Israel has bombed a base in Syria that shot down a Israeli spy drone!

This is working out well, isn't it?

Depends on your perspective...seems to me that this whole thing is working right into the neocon playbook...

amazing how we all be looking at the same thing and come to such drastically different conclusions....

Israel has bombed a base in Syria that shot down a Israeli spy drone!

Uh...link please?

There are only like 300 million Arabs. What's the worse that could happen?

Israel has bombed a base in Syria that shot down a Israeli spy drone!

Link?

So: Tony Blair fears that the war is giving militants a boost; Arab public opinion has turned the head of Hezbollah into a folk hero; and as we already know, al-Qaeda has now decided to join the battle as well. What's more, on a purely military basis, it looks like Hezbollah has only been moderately weakened by the whole thing.

Yes, but by Bush/Cheney logic their increasing succes is merely a sign that they've grown more desperate, which actually means -- ta da! -- that we're winning.

Since the number of Jews who have answered the questions raised by this article is few, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is almost all, and it is so relevant to what is going on in Gaza and Lebanon, I feel it needs to be posted again:

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA PUBLISH THIS? I wonder indeed.

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. Anyway why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

The Jew press then claims that the Popular Resistance Committees, the armed wing of Hamas and the (previously unknown) Army of Islam were jointly responsible for the kidnapping of Shilat.

Why three groups you may ask?

The reason for three groups, is so that each of them might believe that the other has the "kidnapped" soldier, when, in fact, none of them have him. He is sipping coffee in Tel Aviv.

And why did a "previously unknown" group put up its hand?

Well, just in case one of the groups had doubts that the other group had the "kidnapped" soldier, they certainly couldn't be sure the "previously unknown" group didn't have him,... because after all, they don't have any idea who is leading, or anyone in, this unknown group.

So the reason for the weird "I did it arrangement," is so that the Jew press can claim that the Arabs claimed responsibility, when all they have done, is to NOT deny they did it.

Oh yeah, the "previously unknown" group is a Jew invention. It doesn't exist, except in the Jew newspapers.

Of course, shortly the group Army of Islam will need to be created (by the Jews) in order to negotiate the release of Shilat.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Killing terrorists seems to be a good idea to me.

So what do you suggest, Kevin? Give up? Israel should withdraw, allow Hezbollah to rebuild its bases and stations in southern Lebanon? Allow Hezbollah to continue to subvert the Lebanese government, thereby fulfilling the wishes of its Syrian and Iranian masters? Allow Hezbollah to continue to manipulate the West through its superb mastery of the MSM?

Face it, the Arabs dislike everything Israel does. So it doesn't matter what Israel does.

And face it further, the West will be feckless and consumed with short-term remedies, short-term solutions like 'ceasefires', all for the children™.

What matters is this: Hezbollah is a tool of Iran. Iran created it, Iran owns it, Iran maintains it. Nazrallah doesn't breathe without permission of his Iranian overlords.

And Iran is playing a long-term, patient game of intimidation, terror and co-opting of Arab interests. Having built Hezbollah, they're working on taking charge of Palestinian terror groups (e.g., parts of Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades) so as to open a second front on Israel. They've sponsored a series of far-foreign terror attacks (e.g., Buenos Aires) to let Jews know they aren't safe anywhere. They're working on nuclear weapons and they're fairly far along in building intermediate range missiles.

The Arabs fear Iran but they also respect the 'strong horse'. The longer Hezbollah holds out -- and especially if they get a 'cease-fire' that lets them do a prisoner exchange -- the stronger they, and by extension Iran, look. So it's no surprise that Arab states are getting on the bandwagon.

As for Blair, he's mostly captured by the progressive Left of Labour, which has become (unfortunately) anti-Israel and in manny ways anti-Semitic. Blair has no room to do the right thing, which is to do nothing until the Israelis hammer Hezbollah.

Ditto here in the states, where the idiot tools of CNN are putting pressure on our government to endorse a 'ceasefire' to save the people of Lebanon. Few people are asking, 'save them for what'? So that Hezbollah and Syria can continue to run the joint? The Cedar Revolution is dead as long as Hezbollah and Assad are around.

It's sad because on the military side of things, Nasrallah has been an idiot: he's done the most stupid thing he could do, which is to commit his shock troops to open fighting with the Israelis. It's no contest given a month to decide the matter. But Nasrallah and Hezbollah are winning the PR war, and they've learned that, in dealing with the West, that's what counts.

Link to Syria shooting down drone. //web.naharnet.com/default.asp

There was no kidnapping because there couldn't have been a tunnel? Bah. I grew up on a sand dune, yu can tunnel through them with your fingers. Yeah hell it's dangerous, but people do it for fun. And these guys aren't even there for fun. They're nuts.

There are more known tunnels between Palestine strips and Isreali strips than between the US and Mexico.

Sheesh.

Anyhow, who cares if they're telling the truth? They're both firing rockets into neighborhoods and at unrelated things so much that Isreal is obviously looking badly.

If only we had an administration which didn't have its head in its pants...

PS, stop blaming me for having an opposition party which can't choose sides in a combat between people who have weapons in a country without the country's permission vs those who at least have their people's permission.

I say we occupy Isreal like we did Iraq, and things will turn out fine, right?

Where are the usual trolls? Steve White is a clear second-stringer, and his arguments are unusually risible.

the West will be feckless and consumed with short-term remedies...indeed, so long as you're talking about Bush's Middle East policy

Nazrallah doesn't breathe without permission of his Iranian overlords...much like the Israelis don't fire a shot without our permission

The Arabs fear Iran but they also respect the 'strong horse'....a profound reading of the 'Arab mind', which explains exactly why Bush is feared and respected in the Arab world

Blair, he's mostly captured by the progressive Left of Labour...hilarious

the idiot tools of CNN are putting pressure on our government to endorse a 'ceasefire' to save the people of Lebanon....yes, that's exactly why the democrats just condemned Maliki

Nasrallah has been an idiot: he's done the most stupid thing he could do...yup, kill more Israeli soldiers than the entire last Intifada. What a disaster for Hezbollah.

The bright side to all this is that the Israeli generals have lost so much face, they'll have to be reined in. One can always hope that a chastened Israel state will negotiate peace.

Steve White of course ignores the Camp David accords, 25 years of peace with Egypt, a tacit acceptance by Jordan, resistance to open confrontation by Saudi Arabia -nah, let's just say ever Arab and every Arab government is in open war with Israel, and the situation couldn't get any worse.

Ridiculous. Pathetic.

Even if (and it's a big if) Israel can continue to be in a ongoing state of tension internally (with the Palestinian population) and externally (with its 300 million Arab neighbors + non-Arab Iran), what will it be like 50 years from now? More decades of conflict?

Idiots within Israel and neocon idiots in America could cause Israel's demise as much if not more than its Arab enemies.

"If only we had an administration which didn't have its head in its pants..."

Can somebody at least try to act like this situation wasnt personally planned out by Karl Rove? Or that if a Democrat was president he could strike Hizbollah dead with a bolt from God?

Sometimes, just sometimes, it isn't about Bush.

Israel has bombed a base in Syria that shot down a Israeli spy drone!

Hooray! Jesus is coming! Quit your jobs and prepare for the rapture!

Israel has bombed a base in Syria that shot down a Israeli spy drone!

Perhaps Al Liwa found a 23 year old story on google.

..Nasrallah has been an idiot: he's done the most stupid thing he could do, which is to commit his shock troops to open fighting with the Israelis. It's no contest given a month to decide the matter.

I wouldn't be so sure.. Hezbollah is at least as strong as the militias in Iraq, and the US has overwhelming military superiority.

Can somebody at least try to act like this situation wasnt personally planned out by Karl Rove?

Posted by: Hankjr on July 28, 2006 at 2:12 AM

much like the Israelis don't fire a shot without our permission

Posted by: agum on July 28, 2006 at 2:06 AM

'Steve' posted:

"It's sad because on the military side of things, Nasrallah has been an idiot: he's done the most stupid thing he could do, which is to commit his shock troops to open fighting with the Israelis. It's no contest given a month to decide the matter."

But, but, but... it was originally only supposed to take less than a week and the Israelis are taking heavy causalities.
.

I guess it isn't too surprising that Hizbullah are now well on the way to being a highly competent and well-armed military. There seems to be an implicit assumption in these discussions that Arabs and Persians can't fight and so if they win some rounds it's a big embarrassment for Western armies. But if they have actually developed so far, it suggests that the West has been out to lunch. Allowing Iran and Syria to build up such a force with no accountability over all these years looks like a worse and worse decision. Not mandating a serious UN force to prevent it, not making enough effort to get Syria's occupying army out of Lebanon and build up both the legitimately sovereign part of the Lebanese government and their military.

Now there is no way to fight them without turning Muslim public opinion even more radical - but what is the alternative? Does anyone have a policy in mind that would make Islamists like the West and fence-sitters dislike the extremists? What do you think the US could offer vis-a-vis turning against Israel, etc., that would satisfy them? How close would we have to go to giving them what the radical Islamists want anyway?

It seems fair to acknowledge that this is a difficult problem no matter what your ideals are.

