Hizzbollah leads rebuilding.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

You call him ass backwards and repulsive yet fail to mention why. When called on it you threaten to leave? Maybe you should click that white X inside the red box in the top right-hand corner because I'd really like to see you disprove something from Chomsky and backup your previous post.

Guy I don't need to back up my opinion. It's my opinion. Like I said I'm not getting into it because it won't go anywhere. I'll go waste my time looking up concrete examples and then you two clowns will disagree with me and find some reason to justify it, or you'll just ignore what I've posted and insist that your still right. I'm tired of dealing with that. If all you want to do is talk about Chomsky I'm not interested. (By the way mister prove it, where have you backed yourself up with any proof about Israel's "aggressive wars?")

MrBrian

dayan wrote:

Ok, so give me one instance of a war Israel has fought other than 1982 which was not defensive?

ummm how about lebanon last week? Dude, I think you gotta update your history books.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

The Osirak Raid (1981)--An Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Saddam Hussein was constantly talking about destroying Israel and raining fire on her and he was building nuclear weapons. Israel pre-emptively struck the reactor as a defensive step. Saddam actually did go on to attack Israel during the Gulf War, which is also when it became clear that Israel had basically saved everyone's asses with that raid because it stopped Saddam from having nukes when he invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War.

dayan

MrBrian wrote:

ummm how about lebanon last week? Dude, I think you gotta update your history books.

Israel went into Lebanon after a terrorist group fired dozens of rockets on her civilians and violated her border to kill and kidnap her soldiers. You can say that Israel used too much force, but the action was clearly defensive in nature.

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

Saddam Hussein was constantly talking about destroying Israel and raining fire on her and he was building nuclear weapons. Israel pre-emptively struck the reactor as a defensive step. Saddam actually did go on to attack Israel during the Gulf War, which is also when it became clear that Israel had basically saved everyone's asses with that raid because it stopped Saddam from having nukes when he invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War.

So pre-emptive now equals defense? Now can you understand why I brought up the current war in Iraq earlier? It's been rumored that countries will mold their intelligence in to fit into their warmonging schemes.

MrBrian

dayan wrote:

Israel went into Lebanon after a terrorist group fired dozens of rockets on her civilians and violated her border to kill and kidnap her soldiers. You can say that Israel used too much force, but the action was clearly defensive in nature.

Soldiers were taken on lebanese soil I think. also I should mention israel's agression towards the palestinians, defensive? maybe as defensive as a thief taking your home then shooting you claiming "self defense" when you try to get it back.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

So pre-emptive now equals defense? Now can you understand why I brought up the current war in Iraq earlier? It's been rumored that countries will mold their intelligence in to fit into their warmonging schemes.

Pre-emptive warfare is understood to be defensive if there is a clear risk from the country you are attacking. Iraq then certainly was building nuclear weapons. There is no argument about that, so a comparison to the current Gulf war simply doesn't hold. Furthermore, if you are going to say that Israel is aggressive why choose an example of a single surgical strike. Israel didn't invade Iraq, nor did she carry out widespread bombing of the country. She hit one target which she felt constituted a threat. It just doesn't seem like a good example for you. Try again.

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

Pre-emptive warfare is understood to be defensive if there is a clear risk from the country you are attacking. Iraq then certainly was building nuclear weapons. There is no argument about that, so a comparison to the current Gulf war simply doesn't hold. Furthermore, if you are going to say that Israel is aggressive why choose an example of a single surgical strike. Israel didn't invade Iraq, nor did she carry out widespread bombing of the country. She hit one target which she felt constituted a threat. It just doesn't seem like a good example for you. Try again.

Well, you did only ask for one, but for sake of argument I did edit my post to include several non-defensive attacks by Israel.

Also, pre-emptive warfare in my mind needs to be backed up with hard evidence of danger. Knowing the history of the United States, I'm skeptical of their mid-eastern operative known as Israel. I have no evidence and haven't researched it but I'm suggesting that any pre-emptive warfare used was likely unnecessary.

dayan

MrBrian wrote:

Soldiers were taken on lebanese soil I think. also I should mention israel's agression towards the palestinians, defensive? maybe as defensive as a thief taking your home then shooting you claiming "self defense" when you try to get it back.

No, they were taken on Israeli soil. There too there is no argument. Check any reputable news source. The Palestinians are complicated. We can get into it another time. I'll say that the "occupation" is a bad thing and should end, but at this point it is the Palestinians who are preventing that. The first Intifada caused a sea change in Israeli society and Israel was on the verge of ending the occupation when the Palestinians scuttled the whole deal. Long and short, I would have said you had an argument in the eighties, but now Israel has tried to end the occupation, and is still itching to do so as soon as the Palestinians can show that they're state isn't simply going to turn around and act as a launching pad for terrorism against Israel.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

Well, you did only ask for one, but for sake of argument I did edit my post to include several non-defensive attacks by Israel.

Also, pre-emptive warfare in my mind needs to be backed up with hard evidence of danger. Knowing the history of the United States, I'm skeptical of their mid-eastern operative known as Israel. I have no evidence and haven't researched it but I'm suggesting that any pre-emptive warfare used was likely unnecessary.

Well how about you research it so what you say isn't just your uninformed opinion, and then get back to me.

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

No, they were taken on Israeli soil. There too there is no argument. Check any reputable news source.

