But you can't surrender. If I watched my hometown strafed and blasted to bits, my neighbors in chunks in the streets, my children dead or wounded, my hopes and my entire life gone because of a brutal occupier, I, myself, could not bend over and obey, grab my blanket and whatever child of mine is still alive and move to their next encampmemt/gulag. I couldn't and be a man. I would, in that scenario, wish to spread the anguish to my enemy. My little bomb may take out some of THEIR kids, kill some of THEIR grandparents, brothers & sisters. This is the only way to fight apartheid zionist occupation and US seige. This is what Israel has nurtured over the decades and it will be her overdue demise.

The victims are your countrymen when it comes to being targeted by the zionists. Or do your countrymen live in squalid refugee rubble, under foreign occupation without complaint? Just Obey your Masters? No. Many Americans died fighting British rule, many innocents were targeted because of the revolutionaries, including entire towns. The war on the zionist state must press onward. The Palestinians and muslim neighbors of Israel can't defeat the US military, with Israeli killers at the controls. But you can't surrender. If I watched my hometown strafed and blasted to bits, my neighbors in chunks in the streets, my children dead or wounded, my hopes and my entire life gone because of a brtal occupier, I, myself, could not bend over and obey, grab my blanket and whatever child of mine is still alive and move to their next encampmemt/gulag. I couldn't and be a man. I would, in that scenario, wish to spread the anguish to my enemy. My little bomb may take out some of THEIR kids, kill some of THEIR grandparents, brothers & sisters. This is the only way to fight apartheid zionist occupation and US seige. This is what Israel has nurtured over the decades and it will be her overdue demise.

Don't you think more might be achieved if Lebanon associated with the other neighbors of Israel and they presented a united front in approaching Israel for a peace plan?

Wouldn't that be more likely to attain a lasting peace for all?
There is a severe short-sightedness in the ME countries where diplomacy is concerned.

Don't you think more might be achieved if Lebanon associated with the other neighbors of Israel and they presented a united front in approaching Israel for a peace plan?

Wouldn't that be more likely to attain a lasting peace for all?
I don't see any deal with Israel as leading to lasting peace. They will always push boundaries for more God Given land. They will always be the wasp nest of the region. They haven't earned lasting peace. Neither should they get it. Peace can only be achieved in the region by the creation of a secular Palestine in Israel's place and the overthrow, by the people, of the corrupt Arab governments that feed the West oil. Until all of the religious supremacists are wiped out there will never be peace. Islamic fundies are a problem in the region but they are fighting the 51st US state, until that state is renamed I must place my support on the side of anyone that is an enemy of Israel.

I don't see any deal with Israel as leading to lasting peace. They will always push boundaries for more God Given land. They will always be the wasp nest of the region. They haven't earned lasting peace. Neither should they get it. Peace can only be achieved in the region by the creation of a secular Palestine in Israel's place and the overthrow, by the people, of the corrupt Arab governments that feed the West oil. Until all of the religious supremacists are wiped out there will never be peace. Islamic fundies are a problem in the region but they are fighting the 51st US state, until that state is renamed I must place my support on the side of anyone that is an enemy of Israel.

That will only lead to the death of more innocents; and Israel will not disappear just because some countries wish it would. Plus, all the violence in the ME boomerangs on Muslims worldwide.

I am totally against any system which demands martyrdom as the price of freedom.
Why is it that some Muslims believe they can attain respect or recognition of their problems by blowing themselves up? How does that indicate that they are interested in peace? How is it that they can get funding for arms but not for development? Why don't they use the same money to educate themselves and contribute to society, exhibit secular values and enhance their abilities to mix in a multicultural society? Why do they feel the need to hang onto outdated cultural concepts which come across as divisive and intolerant?

It is the 21st century. All Muslims should learn to move forward, not keep falling backward. Playing the victim and perpetrating violence is backward. Education and a secular social morality is progressive.

How else does one fight a superpower or a country backed by a superpower? There is no army, navy and air force to fight your occupier/invader. Then what do you do?
During the American Revolution a rag tag army with virtually no experience took on the largest, best trained army in the world. And won. They didn't resort to terrorism. When they fought the Brittish on their terms, they got their ass handed to them, as in the battle of Brooklyn or at Fort Washington. Washington soon learned to pick his battles and only fight when he had the greatest advantage possible. But when he attacked, it was military targets. Often to great effect, as at Trenton. He did not attack women and children.