This is working out well, isn't it?

It is according to these folks:

http://www.raptureready.com/

the Camp David accords, 25 years of peace with Egypt, a tacit acceptance by Jordan, resistance to open confrontation by Saudi Arabia -nah, let's just say ever Arab and every Arab government is in open war with Israel, and the situation couldn't get any worse.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the street opinion in the countries you mentioned is quite extreme in opposition to these peaceful policies. If Egypt and Jordan became more democratic, you might well see a very different policy. The difficult work of convincing these governments to make peace is seen as a Western swindle, and reasonably enough compared to all the other cases where we used to support horrible dictatorships just to oppose the Soviets. The Egyptian and Jordanian governments have been a lot better partners (in terms of actually working for peace) than many of the dictators we've tended to support - but they still torture and oppress their own people, who in turn--all things being equal--would probably much rather be at open war with Israel. Neither further rewarding the moderate authoritarians nor fostering the populist radicals is going to reduce the ideological conflict. These are inherently difficult, and dangerous, problems for all sides.

What about the Bush-Blair bunker-busting bomb flight flap/fiasco? How will Sumerian Shiite sect militias mull merican made missiles murdering little Lebanese lads?

The publicity on Al Jazeera can't be good for our troops in Iraq.

As my old Marxist friends used to say, this is certainly heightening the contradictions. Sunni versus Shiite, Imperialists versus locals (oil?)

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics And the Catholics hate the Protestants And the Hindus hate the Moslems And everybody hates the Jews

The odds are that this isn't going to wind up with the good folks raptured, or with an exchange of nuclear warheads, or anything outside the experience of the last fifty years. Which is to say it's likelier to deteriorate than improve.

The more history I learn, the more little wars I hear about. It's not out of the question that we're addicted to killing each other.

The Bush Administration "policy" agenda reminds me of the Boy who cried wolf. Everything they do or allow is wrapped in the guise of "terrorism". I don't mind if it's reasonable, because it's a serious threat. But you can't throw that out willy-nilly and expect people to always believe you. I worry about real threats that may get ignored because of the administrations rush to throw out "terrorism". Beiruit is not necessarily linked to al-Queda--OR Hizbullah.

"Tony Blair will press George Bush today to support "as a matter of urgency" a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of a UN security council resolution next week, according to Downing Street sources."

This sounds like an attempt of the tail wagging the dog. Blair will see once again that support for Bush is a one way street. But this may result in a transition of leadership in the UK, so at least some good might come out of it.

It's getting awfully hard to avoid the conclusion that the Cheney Gang wants all out war, utter chaos, possibly even WWIII/nuclear war.

Because nobody could possibly be this stupid.

"Killing terrorists seems to be a good idea to me."
---Thomas

To use a Kevinism, I think Thomas has it “about right”. Any native of the Middle East (unless they are Israeli) is a terrorist and therefore deserves a quick and violent death. Right, Thomas? Bush knows this in his guts. And we all know about the Bush family guts, don’t we? Like when Poppy Bush launched his guts all over the Japanese Prime Minister’s lap – oh, never mind…

Isreal is not protecting itself, it is land grabbing. Same old Isreal, always land grabbing.

Hi there

You could drop a line to my colleague maurice@opendoors-newbusiness.co.uk - he's been in the business for 20 odd years and is happy to dispense free practical advice for these sorts of situations.
For more info check www.opendoors-newbusiness.co.uk

All the best
Antony

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Both of these "wars" were wars of choice, disguised to look like retaliation (the usual lying Jew way).

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier (see above).

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (Shebaa Farms: it was stolen from Syria by Jews in the Jew surprise attack of 1967, so the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return it to Lebanon when they withdrew in 2000) knowing full well how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into Arab lands. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Anyone wanna bet this wasn't leaked by Blairs side? “Yo Blair” looked slightly poodle-ish during the G8 open mike dinner, so he would want a good “telling Bush as it is” story at home. (And there was the bombs at Glasgow airport story)

Meanwhile the Israeli army is moving from quick strikes for as long as the US green light last to IDF spokespeople saying they have all the time they need. And this time will be used to create a buffer zone. Previously there was a lot of talk but no full cross border action. (IDF is still scared over the tanks it developed with the armor for this fight getting blown up and Hezbollah doing actual working ambushes)

And the “faster please” neocon crowd is out in full force. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWZhOTM1N2E0Mzc3NTdlYzQ4YzgyODA3YmNjNWQwMDA=

Ledeen wrote:
Ran across this on the israellycool blog:
> 11:07PM: A senior Hizbullah official has said the group did not expect Israel to react
> so strongly to the capture of two Israeli soldiers.
Remember that the Iranians believe(d) that we (U.S. and Israel) are hopelessly internally divided, politically paralyzed, and hence unable to take a difficult decision and react forcefully. Ergo they thought they had a free hand. A few days ago I compared the attack on Israel to the same blunder Osama made on 9/11. If only we take full advantage.
Which we are not.
All this diplotalk about snuggling up to the Syrians makes me sick. Down with Assad. Down with Khamene'i. The Iranian and Syrian people see their leaders have made a monumental mistake. Support the democracy forces, for heaven's sake. Windows of opportunity close. Faster, please.

So Blair can't possibly seriously think his words will have any effect on the fighting. He may have a lot to talk about, but a pro ceasefire US is of the table.

1: I assume you read Israeli newspapers but in case you don't from reading them it is not at all clear what condition Hezbollah is in or how diminished Israel expected them to be at this point. There does seem to be cause for concern that Israeli military plan was flawed - but all conjecture at this point so drawing sweeping conclusions is a bit silly.

2: You talk of AQ joining the fight as if they had to be provoked, as if they resisted such but Israel has proven itself just too awful so they now reluctantly join the fray. That's idiotic.

3: You seem surprised that Arab leaders view substantive incoherence as sage governance and that their variously enslaved masses vent frustration et al through populist iconolatry. Ah... are you new?

Israel had two choices: ignore provocation or respond. If you believe ignoring provocation was right choice then explain why without going all BBC with copious tears over innocent blood spilled. Innocent blood always gets spilled and we in the west have let loose out share. Britain's own Bomber Harris invented the idea of killing civilians to win a war so BBC styled laments are shallow cant.

But if you support the rationale of responding to a provocation then explain under what terms and how present response fails or meets those terms.
Don't just publish some laundry list of fears and anxieties and stick a question mark at the end of it.

The "urgency" Blair feels about this must mean he fears Londonistan is about to explode with anger.

Responses mustn't be violent responses. That was Israel's choice. Keep justifying their illegal behaviour, saintsimon.

I would hope that the easy manipulation of the Israelis into violent over-reaction, invasion, war on civilians, etc. as a casus belli uniting the Arab world in favor of Hezbollah comes as a surprise to no one. This leads to the logical conclusion that things are working out exactly as both sides intended. (The "masses", be it arab, west, or other, are so easily manipulated by manufactured fear and false bravado, its pathetic.)

It becomes pretty clear that the Bush administration, by not being able to sell the Europeans on the idea of providing a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon, has pretty much failed to deliver to the Israelis what they wanted when the war began. It is equally clear that Hezbollah has been strengthened by the developments of the last two weeks and Lebanon's fledgling democracy has been badly damaged. Iranian and Syria's goals have been achieved.

Don't you think it is time we started insisting on diplomatic competence? To paraphrase a common line on this site, better Neo-Cons please.

So: Tony Blair fears that the war is giving militants a boost; Arab public opinion has turned the head of Hezbollah into a folk hero; and as we already know, al-Qaeda has now decided to join the battle as well. What's more, on a purely military basis, it looks like Hezbollah has only been moderately weakened by the whole thing.

This is working out well, isn't it?

It was apparent almost immediately, when Israel began its destruction of Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure, that Israel's overreaction was probably not in Israel's interest, and -- and this is key -- definitely not in the United States'. Bush's incompetent foreign policy is doing nothing but isolate and weaken the United States. After this debacle, the Republicans likely won't be taken seriously on national security for a generation -- which is, of course, why they're already dusting off the loathsome dolschtosslegende.

Kevin asks, "This [the war in Lebanon] is working out well, isn't it?

Short answer(s):

1. Yes.

2. Do you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Longer Answer:

It's unfortunate (for the Democrats) how little Netrooters like yourself know of current events and their historical antecedents -- or world governance, politics, mathematics, literature, etc (but I digress). Hezbollah IS Lebanon and Lebanon is Hezbollah. Just as fools like yourself believed the trope that "Austria was Hitler's first victim", you swallow the meme that the government of Lebanon and the Lebanese people bear no responsibility for acts of war against a neighboring state.

Facts:

The casus belli for Israel was the raid from Lebanon that resulted in the death of several Israeli soldiers and the capture (kidnapping) of two. This operation was taken with the full knowledge and countenance of the government of Lebanon (of which Hezbollah is part) and with the expectation that it would draw Israel to the bargaining table to extract futher concessions (and to help raise the profile of Hezbollah).

When Israel struck back in force, the army of Lebanon acted in concert with Hezbollah (coastal radars were used to target the Israeli missile frigate lying 10 miles offshore).

