No, not bombs dropped on civilian areas. I just don't buy the Israeli as ineffectual bully argument. If anything, one could make the opposite argument. Why is such a solid military force killing so many non-combatants?
true,
An answer for that could be "Because they don't care" or "they really are not that solid"
But we do know that israel does bomb civilian and destroy civilian areas, we see them do it in palestine all the time.
This is a conversation I didnt expect to see on here, but definately an interesting one. The only thing I want to say is that all you have to do is look at Israel on a map, Then look at where they are and who they are surrounded by. The countrys around them are easily 10x bigger then them, EGYPT, IRAN, IRAQ, all countries who have had a warring past with Israel. They have a great military, and they have been attacked for YEARS where they are and things wont change. Im happy over the way they are handling it, and refuse to accept what the media tries to feed me about whats going on over there. aka. That they are out of line for defending themselfs. Do you honestly think that in the future if it came down to it the U.S. and Canada will stick up for little old Israel, when all there oil friends are in surrounding huge areas.
You obviously know little or nothing about military strategy. Israel would love to face a real military - one that doesn't hide behind civilians and hides weapons in civilian homes. They would destroy a real military very easily. The reason this conflict is dragging on is because Hezbollah, like all terrorist organizations, fight like cowards. They even wear civilian clothing.
I have forgotten more about military strategy than you will ever know. They have never faced a real military, and are getting hammered by a group of poorly trained rag-tag militants.
Hizbollah aren't fighting like cowards. It's called Guerilla warfare. But you know that, what with your knowledge of military strategy and everything...lol.
Come on, you know I'm a peace-loving hippie. Of course that would be bad. But I don't see the need on the human scope of things for the U.S. & Israel to be killing so many people. Seems like if they can't stop or no one is willing to stop them then they may be better off in the ocean.
This is a conversation I didnt expect to see on here, but definately an interesting one. The only thing I want to say is that all you have to do is look at Israel on a map, Then look at where they are and who they are surrounded by. The countrys around them are easily 10x bigger then them, EGYPT, IRAN, IRAQ, all countries who have had a warring past with Israel. They have a great military, and they have been attacked for YEARS where they are and things wont change. Im happy over the way they are handling it, and refuse to accept what the media tries to feed me about whats going on over there. aka. That they are out of line for defending themselfs. Do you honestly think that in the future if it came down to it the U.S. and Canada will stick up for little old Israel, when all there oil friends are in surrounding huge areas.
look, the only reason they are in the middle of that place is because they took anothers land in the middle of that place. Jump in a fire, what, gonna get burned yeah? they put themselves in that area, it's not like they set up shop in some empty land then all these evil muslims came and decided to surround them.
what did the zionists expect? open arms?
I don't see how you can be happy with the way they are doing things, people are getting killed, and you are happy? very good.
Come on, you know I'm a peace-loving hippie. Of course that would be bad. But I don't see the need on the human scope of things for the U.S. & Israel to be killing so many people. Seems like if they can't stop or no one is willing to stop them then they may be better off in the ocean.
I agree with you. Many people either forget or don't want to remember that there are a bunch of unaccounted for nukes floating around out there...all it takes is one...and believe me, the terrorists are certinly trying to get their hands on one.
I don't think that there's a peaceful solution to any of this, but I'm not taking sides...unless you consider that I refuse to acknowledge Israel's agenda as taking sides.
I have forgotten more about military strategy than you will ever know. They have never faced a real military, and are getting hammered by a group of poorly trained rag-tag militants.
Hizbollah aren't fighting like cowards. It's called Guerilla warfare. But you know that, what with your knowledge of military strategy and everything...lol.
Hizbollah is not a group of poorly trained rag-tags, at least not anymore, and losing 50 men in bomb/missile attacks while killing at least 200 of the enemy hardly constitutes getting hammered. Maybe its not as one-sided as the Israeli command would like, but they are executing the mission, so to speak.
As for guerilla warfare ... Such a battle can be fought without hiding amongst civilians and wearing the other sides' uniforms. Even you must admit that these tactics are going to mean more Lebanese civilians dying from Israeli fire. What liberators or freedom fighters think it is OK to sacriface those they supposedly protect?
Hizbollah is not a group of poorly trained rag-tags, at least not anymore, and losing 50 men in bomb/missile attacks while killing at least 200 of the enemy hardly constitutes getting hammered. Maybe its not as one-sided as the Israeli command would like, but they are executing the mission, so to speak.
As for guerilla warfare ... Such a battle can be fought without hiding amongst civilians and wearing the other sides' uniforms. Even you must admit that these tactics are going to mean more Lebanese civilians dying from Israeli fire. What liberators or freedom fighters think it is OK to sacriface those they supposedly protect?