That's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. If the "insurgents" would limit their attacks to military targets, I'd have some respect for them. Otherwise, they deserve whatever Isreal gives them.

During the American Revolution a rag tag army with virtually no experience took on the largest, best trained army in the world. And won. They didn't resort to terrorism. When they fought the Brittish on their terms, they got their ass handed to them, as in the battle of Brooklyn or at Fort Washington. Washington soon learned to pick his battles and only fight when he had the greatest advantage possible. But when he attacked, it was military targets. Often to great effect, as at Trenton. He did not attack women and children.

That's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. If the "insurgents" would limit their attacks to military targets, I'd have some respect for them. Otherwise, they deserve whatever Isreal gives them.

How does this justify killing innocent civilians especially children?

madan:

During the American Revolution a rag tag army with virtually no experience took on the largest, best trained army in the world. And won.

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the 'rag tag' army greatly outnumbered the redcoats? After all, it's well known that the redcoats won the vast majority of the battles, much like the U.S won the vast majority of the battles in North Vietnam. However, the redcoats couldn't afford to lose any soldiers, whereas there were plenty more American hicks ready to take up a musket.
As the Imperial Guards of Warhammer 40,000K say, "If we fall, then two more will rise up and take our place!"


They didn't resort to terrorism.

Nonsense. The revolutionaries engaged in acts of barbarity and brutality to discourage Loyalists from joining up with Cornwallis. They didn't go around stabbing kids, because it wouldn't have been practical or militarily sound. However, they did butcher Loyalist sympathizers. That's terrorism.


When they fought the Brittish on their terms, they got their ass handed to them, as in the battle of Brooklyn or at Fort Washington. Washington soon learned to pick his battles and only fight when he had the greatest advantage possible.

And then still lost. Ironically, the U.S only managed to force a victory against Cornwallis because the French navy fucked up the British navy, and bottled Cornwallis in. Ergo. The Americans could only score a significant victory when the French were doing most of the work.
My my. How things change.


But when he attacked, it was military targets. Often to great effect, as at Trenton. He did not attack women and children.

Because it did not suit Washington to do so. What would have have to gain from attacking American women and children? They were his people, after all, and the vast majority of them sympathized with his cause.
And the UK was on the other side of the world. A 'terrorist strike' against the motherland wasn't exactly practical, was it now?

Quite simply, you're attempting to compare apples to oranges.


That's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Environment?


If the "insurgents" would limit their attacks to military targets,

They do. They just happen to hit a civilian or two by accident when they fire their rocket. I believe the Israelis and Americans call it, um, 'Collateral damage'?.

samcdkey, I have to agree with most of your train of thought on this thread, and nothing justifies civilians being killed, but the responsibility for their death lies with the terrorist, Having watched the Israelis in the operations they have been using precision guided weapons which have limited the civilian casualties, but as with all man made system they occasionally fail, but Hezbullah has targeted civilians on purpose, and there are enough videos and other information that they have built their fighting positions, arsenals, command bunker, and hiding areas, in and under civilian structures, registered their rocket and missile launch point from civilian areas, that the casualties are their responsibility, and fault, just watch the way they pose the bodies and love to show off their children who have been killed, and you said it,


“ I am totally against any system which demands martyrdom as the price of freedom.
Why is it that some Muslims believe they can attain respect or recognition of their problems by blowing themselves up? How does that indicate that they are interested in peace? ”




“ It is the 21st century. All Muslims should learn to move forward, not keep falling backward. Playing the victim and perpetrating violence is backward. Education and a secular social morality is progressive. ”



As for your statement about money for development, there has been millions from Europe, and the United States, other Arab Countries, and from Israel themselves, and what have the Palestinians done with it, the leadership has skimmed it of into their own pockets, and spent it on weapons of war to continue the fight, as I have said before what would they have achieved had they signed a real peace and used the money for industry, hospitals, schools, water projects, jobs for the people, energy projects, where would they be today?