Israel targeted ALL strategic assets of Hezbollah including command and control, supply routes, command centers, and weapons depots. This included lots of dual use facilities (roads, bridges, apartment buildings) because Hezbollah -- like all cowardly terrorist organizations, hides behind women and children.

For years, Hezbollah has been firing missile volleys into Israel and gradually gaining strengh, both politically and militarily. It was only a question of time when a full scale war would erupt. The government of Lebanon took no steps to constrain Hezbollah -- indeed, they were a willing partner.

Hezbollah is a child of Iran and the cousin of Syria. Hezbollah is a proxy for both, and both are committed to the destruction of Israel and the death of ALL jews.

For all the nattering in the MSM, it's only idiots like yourself who believe that the Arab states (Egypt, Arabia, et al) aren't cheering Israel on. This is all part of the battle for domination amongst the Muslims, and the Sunnis want no part of Shiite Persians.

If you'd like to read a more nuanced assesment than mine, try the Belmont Club -- you might learn something. But, probably not.

Republicans are not the only ones to blame. Which Democrats are calling for a ceasefire?

No one could have seen this coming. Except tor Richard Armitage who said on NPR that the IOF(sic) bombing campaign would strengthen Hezbollah

"Hezbollah is a child of Iran and the cousin of Syria. Hezbollah is a proxy for both, and both are committed to the destruction of Israel and the death of ALL jews."

"This is all part of the battle for domination amongst the Muslims, and the Sunnis want no part of Shiite Persians."

ah idiot Norm... Syria is Sunni Arab, Iran is Shiite Persian.

Hello !

I write to you just to say that it's very funny to read you from where i live : Brussels (belgium).

You have a very good website !

Thanks for that and congratulations !

Best regards.

Reno

So what do you suggest, Kevin? Give up?

Nice false choice there, Steve.

Israel should withdraw, allow Hezbollah to rebuild its bases and stations in southern Lebanon?

Israel has already acknowledged that it can't destroy Hezbollah, so inevitably, Israel will do exactly that.

Allow Hezbollah to continue to subvert the Lebanese government, thereby fulfilling the wishes of its Syrian and Iranian masters? Allow Hezbollah to continue to manipulate the West through its superb mastery of the MSM?

Now you're descending into ridiculous paranoia. But even granting the premise of your questions arguendo, I fail to see how preventing either of these outcomes justifies Israel's destruction of Lebanon's political and civil infratructure -- or, indeed, how destroying ebanon's political and civil infratructure prevents either of these outcomes.

Face it, the Arabs dislike everything Israel does. So it doesn't matter what Israel does.

Well, Steve, that's a swell justification for Israel's indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. But I call bullshit -- Anger toward Israel (and the US, let's not forget) has undeniably increased, as Kevin's post noted. Are you suggesting this anger is a mere coincidence? That dog won't hunt, Steve. It does matter what Israel does, and I suggest again that indiscriminately targeting civilians is not in her interests -- and certainly not in the interest of the US. Bush's evidence perception that it is is a sign of more than incompetence, but downright recklessness.

This is working out well, isn't it?

Depends on your point of view:

For two weeks or so, the press is off the war in Iraq, this Hezbollah-Israel war is something the press can sink their teeth into. Here while some army commanders may bitch about the coverage, reporters don't have to worry about losing their heads or get their butts shot up like the situation in Iraq.

Just last weekend, it was pointed out that more Iraqis died in Iraq than Israelis & Lebanese combined and more American soldiers were killed in Iraq than Israeli soldiers in their action.

From the press coverage, you'd think the war in Iraq experienced a truce.

Keep this up for 3+ more months until after the first Tuesday in November and Americans may overlook the carnage in Iraq and save W's political bacon and maybe his Presidency.

Israel had two choices: ignore provocation or respond. If you believe ignoring provocation was right choice then explain why blah blah blah

Sweet Jesus, what is it with all these false dichotomies? Are you graduates of the George W. Bush School of Dishonest Rhetoric?

Israel had numerous choices, including how, exactly, to respond. The necessity for Israel to respond does not justify Israel's indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets (nor does it make the strategy of destroying Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure at all a good idea). "Not indiscriminately killing hundreds of civilians" != "Not responding at all."

"Israel had two choices: ignore provocation or respond. "

Really, saintsimon? You don't say. I don't recall anyone on these threads suggesting that Israel did not have the right to respond to the provocation by Hizbullah.

What thinking people on this thread are concerned about is the nature of the response, and the fact that the overwhelming disproportionality of it is destroying what limited leverage we had in the region, and further undermining our own national security.

Face it, the Arabs dislike everything Israel does. So it doesn't matter what Israel does.

Short Hand Version:

In the long run, we're all dead, so let's kill as many people who disagree with us as we can while we can.

Norman Rogers said: "The casus belli for Israel was the raid from Lebanon that resulted in the death of several Israeli soldiers and the capture (kidnapping) of two."

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Both of these were wars of choice, disguised to look like retaliation (the usual lying Jew way).

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier (see above).

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force (IDF) sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (called Shebaa Farms, that has historically been claimed by Lebanon) KNOWING FULL WELL how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into this section of Arab land. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

The Shebaa Farms were owned by Lebanon citizens from the town of Shebaa (in Lebanon) until they were stolen by the thieving Jews in their 1967 surprise attack on the Arabs.

Since the Shebaa Farms were administered by Syria when the Jews stole the Golan Heights from Syria, the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon when they withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Why did Israel attack the UN observer base?:

"The Danish army says that the United Nations has decided to withdraw UN troops from patrol bases and observation posts in south Lebanon"

Looks like it was a tactical and strategic success.

Arbusto........Harken.......Spectrum 7.......Iraq......Lebanon

When a war has to be fought it has to be fought. You don't screw around. You don't stop until the enemy is subdued. You never start a war unless you have prepared for the outcome. Wars are won or lost before the first shot is fired. Has everybody forgotten Sun-Tzu?

It was obvious to anybody who thought about it that the current war was entirely optional. It is clear to anybody who looked that Israel has never really committed sufficient forces (4 mechanized brigades) to actually root out Hezbollah. The Israelis (unlike some of their American supporters) are not stupid. They knew that there was zero chance they could seriously weaken Hezbollah. Obviously, that was not their agenda. It has become clear as time has worn on that the actual Israeli war goal was to secure a peacekeeping force on the Lebanese side of its northern border. The Bush administration has been singularly unsuccessful in delivering that peacekeeping force. Why, I don't know, but their utter foreign policy incompetence probably has something to do with it. Maybe by deciding to let the Israelis fight a little too long the Europeans were able to figure out the con.

Hezbollah has emerged from the last two weeks stronger. The voices in various parts of the middle east who criticized Hezbollah for starting a fight with Israel have become more and more muted as the pictures of collateral damage (dismembered Arab children) have been shown all over the Arab world. What we Americans haven't seen are the pictures of the dismembered "collateral damage." Fox News and CNN are sanitized for our protection. They wouldn't want us to see what war is all about. The Arabs have seen it. They have seen it all.

Lebanon, with a large Christian and secular Muslim population, is a potential ally of Israel. Why do you think the Syrians wanted to occupy it all those years. The democratic government Lebanon has been badly weakened. Instead of sending bombs to Beirut, Israelis should be spending their time between wars building up the Lebanese economy. They need all the friends they can get. If they are really smart over the next months the Israelis will volunteer to rebuild the buildings in Beirut they knocked down trying to kill Hezbollah. That is what the Americans did in Germany after WWII. It worked out pretty well.

No, this war has been an unmitigated mess for the Israeli and American side. Whoever decided to go to war up should be fired.

Never forget what I said in the first paragraph. Wars are won or lost before the first shot is fired.

I read in an English newspaper that the two soldiers were 'kidnapped' inside Lebanon. That makes them targets.

I haven't heard this on cable news or the internet.

I do think Jewish people have control of the newspaper, at least here in my city. And my boyfriend says Clear Channel is owned by Jews.

So if Jews own the talk radio channels, and at least one hometown newspaper, doesn't it seem like they would also be pressured by their own people to hawk the Israeli line?

This is working out about as well as any of those lame peace agreements.

The only way to take out Lebanon's shadow army (Hizbollah) is to take out their current physical structure and ability to strike. Since Lebanon is not coming forward with the locations of Hizbollah, Israel has to strike where it thinks the enemy is hiding. Now that wasn't such a hard execise in logic was it?

This ain't rocket science; it is rocket prevention.

This is working out well, isn't it?

I've come to the conclusion that it's just a mistake to think that the true intended effect of Israeli military strikes is to improve the situation, even from the standpoint of the safety of its own people.

The correct analogy here, I think, is with criminal punishment. There was a time when capital punishment, for example, was attempted to be justified in virtue of its supposed deterrent effect. It was considered to be primitive and unacceptable to advocate for punishment as pure retribution.

But times have changed. Conservatives these days are openly promoting the concept of punishment as retribution, and capital punishment as a particular example. The deterrent effect, if any, is irrelevant -- indeed, it would probably be OK with them if capital punishment could be proven to be an "anti-deterrent" (because, perhaps, it promotes a culture of justifiable violence). Even if there are the same, or even more, murders in a society that employs capital punishment, that's OK, because there is still greater "justice" in such a society, due to the retributions rightly being exacted.