If the Lebanese had a problem with it, Hizbollah wouldn't be welcome there.
If the Lebanese had a problem with it, Hizbollah wouldn't be welcome there.
So by that logic, all Lebanese are complicit in Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and are thus valid military targets?
I don't buy that for a second.
I agree with you. Many people either forget or don't want to remember that there are a bunch of unaccounted for nukes floating around out there...all it takes is one...and believe me, the terrorists are certinly trying to get their hands on one.
I don't think that there's a peaceful solution to any of this, but I'm not taking sides...unless you consider that I refuse to acknowledge Israel's agenda as taking sides.
Careful.....a few here will label you anti-semite for saying such things. Funny, isn't it? Well, I certainly want a peaceful outcome if it's in anyway possible. But if it's not then I'd certainly hope the aggressors and those not willing to work for peace are the ones who pay, rather than the innocent civilians that have been paying so far. Maybe that makes me a bit of a hypocrite but so be it. I'm human, I'm not perfect.....but I'm right.
So by that logic, all Lebanese are complicit in Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and are thus valid military targets?
I don't buy that for a second.
Huge stretch there. "all Lebanese?" - obviously not. "complicit" - of course not. But from my understanding Lebanon in general is not opposed to Hezbollah and certainly doesn't put them in the bullshit category of "terrorist group" like many people do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.
Huge stretch there. "all Lebanese?" - obviously not. "complicit" - of course not. But from my understanding Lebanon in general is not opposed to Hezbollah and certainly doesn't put them in the bullshit category of "terrorist group" like many people do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.
If you think labelling Hizbollah as a terrorist group is bullshit, then yes, you're wrong.
They fit every part of the definition.
If you think labelling Hizbollah as a terrorist group is bullshit, then yes, you're wrong.
They fit every part of the definition.
I'm sorry, I refuse to accept the administration's definition of terrorist. Ever since dubya demolished the WTC in the name of terrorism I've wiped the word from my vocabulary. It means nothing to me. Is not Israel terrorizing Lebanese civilians? Goddamn Israel.
I'm sorry, I refuse to accept the administration's definition of terrorist. Ever since dubya demolished the WTC in the name of terrorism I've wiped the word from my vocabulary. It means nothing to me. Is not Israel terrorizing Lebanese civilians? Goddamn Israel.
Tell me, reborn, is threatening to blow up UN forces who are repairing civilian bridges something a terrorist group would do? I submit that it is.
Do you really want a serious discussion? Because if you already believe that Bush is responsible for 9-11, that's going to be a challenge for me. Sorry, I have to admit that.
I'll do my best to set that bias aside, though.
As for your question ... Yes, threatening to blow up UN construction crews fits the definition of a terrorist act. The targets are non-combatants, and there is a clear political motive.
The Israeli military has committed a number of actions that I think CAN fit the definition of terrorism, even if said military is not explicitly a terrorist organization. Can you admit the same of Hizbollah?
Do you really want a serious discussion? Because if you already believe that Bush is responsible for 9-11, that's going to be a challenge for me. Sorry, I have to admit that.
I'll do my best to set that bias aside, though.
As for your question ... Yes, threatening to blow up UN construction crews fits the definition of a terrorist act. The targets are non-combatants, and there is a clear political motive.
The Israeli military has committed a number of actions that I think CAN fit the definition of terrorism, even if said military is not explicitly a terrorist organization. Can you admit the same of Hizbollah?
I can. How can someone still defend Israeli's actions after they say something like this?
So by that logic, all Lebanese are complicit in Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and are thus valid military targets?
I don't buy that for a second.
The same could be said of the inverse. I've read stories about crazy Zionists who think that the answer to their wildest dreams is to take out the temple mount.
the fun thing about war is that you can justify murder any which way you choose. That's why it's called war.
Careful.....a few here will label you anti-semite for saying such things. Funny, isn't it? Well, I certainly want a peaceful outcome if it's in anyway possible. But if it's not then I'd certainly hope the aggressors and those not willing to work for peace are the ones who pay, rather than the innocent civilians that have been paying so far. Maybe that makes me a bit of a hypocrite but so be it. I'm human, I'm not perfect.....but I'm right.
The Arabs are semites too. The Christian fundamentalists carefully gloss over that little Bible factoid. If you reject the "anti-semite" propaganda in favor of the word of God, an Israeli attack on an arab is semite-on-semite crime
The Arabs are semites too. The Christian fundamentalists carefully gloss over that little Bible factoid. If you reject the "anti-semite" propaganda in favor of the word of God, an Israeli attack on an arab is semite-on-semite crime
"Applaud"
About time someone made that point about Arabs also being Semites...
I think it's pretty much understood in context that anti-semite = anti-jewish in this conotation. But thanks for being accurate and uber literal. Language is a moving target.
