And the Violence Continues

jsand

don't gimme no wrote:

So Israel, being America's bitch, isn't being spoon fed the same garbage about terrorists and muslim extremists and islamic fascists? I submit that they are.

They don't have to be spoon fed. Go visit Israel and maybe you'll learn something - they have been faced with this threat since modern Israel's inception.

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

No, that would have been much better for Israel, not necessarily Lebanon. A scenario where Hezbollah becomes the Lebanese military would satisfy the UN resolution wouldn't it?

No, because they were told to disarm back in 2000, not to become the Lebanese formal army (which is already exists), nor to keep their weapons nor to gain more.

Eliot Rosewater

shiraz wrote:

We're not talking about religion, we're talking about ideology. "muslim extremist" or "islamic fascist" are people who believe Israel must be destroyed. The problem starts when "people"= presidents (Iran & Syria), who obviously influence their nation's state of mind. If you can't see that, than there's something wrong with you point of view.

But they may have very valid reasons for believing that Israel should be destroyed. They see the U.S. dumping bombs and warplanes down Israel's throat, while the U.S. is irrationally accusing nearly all of the middle east, save Israel of being terrorists. American presence in the middle east is unwarranted and unwelcome. Trying to justify it is proof that Bush's redefining of the word "terrorist" has been used according to plan.

Eliot Rosewater

jsand wrote:

They don't have to be spoon fed. Go visit Israel and maybe you'll learn something - they have been faced with this threat since modern Israel's inception.

I'm sorry but that's not a valid defense. It's not about geography at all. It's about the source of information and I'm not certain but I'm afraid that Israel is too tuned in to the bush administration and FoxNews.

sourdough

shiraz wrote:

No, because they were told to disarm back in 2000, not to become the Lebanese formal army (which is already exists), nor to keep their weapons nor to gain more.

The problem is that the Lebanese army is incredibly weak. If I was weary of Israel and they had set an aggressive precedent against my state, I would not want to rely on a weak army to protect me.

jsand

don't gimme no wrote:

I'm sorry but that's not a valid defense. It's not about geography at all. It's about the source of information and I'm not certain but I'm afraid that Israel is too tuned in to the bush administration and FoxNews.

That's laughable. As if the threat to Israel's existence wasn't there well prior to the Bush administration and the day Fox News started broadcasting.

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

But they may have very valid reasons for believing that Israel should be destroyed. They see the U.S. dumping bombs and warplanes down Israel's throat, while the U.S. is irrationally accusing nearly all of the middle east, save Israel of being terrorists. American presence in the middle east is unwarranted and unwelcome. Trying to justify it is proof that Bush's redefining of the word "terrorist" has been used according to plan.

According to your logic, Israel has every reason to believe Iran or Syria should be destroyed. But we don't. Destroying a country = destroying its residents (amongst others horrible things). It is sick, and there is NO justification for that kind of sate of mind, not even the fact US is our ally.

Eliot Rosewater

shiraz wrote:

According to your logic, Israel has every reason to believe Iran or Syria should be destroyed. But we don't. Destroying a country = destroying its residents (amongst others horrible things). It is sick, and there is NO justification for that kind of sate of mind, not even the fact US is our ally.

I'm not saying it's right if they do actually think that Israel should be destroyed. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable if they do feel that way. Just like it's not unreasonable for Israel to defend itself. There's a clear difference in thinking a country should be destroyed and actually attempting it, even for the sake of self-preservation.

shiraz

sourdough wrote:

The problem is that the Lebanese army is incredibly weak. If I was weary of Israel and they had set an aggressive precedent against my state, I would not want to rely on a weak army to protect me.

Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.

Eliot Rosewater

shiraz wrote:

Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.

I am 100% certain that you are correct......





















.....according to Israeli and U.S. media / lip service

sourdough

shiraz wrote:

Israel moved out of Lebanon in 2000, we gave them no reason to worry about us which is why Lebanon was blossoming & trying to reach a peace agreement with us during Hariri's time (2000-2004, he was removed from the lead by Syria and than murdered in 2005). The thing is: No Hizbullah/ other contries pulling the strings of Lebanon = no problems with Israel. It is that simple.

But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

I'm not saying it's right if they do actually think that Israel should be destroyed. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable if they do feel that way. Just like it's not unreasonable for Israel to defend itself. There's a clear difference in thinking a country should be destroyed and actually attempting it, even for the sake of self-preservation.

I'm sorry, there's nothing "reasonable" in this kind of state of mind. NOTHING. That's why they are called extremists. And again, I'm talking about believing, not thinking. This is much more stronger, and eventually leads for sure into radical actions.