So it is, I believe, with the current Israeli war, and indeed with its entire recent history. Yes, by any rational reckoning, the bombing and destruction in Lebanon will, in the long run, only bring more death and destruction to the Israeli people themselves. One would indeed certainly have to be in deep denial not to recognize this fact.

Yet, in the minds of the Israeli leaders and their supporters, it's still very much worthwhile, because "evil-doers" are being punished. The point is, that punishment is now an end unto itself. In their minds, that punishment creates a world with greater justice, regardless of the consequences. Retribution is being exacted, and that makes the world a morally better place.

Since Lebanon is not coming forward with the locations of Hizbollah, Israel has to strike where it thinks the enemy is hiding. Now that wasn't such a hard execise in logic was it?

It was a wonderful example of faulty -- ah, let's face it: dishonest -- logic, as usual, "Orwell." War is peace, right?

Destroying cars packed with fleeing civilians is not "rocket prevention."

Destroying a well-known UN post is not "rocket prevention."

Destroying Beirut's international airport is not "rocket prevention."

Destroying Lebanese Army barracks is not "rocket prevention."

Here's an exercise in logic for you, "Orwell": The perceived necessity to take out Hizbollah's rocket capability != carte blanche for Israel to do whatever the hell it wants.

Again, what is it with all these false choices Israel's apologists -- or frothing advocates for war like Orwell -- keep presenting? Given that Israel isn't capable of destroying Hezbollah, the IDF has acknowledged it isn't capable of defeating Hezbollah, that Israel's tactics have been targeting Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure -- to say nothing of assorted civilians -- to the exclusion of Hezbollah, and that what Israel has been doing hasn't been effective in cutting down the rocket attacks, why do y'all keep arguing from such a blatantly false premise?

Well, I know "Orwell" relishes the dishonesty -- you can tell from his/her/its handle -- but when you're reduced to defending a scenario that plainly isn't the case, aren't you admitting that what is the case really isn't defensible?

"The only way to take out Lebanon's shadow army (Hizbollah) is to take out their current physical structure and ability to strike. Since Lebanon is not coming forward with the locations of Hizbollah, Israel has to strike where it thinks the enemy is hiding."

Precisely what information do you possess that supports your assertions? Do you actually believe that the Lebanese government knows the precise locations of Hizbullah tactical positions?

As for the Hizbies hiding behind the skirts of their women and behind baby carriages, you might want to read the impressions of people who've actually spent time in Lebanon, reporting on the situation.

This from one such source:

' Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- 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. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. '

This ain't rocket science; it is rocket prevention.

The rocket attacks were a response to the Israeli incursion; the incursion isn't rocket prevention in any sense.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too. '

Which, of course, begs the question, "Where the hell is Mossad in this mess?" It's worrisome that not only is the IDF pissing away its reputation for effectiveness, but so is Israel's intelligence services. Neither is something Israel can afford to lose.

The point of a ceasefire is to give all parties time to negotiate without the pressure of escalating hostility.

George and Condi sound like complete idiots who don't understand this concept.

Hey watcher, I think you need to make your national nomenclature more uniform. You keep calling the Israelis "Jews", yet you keep calling the Syrians "Syrians" and the Lebanese "Lebanese." Perhaps, just so we don't think you're some kind of fucking nutcase paranoid anti-semite (perish the thought!), you could make your terms uniform.

I suggest then, the next time you assault our eyeballs with all-caps and bold font, you use the following terms:

Israelis = Jews
Syrians = Arabs
Lebanese = Arabs
Saudi Arabians = Arabs
Iranians = Persians

Of course, with the nuanced sorts of analyses you provide, it might be difficult to discern whether you're trying to talk about Lebanese Arabs or Syrian Arabs, but thems the breaks if you insist on identifying international players by ethnicity rather than nationality.

Bad Jim: “The more history I learn...”

Yep, the more history I learn the more I realize that people are slaves to their ignorance and prejudices. Look at some of the things that should be unarguable related to this thread:

- The idea that Israelis are inherently “better” than Palestinians and other ethnic groups of the Middle East, or that there is something inherently wrong with Jews, is blatantly false and people with such a view should be ignored and not allowed to ruin things for the rest of us.
- Building settlements on land that the whole world says does not belong to you is extreme aggression. By the whole world, I mean the official position of the nations of the world, except Israel, including those who sanctioned the creation of Israel in the first place.
- There must be a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. Otherwise, there will be no peace, Palestinan kids will always be in jeopardy, and elementary age Israeli school children will always carry cell phones so that their terrified parents can quickly determine if they are still alive.
- Israel must give up most if not all of the occupied territory. The whole world says so except religious fanatics who are in the minority.
- Egypt and Jordon illustrate that peace is possible, especially Egypt. Egypt was the major threat to Israel and managed (with heavy pressure from a U. S. President) to make peace with Israel. It took the return of land and security arrangements for both sides.
- Predominantly Arab/Persian/Muslim countries will have to accept the existence of Israel and go from there, as Egypt and Jordan have done. Officially, they have shown a willingness to do so.
- Acts of terrorism should not be allowed to impede the peace process. To the extent that they do is a reflection of the ignorance, bias, and prejudice that exists in all the populations involved.

For their part, the Israelis seem to think that if they keep pounding civilians, they'll get some fighters, too.

No, it's just like in Vietnam, where the soldiers were ordered to torch villager's thatched roofs. Attacking civilian infrastructure was supposed to discourage support for the Viet Cong.

All that the US Army strategy did in Vietnam was horrify US reporters on the ground. Now, with the Internet, the same strategy in Lebanon, as well as Gaza, is horrifying ordinary people around the world.

George and Condi sound like complete idiots who don't understand this concept.

Not to dispute the obvious characterization of Bush and Rice as idiots, but it doesn't seem like they don't understand the concept so much as they don't care. Their style -- with Hezbollah, Iran and North Korea, among others -- are to demand concessions as a precondition to negotiations.

Of course, given that the negotiations are rightly perceived as attemtpting to secure something the US wants, the involved parties -- evidently unimpressed with the US show of force in Iraq, strangely enough -- decline, and we get nowhere.

Couple that with the conflation by dishonest Bush cultists -- but I repeat myself -- of "negotiation" with "appeasement", and two things become clear: That Bush and Rice arent' really interested in negotiation, and that Bush's track record as an incompetent CEO is an even bigger liability in the field of foreign relations as it is the rest of governance.

And that, I'll own, is a bold statement.

Blair's advisors must have been very busy on the flight to DC going over talking points with Blair.

Such as, "Sit", "Stay", "Roll Over" and "Fetch"

Well. Geo. W. Bush did say he was a uniterer not a dividerer. He is uniting many interests inthe Middle East, some which never would have united if left on their own.

Wonderin
This from one such source:

' Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb...

Link? That statement right there I can guarantee is false.

"Face it, the Arabs dislike everything Israel does. So it doesn't matter what Israel does."

Hey, most of the world dislikes us, too. So I guess that's a really good reason to keep making the stupidest, most destructive choice available at every turn. In the immortal words of Country Joe (and his Fish), "Whoopie, we're all gonna die!"

A war without borders in the making
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

A day after killing four United Nations workers, Israel's cabinet has simultaneously called up reservists and announced that there will be no "major offensive" inside Lebanon. This in light of Hezbollah's tough resistance and continued ability to fire rockets at Israel more than two weeks after the latter declared its military objective of finishing off Hezbollah.

Since then, Israel has lost the sympathy of much of world opinion. The United States finds itself completely isolated in its uncritical support for Israel and its "clean break" policy aimed at dominating the region.

"A massive blow to Hezbollah has not yet happened," lamented an Israeli pundit, and another one, Meron Benvenist, writing in the liberal paper Ha'aretz, gloomily predicted that "the major losers in this conflict will be the people of Israel".

....

In fact, the present conflict has exposed Israel's military weaknesses and vulnerabilities. As an Israeli analyst has put it, "Israel does not have the overwhelming strategic superiority that it thought it had." With Hezbollah single-handedly delivering a major blow to Israel's military prestige irrespective of the blows it has received so far, any Syrian or other Arab willingness to succumb to the combined "carrot and stick" pressure politics of the US and Israel and thus appear as betraying their own historic self-understanding and ideology is, indeed, a remote possibility.

Meanwhile, in light of al-Qaeda's call on all Muslims to unite against Israel, instead of the much-hoped-for realignment, the US and Israel should worry about an alternative realignment materializing in the midst of the present conflict - that is, a new Shi'ite-Sunni alliance cutting across intra-religious frictions and discords as well as national boundaries for the sake of protecting the abode of Islam against the might of "Israel unchained", the "new Mongols" per an Iranian editorial, and unhinged from any restraining influence by the US superpower (as was the case in, most notably, the Suez crisis).

Consequently, with the initial Israel-US goal of a swift crippling of Hezbollah fast turning into a nightmare quagmire in Lebanon, thus causing a major regional conflagration, the much-dreaded "wider war" seems all but inevitable - it is the wider "war on terrorism" that will bring both al-Qaeda and, by implication, the US back to the Lebanese theater of conflict.