They do. They just happen to hit a civilian or two by accident when they fire their rocket. I believe the Israelis and Americans call it, um, 'Collateral damage'?.

Really, by accident?, then what do you say about the terrorist bomber, is that by accident? The weapon system, the Katusha is a area weapon, it is not designed to hit a point target, they are free flight weapons with no internal guidance, and once on the way land were they may the launchers are built to spread a pattern on a target area, and not discriminate a specific target, this can be confirmed in Jane's.

Buffalo:

Really, by accident?, then what do you say about the terrorist bomber, is that by accident?

Maybe. For all we know, they could be targeting a soldier, and 'Oops'. A dozen civilians happen to be collateral.

e weapon system, the Katusha is a area weapon, it is not designed to hit a point target, they are free flight weapons with no internal guidance, and once on the way land were they may the launchers are built to spread a pattern on a target area, and not discriminate a specific target, this can be confirmed in Jane's.

Even if this were true, it's not evidence that Hezbollah WANTS to hit civilians. For all we know, they can only probably get their hands on shitty weaponry. After all, they don't receive billions of dollars in 'aid' from the U.S.

They may aim in the general area of a military target, and 'oops', they hit a few civilians. It's a sad thing, but hey, 'collateral damage'.

Can you say stretch and you are really stretching here, explained the charter of most of these organizations, they call for the destructions of all Jews and don't make any differentiation between civilians and military.

Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon is a legitimate goal
it's a legitimate tactic, but not a goal.
Israel doesn't need any Lebanese land to occupy and annex. it needs that Lebanese land be free of Hizballah.
occupying south Lebanon - temporarily - is a legitimate tactic to achieve this.
but indefinite occupation is unacceptable... but nobody is even thinking about it. it is not in Israel's interests

Good tactical and strategic insight.

While I agree that the IDF must act to neutralize the threat posed by Hezbollah it does not seem that the strategy and tactics being used in this attack are directed only at Hezbollah. Israel seems determined to punish all of Lebanon for not containing Hezbollah. This lack of restaint is why international opinion is running against Israel. The 3 attacks on the known locations of UN observer posts and the deaths of the peacekeepers has raised a lot of questions.

Only if you discount the fact that the Peace Keeper reported that, Hezbullah was conducting launches in close proximity of the observer post and setting up their combat with the Israelis in the vicinity of the same posts.

There have been conflicting reports about Hezbollah's proximity and activity near the Observer posts.

This don't seem disputable?

The incident is being investigated by the Israeli military, which will then relay its findings to Annan.

In the weeks prior to his death, Hess von-Kruedener had noted in correspondence that Israeli artillery and bombs were landing perilously close to the UN station. But he also said this was not the result of “deliberate targeting,” but “due to tactical necessity.”

“due to tactical necessity.” means that Hezbullah was firing from close in to the U.N. position, and would by logic make it Hezbullah, the one's at fault for the incident.

This don't seem disputable?



“due to tactical necessity.” means that Hezbullah was firing from close in to the U.N. position, and would by logic make it Hezbullah, the one's at fault for the incident.

1. He is dead and unable to verify it.

2. Harper is rabidly pro-Israeli.

3. The other 3 UN observers made no such reports to their countries.

4. Canada is the only one of the four to NOT blame the Israelis, even after Harper's statements.

UN observer: Hizbullah using us as shields - News from Israel ...
Six days before he was killed in an Israel Air Force bombing of a United Nations post in southern Lebanon, Canadian observer Major Paeta Hess-von Kruendener ...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3282569,00.html

Six days before he was killed in an Israel Air Force bombing of a United Nations post in southern Lebanon, Canadian observer Major Paeta Hess-von Kruendener sent an email to his former commander in the Canadian army, in which he said that Hizbullah fighters were "running around" near the UN post struck by the Israel Defense Forces and that they were using the post as a sort of "shield" against Israel' s strikes.

The former commander, Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who served as a UN commander in Bosnia, spoke about the email in a Canadian radio show. He said that Hess-von Kruendener wrote that the IDF strikes near the post had "not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

"That would mean Hizbullah was purposely setting up near the UN post," he added. "It's a tactic."