Many people disagree, therefore making it an argument.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html Reputable enough for you?

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

Well how about you research it so what you say isn't just your uninformed opinion, and then get back to me.

Well, I've done research....maybe I said it wrong. I haven't had much luck finding the politics of past wars....at least not from the sources I've come to trust. I could spend more time on it but I don't want to. Just know that I do research many things, and I don't want to be judged as being uninformed. Plus, my opinion isn't without warrant, and I only offered suggestions at skepticism, I never once stated my opinion as fact.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1978)--Operation Litani was the official name of Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani river. The invasion was a military success, as the Israeli military expelled the PLO from Southern Lebanon, where they had created a de facto state within a state. An international outcry over the invasion forced a partial Israeli retreat and the creation of a United Nations patrolled buffer zone between the Arab guerrillas and the Israeli military.

The Six-Day War (1967)--In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side.

The Osirak Raid (1981)--An Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Israeli-Syrian Air/Sea Battle (Aug. 15, 1966)—After an Israeli patrol boat ran aground on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (according to the 1949 cease-fire agreement, Israeli forces were not supposed to approach within 250 meters of the eastern shore, which was a Demilitarized Zone), Syrian planes attacked it. Israel responded, shooting down two MiG planes.

West Bank Raids (1966)—Israeli forces raided the Hebron area of the West Bank. These raids resulted in 8 civilian deaths and firefights with the Jordanian Army.

Ok the 78' and 66' examples were both operations in response to terrorism being launched from those areas. The Syria example seems not to suit your point. Basically an Israeli ship accidentally ran aground whereupon Syria attacked the ship instead of just letting Israel get it out of there, and Isreal responded to Syria's attack. The Six-Day War is your worst example. Nasser had made military alliances with Syria and Jordan leading up to the war. Egypt had expelled the UN forces from Sinai and had, along with Syria in the North, massed its soldiers along the border with Israel. Nasser was talking daily about driving the Jews into the sea in the "second round," and he had closed the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which is in and of itself a cassus belli. Egypt and Syria were clearly gearing up for an invasion of Israel. The fact that Israel didn't wait to get hit doesn't mean that she wasn't acting in defense.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

Many people disagree, therefore making it an argument.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html Reputable enough for you?

The article says that the soldiers were captured across the border, meaning they were taken into Lebanon. The attack occured in Israel.

dayan

don't gimme no wrote:

Well, I've done research....maybe I said it wrong. I haven't had much luck finding the politics of past wars....at least not from the sources I've come to trust. I could spend more time on it but I don't want to. Just know that I do research many things, and I don't want to be judged as being uninformed. Plus, my opinion isn't without warrant, and I only offered suggestions at skepticism, I never once stated my opinion as fact.

It didn't seem that way to me but I'll take your word for it.

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

Egypt and Syria were clearly gearing up for an invasion of Israel. The fact that Israel didn't wait to get hit doesn't mean that she wasn't acting in defense.

Yet again, I bring up Iraq and hopefully you can understand it this time. "clearly gearing up" just like Saddam was "clearly gearing up" for biochemical warfare on the U.S. I just don't buy it. I'm sorry but I'm skeptical of anything coming from Israel due to their involvement with the U.S. I may be wrong, but this government has broken my trust over and over again to the point where they are now guilty until proven innocent. I know it's not the best outlook but it's where I'm at right now. I see Israel as an agressor so I'm not going to subscribe to them only fighting in defense.

Eliot Rosewater

dayan wrote:

The article says that the soldiers were captured across the border, meaning they were taken into Lebanon. The attack occured in Israel.

No, no, no, no! Do not misread the article. They were Israelis captured in Lebanese territory. How can you read that article and make such an erroneous post?

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

Maybe you should knock that shit off and address the issue at hand. I'd love to read a response from you proving Chomsky wrong. The man is probably smarter than all of us combined and a good share of people agree with that.

Chomsky is a private man with a unique point of view and opinions based on no facts for most of the time. The problem is, too many of you take his opinions and turn them into facts. You can agree with the man, but you can't take his words as the absolute truth.

Personally, I think Chomsky is against everything the US support at, and that's VERY lame. The man supports North Korea regime, but criticizes the Israeli regime. He defended the "freedom of speach" of a French lecture who educated his students & wrote public articles about how the Holocaust was one big exaggeration, but have no problem with a real lack of freedom of speach in Syria or Iran's media. There are lots of other examples but you can see where my point is - The US parlament is setting his tactics as much as he claim it sets the Israeli one. He is basically "guilty" for doing the exact thing he accuses others in.

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

Many people disagree, therefore making it an argument.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html Reputable enough for you?

Hizbullah (they were actually boasting all around), most of the arab media and most of the world media - all of them were claiming the Israeli soliders were kidnapped within Israeli territory. I don't understand how come one should search for other scenarios, unless he is trying to force the reality on his previous point of view. That's a shame.

sliverstain

shiraz wrote:

Chomsky is a private man...

Personally, I think Chomsky is against everything the US support at, and that's VERY lame.

You are a private person, and personally, i think you are against everything Palestinian / Arab / Browner than you because you like to support EVERYTHING the Israeli government does. Murder, economic starvation, the ghetto-isation of Gaza and West Bank, the settlement of lands taken by force, the dehumanisation of all Arab peoples in the name of your Zionist cause.

And that is VERY, VERY lame.