Israel's invasion may, therefore, be cloaked in a new political jargon, but increasingly the ominous prospect of a long war bespeaks a new strategic Middle East where the United States may ultimately accept the legitimacy of Hezbollah. In that case, the US would have to back down from its ferocious demonization of Hezbollah as terrorist pure and simple and accept, however reluctantly, that Hezbollah in many ways meets the description of a national-liberation movement.

....

Hey normie! Ever heard of Maronite Catholics? Or how about secular Ba'athists? Or maybe even Druze Muslims?

Presumably not, because if you think Lebanon is Hizballah and Hizballah is Lebanon, than you've got yer head planted so far up your posterior you probably don't have sufficient light to do a little reading about Lebanese factions.

Admittedly, Hizballah has become increasingly popular among non-Shia groups in Lebanon since the outbreak of fighting two weeks ago (likely due to Israel's indiscriminate use of airpower and the resultant high # of civilian deaths). However, when the Cedar Revolution took place, Hizballah supported Syria, NOT the majority of Lebanese who wanted Syria out of Lebanon. In fact, once the Ceder Revolution had occurred, there was a coordinated effort to have Hizballah disarm.

Since the conflict has begun, the Lebanese government has disavowed Hizballahs actions and called for a ceasefire. That the Lebanese Army and government has said that it will fight an Israeli invasion does not mean it supports Hizballah, rather it means that it intends to protect Lebanon's state border.

That said, perhaps you could tell us why we might construe the current conflict as being "successful". Apart from five or six paragraphs of ignorant blather and the condoning of retributional murder, you haven't actually told us WHY you think the war is going well.

So, please do. We all need a good laugh.

Thanks,

Both Germany and Japan had to be defeated by total war before they were able to overcome their desire for oppressive empire. What is most troubling today, is that even if the US had to fight the entire world it would never surrender and instead turn to its nuclear arsenal and destroy the entire world before giving up and becoming a peaceful member of the world community like Germmany and Japan have done.

I propose that every message board partisan in this conflict be rounded up and shipped to the region so that they may do something constructive for their respective causes.

Just a thought.

Sincerely,

theperegrine

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb...

Link? That statement right there I can guarantee is false.

Which part? 16-days, high above, civilian areas, or targets of opportunity?

Which part? 16-days, high above, civilian areas, or targets of opportunity?

Well, the "planes make decisions" part is pretty clearly false, unless the IAF has advanced far beyond the rest of the world in what kind of AI it has and uses in tactical aircraft.

The "16-day old war" is questionable, on some grounds, but no more than any of the other ways in which Arab-Israeli wars are conventionally referenced.

Why does anyone find it remarkable that Nasrallah is considered a folk hero?

Not to validate your various assertions about the "Arab street," but --

Because Israel's actions produced this counterproductive result?

I have wanted to go to Palestine and participate in non-violent protest over the Israeli occupation for a very long time. I think it is the only way to resolve the conflict. Who would assassinate me first, Mossad or the PLO? My guess is a US gifted Caterpillar tractor would crush me to death or a US gifted missile would be fired from a US gifted F-16 into the apartment I would be sleeping in. But is is possible a Fatah assassin would find me first or a Hezbollah missile would fall upon me. Since I am neither Arab or Jew, I think I will stay at home and appeal to my government to stop sending all those weapons to one of the antagonists instead.

cmdicely
Well, the "planes make decisions" part is pretty clearly false, unless the IAF has advanced far beyond the rest of the world in what kind of AI it has and uses in tactical aircraft.

That part. To be exact, the pilots of the planes. With precision guided weapons, it is extraordinarily rare that higher authority isn't the targeteer, and the plane just the shooter. I'd still like to see the link, for info purposes.

Kevin points out that Israel's war against Lebanon has several big problems, which he lists. His rhetorical question implies that this war is therefore a mistake.

Kevin's post is an enthymeme -- a syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly. Kevin's missing premise is something like this: Foreign policy actions that lead to big problems are wrong. Most critics of the Iraq war use a similar hidden premise -- if the war isn't going well, it was a mistake.

Sadly, many crises have no perfect solutions. There are downsides to every approach. As several reasonable posters have pointed out, it's not enough to observe civilian deaths and angry Arabs. One can only evaluate whether Israel's action is wrong by comparing it to some other approach.

RSM,

The link you requested:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/index_np.html

I don't see how having the article in front of you will address your claim, though. If you think that the author is wrong about a particular tactical issue, well, then you think he's wrong about it.

Not saying it's accurate, but here's a fair and balanced source:

John Gibson: "And basically they are doing it with airstrikes and planes on patrol looking for targets of opportunity"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204726,00.html

I'd still like to see the link, for info purposes.

It's from an article posted on Salon.com.

Google is your friend.

For all you wingnuts who are doing yeoman work to guarantee the continuing destruction of the Democrat Party, here's the Inimitable Krauthammer to explain the world to you in words even you morons can understand.

Kevin, does your browser work for any non-wingbat sites?

Bin Ladin and now Zawahiri tell us that they want a restoration of the Muslim empire that will stretch from Al-Andalus (Spain) to Iraq,

And I want a pony and for Bush to be impeached - but it won't happen.

Most critics of the Iraq war use a similar hidden premise -- if the war isn't going well, it was a mistake.

No, it was a mistake from the very beginning and many critics said so. And it would still be a mistake regardless of how "well" it was going - whatever the hell that means.

"But times have changed. Conservatives these days are openly promoting the concept of punishment as retribution, and capital punishment as a particular example."

It's all Old Testament, all the time now, babe!

Ah, wingbats and the idiots that watch them. You have a bit of drool right there, Norm.

What no links to Max Boot, Normie?

Krauthammer...sheesh.

mhr writes: “Muslims excel at hate- hatred of Jews and of Christians and of Hindus and of Buddhists and of women and of one another- Sunnis and Shiites.”

You know, I appreciate the fact that you pay attention to what terrorists like Bin Laden are saying, that’s important. But don’t juxtapose their view and actions to all Muslims. I see plenty of Muslims who don’t fit that description and plenty of non-Muslims who do.

I’ve seen my own fellow U. S. citizens celebrate some pretty crazy things. It’s pretty crazy to me how Fox News comes very close to “celebrating” the Israeli action in Lebanon.

When people celebrate in the street, news media are going to cover the story. It’s our job to evaluate what it means and to keep everything in perspective. I don’t assume Muslims are against me just because of the ones who celebrate other people’s tragedy.

ex-lib,

Doesn't shoveling all that straw wreck havoc on your allergies?

You really have to admire the command of language "ex-liberal" uses to express his/her/its dishonesty.

Kevin points out that Israel's war against Lebanon has several big problems, which he lists. His rhetorical question implies that this war is therefore a mistake.

So, "ex-liberal", how are you going to address the contention that Israel's war on Lebanon is a mistake?

Kevin's missing premise is something like this: Foreign policy actions that lead to big problems are wrong. Most critics of the Iraq war use a similar hidden premise -- if the war isn't going well, it was a mistake.

Ah...with the tried-and-true tactic of the dishonest Bush apologist, the false paraphrase. I particularly love your "hidden premise" of if the Iraq war isn't going well, it was a mistake. (Of course, many identified it as a mistake prior to the invasion, and the contention that Iraq merely isn't going well has to be the understatement of the century.

Sadly, many crises have no perfect solutions. There are downsides to every approach.

Irrelevant -- this straw man implies that Israel's actions was simply one of many equally valid options. Instead, its indiscriminate targeting of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure was obviously both unnecessary and a grave error. But I note with interest that the "downside" -- hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians -- to Israel's current approach hardly seemed to be an impediment.

As several reasonable posters have pointed out, it's not enough to observe civilian deaths and angry Arabs.

Au contraire -- how is pointing out the excessive civilian death toll, and the growing anger in the Arab world, not, as you seem to want to imply, a reasonable measure of Israel's error?

One can only evaluate whether Israel's action is wrong by comparing it to some other approach.

Wrong. Israel's targeting of the civil and political infrastructure of Lebanon, and its targeting Lebanese civilians, is wrong, full stop. (Unless the "other approach" is a revival of the inherently dishonest suggestion that Israel "do nothing" in response to Hezbollah's provocation.)

I am fascinated, though, with "ex-liberal"'s tacit admission -- certainly he/she/it doesn't contest the issue -- that Israel's war in Lebanon does, in fact have big problems and is, in fact, now perceived as a mistake. When the dishonest Bush apologists start shifting the argument to "what else could you have done?," you can take that as an acknowledgement of yet another foreign policy fiasco.

Killing terrorists seems to be a good idea to me.
That's no doubt what Hizbollah fighters think they're doing: killing the people who have, from their point of view, been terrorizing Palestinians for several decades.

When you use the word "terrorist", you automatically reveal yourself as being partial to one side, and therefore part of the problem, not the solution.

I don’t assume Muslims are against me just because of the ones who celebrate other people’s tragedy.

That's right! Why won't Fox News report the good news that everyday hundreds of millions of Muslims don't dance on the corpses of Americans and Israelis?