How does this justify killing innocent civilians especially children?
Killing civilians is not the goal of Israel's attacks. The same can not be said of hezbolla's. Civilians will suffer in any military conflict. The fault lies with the party who "started it". In this case, Hezbolla using southern Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel.

Killing civilians is not the goal of Israel's attacks. The same can not be said of hezbolla's. Civilians will suffer in any military conflict. The fault lies with the party who "started it". In this case, Hezbolla using southern Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel.

This was not the first act of aggression on either side although it has been so hyped. What makes this act so special that it resulted in war?

Gaza.

Additional unasked survey questions:
Hezbollah is justified in firing rockets at Israeli cities
Israel is justified in firing rockets at Hezbollah positions...
Israel is justified in killing (non-Hezbollah) Lebanese civilians
Hezbollah is justified in killing (non-Judeo-fascist) Israeli citizens...
Israel's actions in Lebanon are a proportional and reasonable response to the threat from Hezbollah
Israel's actions are reasonable without resorting to the "proportional" canard that Truman never was held to...
Hezbollah's attacks on Israel before this conflict were legitimate
Israel's attacks on Hezbollah before this conflict were legitimate...
Hezbollah's aim of destroying the state of Israel is legitimate
Israel's aim of destroying Hezbollah is legitimate...
Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon is a legitimate goal
Hezbollah's occupation of southern Lebanon is a legitimate goal...
A diplomatic solution to this conflict is impossible
A non-Western diplomatic solution to this conflict is impossible...
I don't agree with any of these statements.
The original set, and some of the add-ons: Damn right.

You could start your own poll, Mr. G...

I voted for:

"Hezbollah's attacks on Israel before this conflict were legitimate"

and:

"A diplomatic solution to this conflict is impossible"

I would have also voted for:

"Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon is a legitimate goal"

Except for the occupation part. Go ahead and clean up business there, but don't occupy it like they did last time.

Also, I would have voted for:

"Israel's actions in Lebanon are a proportional and reasonable response to the threat from Hezbollah"

Except for the "proportional" and "reasonable" part of it.

I have no problem with Israel defending itself or invading Southern Lebanon, but it has gone overboard with this conflict. They weren't even that harsh against the Palestinians before this (which I haven't heard a peep about lately so I have no idea what's going on over there)!

Israel is killing way too many civilians and has completely obliterated many towns. They've gone overboard on destroying the civilian infrastructure, bombing airports, roads, all types of buildings, you name it. Bombing Northern Lebanon all to hell even though Hezbollah is in the Southern part of it. They even bomb U.N. workers and civilians trying to flee this country! Absolutely out of hand and nothing reasonable or proportionate about it.

- N

This was not the first act of aggression on either side although it has been so hyped. What makes this act so special that it resulted in war?
Well, straight from the horse's mouth, prime minister Olmert:
I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.
As far as Israel killing innocent civilians:
The difference between us and Hezbollah is that when we kill innocent people we consider it a failure, when they kill innocent people they consider it a success.

Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets on Haifa, Hanariya, Akko, Sefat, Afula and the rest of the places, if not to kill innocent people? So I’m sorry for every individual that was killed that was not involved.

And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not? Why? This is not an army. They don’t wear uniforms that distinguish them from other civilians. We didn’t attack any of the Christian quarters of Beirut. We didn’t attack any of the Christian residential areas in any part of Lebanon. We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2296832,00.html

Well, straight from the horse's mouth, prime minister Olmert:

As far as Israel killing innocent civilians:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2296832,00.html

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1329

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1329

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/
Does any of that refut what Olmert said? For instance:
Rescue workers recovered no bodies of apparent Hezbollah fighters from in or near the building.
Is Hezbollah wearing uniforms now? What does a Hezbollah fighter's body look like?

Anyway, I don't trust these left wing pressure groups. They have an anti-US and anti-Israel agenda. Always quick to point out the smallest violation of human rights by us, while ignoring the greatest atrocities of our enemies.

I checked all but the last one.

I also think that Israel desiring to go imperial on the entire middle east would be a legitimate goal.

why do everyone all of a sudden have avatars with goat-loving? i want one too!