Willynilly now means -- haphazardly
It's original meaning is -- whether you will it or not
I think it's pretty much understood in context that anti-semite = anti-jewish in this conotation. But thanks for being accurate and uber literal. Language is a moving target.
Willynilly now means -- haphazardly
It's original meaning is -- whether you will it or not
So anti-semite is anti-jew willynilly!
So when it doesn't fit the Jew agenda, it becomes haphazard. That's classic. God forbid you hold the Jews accountable for anything. Point out that they are no better than arabs with regard to semitism, and suddenly it's a non-issue.
The word of God is not uber-literal, it's THE word. Human beings turn it into a campaign speech, and suddenly being an anti-semite is a bad thing, unless you're a Jew attacking an arab...oh, excuse me defending yourself against an arab.
So when it doesn't fit the Jew agenda, it becomes haphazard. That's classic. God forbid you hold the Jews accountable for anything. Point out that they are no better than arabs with regard to semitism, and suddenly it's a non-issue.
The word of God is not uber-literal, it's THE word. Human beings turn it into a campaign speech, and suddenly being an anti-semite is a bad thing, unless you're a Jew attacking an arab...oh, excuse me defending yourself against an arab.
LOL
Sorry, that was a confusing demonstration of how words change, I actually meant the original willynilly in the last line -- see how confusing that is -- these days I think anti-semite is used in most contexts to mean "jew hating" whether you will it to mean something else or not?
Um, I haven't spoken about holding anyone accountable so I can't really address that point. In other posts I've pointed out that Israel censors the media just as thoroughly as Hez -- so, um, no, I will hold them accountable when, in my opinion, it's merited.
I think there's racist jews and racist arabs, no prob with saying that.
Sorry, that was a confusing demonstration of how words change, I actually meant the original willynilly in the last line -- see how confusing that is -- these days I think anti-semite is used in most contexts to mean "jew hating" whether you will it to mean something else or not?
Um, I haven't spoken about holding anyone accountable so I can't really address that point. In other posts I've pointed out that Israel censors the media just as thoroughly as Hez -- so, um, no, I will hold them accountable when, in my opinion, it's merited.
I think there's racist jews and racist arabs, no prob with saying that.
By accountable, I mean that they are the first to wave the "anti-semite" flag when they know full and well that the arabs are also semites. In that regard, they play the vast majority of the American public like a fiddle.
Ok I hear ya -- my point is, it's entirely possible that even given historical context, you might open Websters in a few years and see:
anti-semite: against the jewish people and/or religeon
Because that's how it's being used nowadays. I'll agree it's a poor word-choice, and no I don't think people who use it that way think one sec about it, because of the historical context, but unfortunately we CAN just go change meanings willynilly!
Ok I hear ya -- my point is, it's entirely possible that even given historical context, you might open Websters in a few years and see:
anti-semite: against the jewish people and/or religeon
Because that's how it's being used nowadays. I'll agree it's a poor word-choice, and no I don't think people who use it that way think one sec about it, because of the historical context, but unfortunately we CAN just go change meanings willynilly!
Belive me, I nausea at that usage.
I totally agree, but that has everything to do with the nature of revisionist history, and nothing to do with reality. Sortof the literary equivalent of the JFK assassination...back and to the left....back and to the left. Physics and the Zapruder film don't lie, but we're all taught that it was Lee Harvey Oswald...acting alone. Another one for the "my ass" file.
I can. How can someone still defend Israeli's actions after they say something like this?
Who, me? I've made it clear all along that while I support Israeli's right to fight terrorists, I also think that the air attacks on Lebanon are immoral, way out of proportion and potentially quite damaging to the very fight against terrorism that everyone deems to be so important.
How is this odd? I am not a black-and-white thinker. I am capable of seeing Israel's perspective while at the same time saying that much of what they did in Lebanon is wrong.
Comments
true,
An answer for that could be "Because they don't care" or "they really are not that solid"
But we do know that israel does bomb civilian and destroy civilian areas, we see them do it in palestine all the time.
I have forgotten more about military strategy than you will ever know. They have never faced a real military, and are getting hammered by a group of poorly trained rag-tag militants.
Hizbollah aren't fighting like cowards. It's called Guerilla warfare. But you know that, what with your knowledge of military strategy and everything...lol.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
look, the only reason they are in the middle of that place is because they took anothers land in the middle of that place. Jump in a fire, what, gonna get burned yeah? they put themselves in that area, it's not like they set up shop in some empty land then all these evil muslims came and decided to surround them.
what did the zionists expect? open arms?
I don't see how you can be happy with the way they are doing things, people are getting killed, and you are happy? very good.