Quite hilarious.

A wingnut posts a link to a Krauthammer piece supposedly advising Democrats on how to save themselves from extinction.

Next: Rush Limbaugh advises Bill Clinton to hire Ann Coulter as his PR agent.

RSM,

The link you requested:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/index_np.html

I don't see how having the article in front of you will address your claim, though. If you think that the author is wrong about a particular tactical issue, well, then you think he's wrong about it.
Posted by: Wonderin

Thank you. It's proper form to give attribution to article quotes.

On a more serious note, it boggles my mind that we have such a hard time understanding why the "Arab Street" would come out on the side of Hezbollah in this conflict.

Who else are they supposed to side with? Hezbollah is sticking it to the man in a region that hasn't seen anything but defeat, whether through failed military campaigns or the continued rule of propped-up, authoritarian governments.

Let us not forget that Hezbollah perfected the use of the suicide bomb, showing anyone who was paying attention how to make life tough for an invading army. Personally, I blame Saint Reagan, for being the pussy that legitimized the tactic.

I’ve seen my own fellow U. S. citizens celebrate some pretty crazy things. It’s pretty crazy to me how Fox News comes very close to “celebrating” the Israeli action in Lebanon.

John Hagee and other Christian Zionists are downright giddy for example.

I know it's beyond your collective intelligence to understand right from wrong (especially when it comes to hating Jews and these United States), but here's a pithy quote from Glenn Reynolds that might help you idiots gain a little perspective:

"As one blog commenter noted (I forget where I saw it), the difference is that Israel causes civilian casualties when it misses its targets, Hezbollah causes civilian casualties when it hits its targets."

Nah, on second thought -- you morons are so mired in the dirty deal life has given you (you're SOOOOO much smarter than a guy who has degrees from Harvard and Yale and has twice won election to big-state governor and President -- why are you reduced to doing odd-jobs?) that you will no longer even try to see straight.

The great thing about this is that you morons are pulling the Democrat party into irrelevancy. Have any of you idiots seen the destruction John Bolton wreaked upon your last Presidential standard-bearer? http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-bolton-embarrasses-confused.html

It's classic! Bolton redered Kerry SPEECHLESS for thirty seconds!

Gregory wrote: I am fascinated, though, with "ex-liberal"'s tacit admission -- certainly he/she/it doesn't contest the issue -- that Israel's war in Lebanon does, in fact have big problems

Every war has big problems -- first and foremost all the people killed and wounded. Nevertheless, some wars needed to be fought, such as WW2. And, some wars ought to have been fought, but weren't, such as the inaction against Hitler in the 1930's.

and is, in fact, now perceived as a mistake.

Yes, I agree that Israel's war against Hezbollah is perceived to be a mistake by Kevin and many posters on this board.

Instead, [Israel's] indiscriminate targeting of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure was obviously both unnecessary and a grave error. But I note with interest that the "downside" -- hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians -- to Israel's current approach hardly seemed to be an impediment.

Get real. If Israel had set out to kill Lebanese civilians, there wouldn't be hundreds of dead civilians, there would be hundreds of thousands. Israel has tried to attack targets with military value.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has blatently attacked civillian targets, with no claim of military purpose. They fired thousands of missiles filled with pellets and ball-bearings that pierce metal and bodies, riddling flesh and organs with holes akin to swiss cheese. Yet, Gregory has no criticism of Hezbollah.

Bush, never lets an opportunity to pass him by without waving at it first.

Tony Blair is like the mistress who perpetually thinks her man is going to leave his wife.

"George will have to listen to me this time."

So - watcher is back to frog-march me to Bergen-Belsen.

sc wrote: "Killing terrorists seems to be a good idea to me." That's no doubt what Hizbollah fighters think they're doing: killing the people who have, from their point of view, been terrorizing Palestinians for several decades.

This is correct a far as it goes, but we're right and they're wrong. Western culture is superior to the culture of barbaric terrorists.

文化
教育
社会

教育,学生用品,文体活动,文化用品.

办公用品
办公用品，办公用品网，北京办公用品，办公用品公司，办公用品管理，办公用品批发，办公用品超市，采购，配送，北京

办公用品行业协会
办公用品
办公用品
办公用品博客
办公用品
办公用品edu
办公用品sina
办公用品webloog
办公用品ebigchina
办公用品
办公用品

"As one blog commenter noted (I forget where I saw it), the difference is that Israel causes civilian casualties when it misses its targets, Hezbollah causes civilian casualties when it hits its targets."

So Israel missed when it hit the Beirut airport, the Beirut power station and all those other parts of the infrastructure that the Israeli military admits to intentionally targeting?

People forget that Hezbollah only came into being with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Shia cheered when Israel came because they thought it would help them in their war, but Israeli brutality and indisrciminate use of violence led to the creation of Hezbollah.

What type of new terrorist group do people think will grow out of this Israeli action this time? My guess is that we might just see a Maronite or broader Christian group come into being as a major force that could threaten Israel, possibly drawing on the old ideologies of the Guardians of the Cedars, but this time explicitly anti-Israeli.

Also, has anybody noticed the lack of any mention of the Druze in all the news reports about this conflict? Have I just missed it?

"Yes, I agree that Israel's war against Hezbollah is perceived to be a mistake by Kevin and many posters on this board."

Eventually, it becomes apparent that attempts to explain a nuanced view are futile. Some people simply don't do nuance.

But just for kicks: it isn't Israel's response to Hizbullah's attacks that many people perceive to be a mistake, it is the nature and extent of that response.

Many people believe that it is counterproductive.

Furthermore, no one is saying that what Hizbullah is doing is not heinous. Juan Cole, for example, the dreaded liberal professor reviled by the wingnuts, has claimed that Hizbullah is commiting war crimes.

Once again, it is the scale of Israel's response that is at issue.

This is correct a far as it goes, but we're right and they're wrong. Western culture is superior to the culture of barbaric terrorists.
Posted by: ex-liberal on July 28, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

As the Bush-loving Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, Sharon's attacks against innocent Lebanese were downright barbaric. Does this mean that Israeli culture is automatically barbaric as well? When Westerners brought the world the Holocaust, imperialism around the world that was often accomplished via genocide, the killing off of the natives of the Americas and the Australian aborigines (among others), the deaths of 10 million in the Belgian Congo, Italy's invasion of Ethopia, support for apartheid in South Africa, RENAMO, the killings of the Kikuyus in Kenya during the Mau Mau, etc. were they representing Western values? If Russia is Western and Marxist theory was crafted in Germany, was Stalin representing Western culture during the Terror? Are Westerners only representative of Western civilization when they act civilized but everybody else is reflective of their civilization whether or not they act civilized? My guess is that you keep on moving the goal posts depending on whether or not someone is Western.

ex-liberal, you win the Jingoist of the Month Award - hell, you are in the running for all-time most ethnocntric bastard of the universe.

People forget that Hezbollah only came into being with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

No, they don't forget any such thing. It's not true. Hezbollah is a comination of several terror groups that had been around for decades and formed as a result of the Lebanon civil war and support from Iran than began with Khomeni.

It's a liberal fallacy that fighting terrorist creates terrorists. It's like saying fighting Nazi's creates Nazi's or fighting crime creates more crime. It's a repulsive ideology of appeasement.

Reality Man
So Israel missed when it hit the Beirut airport, the Beirut power station and all those other parts of the infrastructure that the Israeli military admits to intentionally targeting?

Targeting infrastructure (a runway, for example) is different from targeting civilian population centers.

People forget that Hezbollah only came into being with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Shia cheered when Israel came because they thought it would help them in their war, but Israeli brutality and indisrciminate use of violence led to the creation of Hezbollah.

You make no mention of Iran's role in all this. And why has Hezbollah continued to strengthen it's military position, given that Israel withdrew? It's more complicated than you make it to be.

What type of new terrorist group do people think will grow out of this Israeli action this time? My guess is that we might just see a Maronite or broader Christian group come into being as a major force that could threaten Israel, possibly drawing on the old ideologies of the Guardians of the Cedars, but this time explicitly anti-Israeli.

My guess is that a civil war between Hezbollah and other sects in Lebanon starts up after this winds down.

Also, has anybody noticed the lack of any mention of the Druze in all the news reports about this conflict? Have I just missed it?

They're waiting. That's my guess. Some good reading on the subject...

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

Actually, I would say that it is possible to fight terrorism without creating terrorists, but we are not pursuing a course of action that produces less terrorists. Currently, we are producing more at an exponential rate in an impoverished area with an explodign birthrate and no opportunity and less hope for a better future. Generating desperation does not crush terrorism, it engenders it.

And facing a harsh truth does not make one a terrorist sympathizer. It makes one intellectually honest.

I especially like how ex-lib uses the number of civs Israel has killed (now at 600) to prove that they are not targeting civs, while using the number of civs that Hez has killed (~20) as proof that they are targeting civ.

The mind of the wingnut.

It's a liberal fallacy that fighting terrorist creates terrorists.

No, its not. First, because liberals don't believe that.

They believe that fighting terrorism stupidly creates more terrorists.

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

And facing a harsh truth does not make one a terrorist sympathizer. It makes one intellectually honest.