Eliot Rosewater

sourdough wrote:

But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.

Great points, sourdough. I think if anything, the recent Israeli invasion is going to encourage Hezbollah to be the Lebanese military. Of course I haven't checked with what Israel is telling its people so I may be wrong.

Eliot Rosewater

shiraz wrote:

I'm sorry, there's nothing "reasonable" in this kind of state of mind. NOTHING. That's why they are called extremists. And again, I'm talking about believing, not thinking. This is much more stronger, and eventually leads for sure into radical actions.

I guess that's where we have a pretty big disagreement. I believe they're called extremists because it makes them easy to hate and easier to justify killing them. Especially when it's predominantly arabs we're talking about....people are lazy and stupid and now a lot of people view most arabs as terrorists or extremists. A woman I know came home from seeing that movie Flight 93 or whatever it's called. She referred to the hijackers several times as Iraqis. Why? Well besides being lazy and stupid it's because words like terrorist and extremist have been used quite cleverly by dubya.

shiraz

sourdough wrote:

But in 1982, there was no Hizbullah and there were problems with Israel. I'm not defending Hizbullah's actions nor their vow to destroy Israel, but I can see reason for their distrust. Its not like okay, Israel is out, lets forgive and forget! There were massacres in Lebanon and I don't think its easy to forget that. Lebanon was blossoming because they've always been a forward thinking country who has been peaceful and democratic and educated. they could have poured money into building up their military which would possibly have made hizbullah unnecessary or forced them to dis-arm but instead chose to rebild Beirut and revitalize the country. now it is in ruins again.

You should look over the last few years, in which both countries were gaining something out of that peaceful-period. I'm not saying Lebanon should forget about the past, only that Hizbullah is NOT necessary for them to have a strong army. Think about it, they could have developed it in the past 6 years, but chose not to. They chose to diplomaticaly cooperate with us, instead of threatening. In my mind, it means a lot. It means Lebanon trusted us.

acutejam

If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if your enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer. - Martin Luther King

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

PaperPlates

acutejam wrote:

If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if your enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer. - Martin Luther King

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

most relevant quote I've heard in a long time. Thank you. Food for thought, tho some here may choke on it.

sourdough

shiraz wrote:

You should look over the last few years, in which both countries were gaining something out of that peaceful-period. I'm not saying Lebanon should forget about the past, only that Hizbullah is NOT necessary for them to have a strong army. Think about it, they could have developed it in the past 6 years, but chose not to. They chose to diplomaticaly cooperate with us, instead of threatening. In my mind, it means a lot. It means Lebanon trusted us.

I think Lebanon (in general) just wanted to move on. They were tired of the fighting and tired of war and wanted to return to normalcy. Lebanon wanted peace and did what they needed to do to achieve that, but to say that they were warm and fuzzy about Israel may be a bit far from the truth. However, that said, not all Lebanon felt as secure with Israel. This is only going to further distance lebanon from Israel and I fear it will create more extremists from moderates. Do you think Lebanon is going to want to trust Israel again?

shiraz

don't gimme no wrote:

I guess that's where we have a pretty big disagreement. I believe they're called extremists because it makes them easy to hate and easier to justify killing them. Especially when it's predominantly arabs we're talking about....people are lazy and stupid and now a lot of people view most arabs as terrorists or extremists. A woman I know came home from seeing that movie Flight 93 or whatever it's called. She referred to the hijackers several times as Iraqis. Why? Well besides being lazy and stupid it's because words like terrorist and extremist have been used quite cleverly by dubya.

I think the state of mind who makes you act via suicide bombings, is radical. I think someone who is brought up to believe Jews or black people are inferior and need to die, is radical. I think someone who believes the world whould be compleate after Israel would be wiped off, is an extremist. I think someone who really believes he'll become a saint & go to hevean after killing a jew, is an extremist.

I believe those people "earn" their definition of being an extremists, and not calling this phenomenon by its name only because of some people who always use generalizations, is extremely WRONG.

jsand

shiraz wrote:

I think the state of mind who makes you act via suicide bombings, is radical. I think someone who is brought up to believe Jews or black people are inferior and need to die, is radical. I think someone who believes the world whould be compleate after Israel would be wiped off, is an extremist. I think someone who really believes he'll become a saint & go to hevean after killing a jew, is an extremist.

I believe those people "earn" their definition of being an extremists, and not calling this phenomenon by its name only because of some people who always use generalizations, is extremely WRONG.

Shiraz, you're violating a very sacred rule here on the moving train - calling terrorists/extremists what they are. Remember, they are only committing atrocities because of legitimate grievances. If Israel would just disappear, they'd all be peaceful law-abiding citizens.