I agree with you. Many people either forget or don't want to remember that there are a bunch of unaccounted for nukes floating around out there...all it takes is one...and believe me, the terrorists are certinly trying to get their hands on one.
I don't think that there's a peaceful solution to any of this, but I'm not taking sides...unless you consider that I refuse to acknowledge Israel's agenda as taking sides.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Hizbollah is not a group of poorly trained rag-tags, at least not anymore, and losing 50 men in bomb/missile attacks while killing at least 200 of the enemy hardly constitutes getting hammered. Maybe its not as one-sided as the Israeli command would like, but they are executing the mission, so to speak.
As for guerilla warfare ... Such a battle can be fought without hiding amongst civilians and wearing the other sides' uniforms. Even you must admit that these tactics are going to mean more Lebanese civilians dying from Israeli fire. What liberators or freedom fighters think it is OK to sacriface those they supposedly protect?
If the Lebanese had a problem with it, Hizbollah wouldn't be welcome there.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
So by that logic, all Lebanese are complicit in Hizbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians and are thus valid military targets?
I don't buy that for a second.
If you think labelling Hizbollah as a terrorist group is bullshit, then yes, you're wrong.
They fit every part of the definition.
no that's considered "self defense"
Do you really want a serious discussion? Because if you already believe that Bush is responsible for 9-11, that's going to be a challenge for me. Sorry, I have to admit that.
I'll do my best to set that bias aside, though.
As for your question ... Yes, threatening to blow up UN construction crews fits the definition of a terrorist act. The targets are non-combatants, and there is a clear political motive.
The Israeli military has committed a number of actions that I think CAN fit the definition of terrorism, even if said military is not explicitly a terrorist organization. Can you admit the same of Hizbollah?
I can. How can someone still defend Israeli's actions after they say something like this?
The same could be said of the inverse. I've read stories about crazy Zionists who think that the answer to their wildest dreams is to take out the temple mount.
the fun thing about war is that you can justify murder any which way you choose. That's why it's called war.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
The Arabs are semites too. The Christian fundamentalists carefully gloss over that little Bible factoid. If you reject the "anti-semite" propaganda in favor of the word of God, an Israeli attack on an arab is semite-on-semite crime
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
"Applaud"
About time someone made that point about Arabs also being Semites...
Now if we could all understand that every evangelical Christian and supporter of Israel ISN'T a Zionist…we might be getting somewhere…
Tough, huh?!
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Personally kinda tired of that...
I think it's pretty much understood in context that anti-semite = anti-jewish in this conotation. But thanks for being accurate and uber literal. Language is a moving target.
Willynilly now means -- haphazardly
It's original meaning is -- whether you will it or not
So anti-semite is anti-jew willynilly!
George Washington
So when it doesn't fit the Jew agenda, it becomes haphazard. That's classic. God forbid you hold the Jews accountable for anything. Point out that they are no better than arabs with regard to semitism, and suddenly it's a non-issue.
The word of God is not uber-literal, it's THE word. Human beings turn it into a campaign speech, and suddenly being an anti-semite is a bad thing, unless you're a Jew attacking an arab...oh, excuse me defending yourself against an arab.
LOL
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Sorry, that was a confusing demonstration of how words change, I actually meant the original willynilly in the last line -- see how confusing that is -- these days I think anti-semite is used in most contexts to mean "jew hating" whether you will it to mean something else or not?
Um, I haven't spoken about holding anyone accountable so I can't really address that point. In other posts I've pointed out that Israel censors the media just as thoroughly as Hez -- so, um, no, I will hold them accountable when, in my opinion, it's merited.
I think there's racist jews and racist arabs, no prob with saying that.
By accountable, I mean that they are the first to wave the "anti-semite" flag when they know full and well that the arabs are also semites. In that regard, they play the vast majority of the American public like a fiddle.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
anti-semite: against the jewish people and/or religeon
Because that's how it's being used nowadays. I'll agree it's a poor word-choice, and no I don't think people who use it that way think one sec about it, because of the historical context, but unfortunately we CAN just go change meanings willynilly!
Belive me, I nausea at that usage.
I totally agree, but that has everything to do with the nature of revisionist history, and nothing to do with reality. Sortof the literary equivalent of the JFK assassination...back and to the left....back and to the left. Physics and the Zapruder film don't lie, but we're all taught that it was Lee Harvey Oswald...acting alone. Another one for the "my ass" file.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Who, me? I've made it clear all along that while I support Israeli's right to fight terrorists, I also think that the air attacks on Lebanon are immoral, way out of proportion and potentially quite damaging to the very fight against terrorism that everyone deems to be so important.
How is this odd? I am not a black-and-white thinker. I am capable of seeing Israel's perspective while at the same time saying that much of what they did in Lebanon is wrong.