No it makes one an intellectual coward and a fool. One defends oneself because it is necessary and the right thing to do. One does not refuse to defend oneself against a bully because it might be unpopular and create more bullies. History has shown it's the exact opposite. Terrorists go after babies and women 1st for a reason. They're not trying to defeat you militarily. They're trying to get you to surrender.

For whatever reason post-68 libs are appeasers. FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ are about as far away from the current Democratic party as is possible. You are now the party of surrender.

Lot's of people have dual citizenship - includign me and a couple of civillians because we were born off-base in other countries. That doesn't make me spell without vowels, just because I was born in Wales.

I didn't mean civillians - I meant siblings. Preview is my friend...

That doesn't make me spell without vowels, just because I was born in Wales.

Yeah, but I bet it makes you crave bad tasting food....

History has shown it's the exact opposite.

Actually, the recent history of our fighting "terrorists" in Iraq utterly refutes your argument. After three years of fighting terrorists there are now more insurgents and more attacks than ever. Even worse, formerly friendly populations have turned against us, like in Basra.

But I realize what you are really after is a good sound bite, not sane analysis of the effectiveness of tactics.

Carry on, boob.

Irony alert: Norman Rogers cites Glenn Reynolds in lecturing about knowing right from wrong.

Of course, Rogers also apparently cited Krauthammer in all seriousness, so perhaps it's less ironic than just pitiful.

Meanwhile, "ex-liberal" just keeps the dishonesty and obfuscation coming.

Every war has big problems -- first and foremost all the people killed and wounded.

Ah, so "ex-liberal" would like to imply that Israel's war in Lebanon is no different from any other wars.

Except, of course, that Israel has had complete discretion in determining how it chooses to fight this war. And that Israel itself has admitted that it's impossible to achieve the stated goal of destroying Hezbollah. And that Israel would be doing a piss-poor job of achieving that goal even if they did believe it possible. And that it attacked civilian targets that had nothing to do with Hezbollah. And that "all the people killed and wounded" include a wildly disproportionate number of Lebanese civilians.

All of which adds up to big problems far beyond the usual conflict, especially "ex-liberal"'s entirely inappropriate analogy to WWII.

Nevertheless, some wars needed to be fought, such as WW2.

That some wars need to be fought does not prove that this war needs to be fought, of course, nor does it come close to proving that this war needs to be fought the way Israel chose to fight it.

And, some wars ought to have been fought, but weren't, such as the inaction against Hitler in the 1930's.

That some wars need to be fought and weren't does not prove that this war needs to be fought, of course, nor does it come close to proving that this war needs to be fought the way Israel chose to fight it.

And, of course, "ex-liberal" merrily embarks, one again, on the dishonest false dichotomy of Israel fighting its war the way it has chosen to do so and not fighting it at all.

Yes, I agree that Israel's war against Hezbollah is perceived to be a mistake by Kevin and many posters on this board.

Yet you have not even made a single argument to challenge that perception.

Get real. If Israel had set out to kill Lebanese civilians, there wouldn't be hundreds of dead civilians, there would be hundreds of thousands. Israel has tried to attack targets with military value.

Pointing to the amount of greater harm Israel could do does not establish that Israel is not, in fact, attacking civilian targets. Your assertion that "Israel has tried to attack targets with military value" is probably true in the strictest sense, but it is also undeniable that Israel has tried and succeeded in attacking civilian targets of no military value, and that it has attacked "targets of military value" -- which is not the same thing as a military target, of curse, nor does it connote any obligation for Israel to attack -- with little evident regard for civilian casualties.

And, finally, the fact that Israel claims a military purpose to a given attack doesn't necessarily make it so.

One is again forced to admire the slipperiness of "ex-liberal"'s rhetoric, but his/het/its assertions simply are not supported by the facts.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has blatently attacked civillian targets, with no claim of military purpose. They fired thousands of missiles filled with pellets and ball-bearings that pierce metal and bodies, riddling flesh and organs with holes akin to swiss cheese.

A classic appeal to emotion, there, "ex-liberal." Thank you for the tacit admission that you don't find your logic all that persuasive -- in that regard, and that alone, you're correct. But, given that the Israelis are also attacking civilian targets and also with weapons that inflict grievous trauma, we're supposed to be impressed exactly how? Once again, justfying Israel's bac actions by pointing to Hezbollah's simply doesn't work. That dog won't hunt.

Yet, Gregory has no criticism of Hezbollah.

And "ex-liberal" adds ad hominem to his collection of fallacious arguments. First, of course, it's simply untrue that I have not condemned Hezbollah. Here, I'll do it again: Hezbollah is wrong to target civilians. And by that same logic, so is Israel. I condemn whoever targets civilians, and I give no one a free pass.

Unlike you, "ex-liberal."

But, again, bringing up Hezbollah does nothing at all to justify Israel's destruction of the civil and political insfrasturcture of Lebanon.

And:

This is correct a far as it goes, but we're right and they're wrong.

Now there's a convincing asserton! We marvel at your command of rhetoric, "ex-liberal."

Western culture is superior to the culture of barbaric terrorists.

As Israel is demonstrating even now. [rolls eyes]

And after all that slippery rhetoric, "ex-liberal" has written not a single word to challenge the contention that the way Israel has chosen to conduct its war is a mistake. Now, "ex-liberal," do you care to address the point?

Thank God Mom would go into a Kosher phase whenever we were anywhere near the British Isles!

Targeting infrastructure (a runway, for example) is different from targeting civilian population centers.

Given that much of said infrastructure in in civilian population canters, no, it isn't different at all.

Furthermore, apartment buildings, which Israel is targeting, are by definition civilian population centers.

Moreover, of course, Israel had no need to target Beirut's civilian airport, having as it does total air superiority over Lebanon. (Save your speculation about Israel shooting down a civilian aircraft -- nothing of the kind was flying and you know it.)

RSM, again, your assertions that Israel's attack on the airport were military rather than an attack designed to inflict terror on civilians -- your own definition of a terrorist attack -- are simply not convincing. But your moral equivalence in giving the side you favor a free pass is duly noted.

My guess is that a civil war between Hezbollah and other sects in Lebanon starts up after this winds down.

Well, as little value as RSM's "guesses" have, it's interesting that he predicts Israel's folly will result in just the kind of debacle that Bush's incompetence created in Iraq. It's also interesting that RSM concedes the nonsense of Bush's claims of promoting democracy. And such a bloody, destabilizing result makes Israel's assault on Lebanon not a mistake, exactly how?

So what's the great plan of you guys for solving the problems, as you define them?

NOTE: Please define what the problems are first, then tell me the solutions.

Thanks in advance.

I just love getting the responsibility of shoveling up after the elephants pass through town, don't you?

Global Citizen:

From your lips to baby Jesus' ears.

Here's my own surmise:

Problem -- Islamofascists want to kill people who don't share their radical views of Islamic superiority.

Solution -- Shoot the Islamofascists.

Problem - Zionists want to kill people who don't share their radical views of Jewish superiority.

Soluion - ?

And the Christofascists and the Judeofascists and the Hindufascists and the Tamilfascists and the NEoCommiefascists, and...

Gregory
Well, as little value as RSM's "guesses" have...

Actually my guess is based on Michael Totten's analysis, who has lived there and studied the situation for 6-7 months. And also Fouad Ajani's. You are welcome to read their analyses and try to refute them.

It's also interesting that RSM concedes the nonsense of Bush's claims of promoting democracy.

Non sequitur. And I hope that we can get a multi-national force in their to accomplish SC 1559. The doubt is in whether the any country will be willing to provide the force. If the western countries don't, Syria and Iran will be glad to meddle. And they side with Hezbollah.

And such a bloody, destabilizing result makes Israel's assault on Lebanon not a mistake, exactly how?

So you think there wasn't going to eventually be a fight between Hezbollah and Israel, why? Or that Hezbollah was ever going to allow the Cedar Revolution to be successful, why?

After three years of fighting terrorists there are now more insurgents and more attacks than ever.

Not at all. Attacks against Americans have dropped substantially as the insurgecy has grown into the resurgence of a very old sunni-shite battle. This is again Arab versus Arab over religious difference and political power. The US didn't create terrorists. All of these terrorist were aleady there. It's the culture.

Disputo -- So I'll put you in the kill all the Joos camp, pending your walk back of the above post.

Global Citizen -- So I'll put you down for killing everybody who is religious, with a similar caveat as above.

Any more problem solvers out there?

I was just agreeing with your solution, Birkel, you are the one who brought up killing the islamofascists as a solution. The thing about fuinal solutions is they are never quite final. And how would neocommiefascists be "religious?"

GC -- So I'll put you down for killing religious folks and the new commies.

Fantastic.

(And drop all the final solution horse shit. Godwin's Law. Look into it.)

Killing those who want/plan/intend/are trying to kill you is called self defense. It's an interesting concept. If you'd like a reference I can provide one.

"Any more problem solvers out there?"

Step 1: push for an immediate ceasefire. If this means getting on the horn with the Syrians and the Iranians to pressure the Hizbies while we simultaneously pressure the Israelis, so be it. (Also promise future talks with the Syrians and the Iranians as a carrot.)

Step 2: use what remains of our reputation and credibility at the UN to cajole everyone possible to contribute troops to a muscular, SC resolution 1493-type peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon. This is the scary part, as it would by necessity have to be a force authorized and equipped to use "all means necessary" to enforce the ceasefire and disarm the Hizbies.

Step 3: pray like hell.

Step 2 will not happen, regardless of what Israel claims it wants, so step 3 is the operative task.

It is with great relief that I bring the following conscience-clearing news:

There's a very simple test for determining who is a terrorist and who is not. A 'terrorist' is anyone killed or maimed by the US military or the Israeli military.

Wonderin,

There is an almost limitless amount of "no" in the world. Here's how your plan would work in actual operation:

Just like Camp David. Where one side signed, smiled, shook hands and then cheated their happy, smiling asses off.

Or they'd just say "no" and keep on keeping on without all the fake posing.

Not much of an argument.

And finally, this praying you mention won't help one jot or tittle. HINT: There's no God.

Attacks against Americans have dropped substantially as the insurgecy has grown into the resurgence of a very old sunni-shite battle.

Actually, American troop fatalities were just as high this past April, May, and June as they were last year.

And that's with fewer patrols to put troops at risk and about thirty thousand fewer troops, as you've been fond of pointing out recently.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

I don't know why you'd lie and diminish the service of those in uniform, but there it is.

Any more problem solvers out there?

Birkel, since you rival Charlie/Thomas/Henry for sheer witless know-nothingism, let me just say that this:

Killing those who want/plan/intend/are trying to kill you is called self defense.

...is a recipe for unmitigated disaster.

First, it creates a strict moral equivalence between you and your "enemy." Your enemy--by YOUR logic--is equally justified in slitting your throat as you are his. Self-defense, Jocko.

Second, in just the tiniest, most insignificant of ways, your formulation has a few operational problems. Can you guess what they might possibly be?

Like, first and foremost, how do know who wants to kill you and who hates your fucking guts but doesn't want to kill you, and who doesn't hate your guts and doesn't want to kill you but simply happens to live next to someone you suspect does?

And why does murder appeal to you so much as a means for solving your problems with human relations? Doesn't really say much for your character, does it? Isn't that what makes the "terrorists" so repulsive?

Have you ever considered the virtues of attempting to make friends rather than reaching for a trigger to pull?

Birkel threatens:

Disputo -- So I'll put you in the kill all the Joos camp, pending your walk back of the above post.

What vile crap!

Put me in the "Christian and Muslim Lebanese are human beings on par with Jewish Israelis" camp, which of coure distinguishes me from genocidal bigots such as yourself.

Kevin, it is way beyond time your moderated against hate-mongers like Birkel.

Broncs will definitely win the AFC west...long as Plummer doesn't choke again.

And providing the Chiefs do...

Global Citizen,

Certain American cities are known for excellent fine dining, but to my taste there is no beating the quality of the Kansas City Chefs.

Isreal is skipping:

War reparations refer to the monetary compensation provided to a triumphant nation or coalition from a defeated nation or coalition. The compensation is meant to cover damage or injury during a war. Generally, the term war reparations refers to money or goods changing hands, rather than such property transfers as the annexation of land.

My son in law is a Kansas City Chef (on the Plaza) - I'll pass on your compliment!

Off topic: Remember that Snickers commercial, where the old guy painted "Chefs" in the end zone instead of "Chiefs?" (Great googly-moogly!)

Yeah,
I remember how trying to kill all the Nazis during WWII was such a bad strategy. Now that you guys have reminded me that self defense is morally equivalent to assault and battery I'm quite sure I will turn away from the dark side.

Do you guys ever read what you write.

Pure comedy gold! Lefties bring the funny!

Ron Byers said "Maybe by deciding to let the Israelis fight a little too long the Europeans were able to figure out the con."

Yeap.

Ron Byers said "Whoever decided to go to war up should be fired."

No, he should be hung by his neck till dead.

Orwell said "I read in an English newspaper that the two soldiers were 'kidnapped' inside Lebanon. That makes them targets."

Not quite true. It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Both of these were wars of choice, disguised to look like retaliation (the usual lying Jew way).

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier (see above).

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force (IDF) sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (called Shebaa Farms, that has historically been claimed by Lebanon) KNOWING FULL WELL how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into this section of Arab land. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

The Shebaa Farms were owned by Lebanon citizens from the town of Shebaa (in Lebanon) until they were stolen by the thieving Jews in their 1967 surprise attack on the Arabs.

Since the Shebaa Farms were administered by Syria when the Jews stole the Golan Heights from Syria, the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon when they withdrew from Lebanon in 2000.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

THE JEWS HAVE NO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS HEROS

After Sandy Koufax, I know of no others.

BUT NEITHER DO THE ARABS

Abraham was known to be quite the hoops players, I do not understand why he religions are populated by such klutzes.

I HAVE LOST MY MIND

I named my cat Shebaa because I wanted to.

DO NOT HATE ME BECAUSE I AM AN ANTI-SEMITE, HATE ME BECAUSE I AM STOOPID

I once failed a urine test because it was multiple choice.

Israelis = Jews
Syrians = Arabs
Lebanese = Arabs
Saudi Arabians = Arabs
Iranians = Persians

I would never agree with anything watcher says, never!

But, I would like to point out that you only got 3/5 of these correct. Only slightly better than your basic RWinger. Maybe Amazon has some good buys on Middle East history...you could use the help.

I would never agree with anything WhackO says:

Look what the idiot believes

1) that all Lebanese are Arabs.
2) that all Israelis are Jews.
3) that all Iranians are Persians.

Get a brain turkey.

WhackO probably believes in the HolyCo$t fable as well.

The HolyCo$t fable is easily shown false, as follows: Look at this photo of a,...

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 when the Soviets released certain documents found at Auschwitz.

Have a look at these photos of yet more plaque from Auschwitz:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR I USE BOLD FONT YOU CAN'T IGNORE

I talk to Arafat in my dreams, he keeps telling me, "plastics, Benjy. Plastics."

HELP, MY CAPS KEY IS STUCK. VIRUSES ARE COMING OUT OF MY COMPUTER AND INFECTING MY BRAIN

I LIKE TO SAY "HOLYCO$T BECAUSE IT MAKES ME LOOK COOL

When I say holyco$t it is like I am a rapper, LL CoolJew.

A MILLION HERE, A MILLION THERE...PRETTY SOON YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF DEAD JEWS

And that makes me very, very happy. I wish I was Eva Braun.

I'M A GOYL WATCHER...I'M A GOYL WATCHER...WATCHING OVER YOOOOOUUUU

Watch out Merkin Idol!

Fishing for one idiot and I caught another.

Priceless.

Interesting bookends of news.

1) CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin:

* "Israel has made so little progress in destroying Hezbollah, that some US intelligence analysts are now saying the attempt to create a buffer zone in Southern Lebanon has actually bogged down"

* "Both US and Israeli intelligence have underestimated the strength, capabilities, and resilience of Hezzbolluh"

2) The Humanitarian Ambassador for the United Nations is reporting that ONE THIRD of all of those killed in Lebanon by Israel are CHILDREN.

So, the Israeli RightWing is unable to put a dent in Hezbollah, but have done a bang-up job of massacring children.
.

I think I know who "watcher" is. I think he or she is a Phelps Phuckhead from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (congregation 12 - all family members.) These are the assholes who protest funerals - but aren't the basic tenets of Christianity to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and bury the dead?

More children have died than armed combatants.

The idea that Israelis are inherently “better” than Palestinians and other ethnic groups of the Middle East, or that there is something inherently wrong with Jews, is blatantly false and people with such a view should be ignored and not allowed to ruin things for the rest of us.

- Building settlements on land that the whole world says does not belong to you is extreme aggression. By the whole world, I mean the official position of the nations of the world, except Israel, including those who sanctioned the creation of Israel in the first place.

- There must be a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. Otherwise, there will be no

Funny how the crazies troll Left Wing sites for fellow travellers.

Funny.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Birkel...

Just because you are a crazy, you should not expect that everyone is. Your lack of ability to make distinctions is exceeded only by your arrogance and ignorance.

And, you can add yourself to the one of the caught.

To summarize:

Lefties filled with hatred come here to post some good crazy.
I mock their crazy.
So the wanker above calls me crazy.

Got it.

Love the Frischy goodness.

What tortured reasoning you exhibit. Did it hurt?

Perhaps you should go back to "loving" yourself. Or do you only do that when you can't spew forth your hatred on blogs?

Ad hominem

Non sequiter

Know any other techniques of argumentation?

The truth can hardly be called ad hominem.

In addition, it's hardly argumentation to speak truth to fools like you. It's more like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now go try an get more than three of your brain cells to function at the same time.

Please, Whacker, seek help for your condition.

Although I'm not a medical professional it is important that you regain touch with reality.

For the children.

Carl Rodgers said, "Every person defines their own reality."

Your version is filled with the hate and drivel of your fellow Wingers.

I'll take my version (where the children get to live), thank you.

Now go "find yourself."