Get uglier?

You mean some repug is going to nominate Rice for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Trust me.
It has already happened.

There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon.

Well, except for all those Rapturist Republicans, who happen to control all the levers of power in this country.

Oh, and Dick Cheney too, not because he's a Rapturist - that's all just useful idiocy to him - but because he gets a kick from seeing Muslim children die.

but war is so much more fun then stability and peace, not to mention, its good for defence contractors and their shareholders, and it makes CNN more interesting to watch with all those pretty lights going off in the background.

Rush says Hezbollah is killing the civilians for PR purposes. Goebbels would be so proud. Rush bemoans the current international disdain for killing civilians. It was good enough for the greatest generation; it should be good enough for us.

There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon.

And there was hardly any one left in the entire world who supported England's position on Nazi Germany when Churchill stood alone in the 30's to fight the Nazis. Yet England prevailed and the Nazis were destroyed. This is World War III. Bush is just like Winston Churchill right now in his unyielding stance against the Islamofascism of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and Iran. And just like Churchill we will achieve victory against the forces of totalitarinism and Islamofascism.

Leadership is defined by wilful inattention to world opinion when it comes to matters of principles. With their bold stand on continuing to allow IDF to kill women and children with our precision guided bombs, GWB and Dr. Rice fit the definition of leadership as snugly as Ann Coulter fits the definition of a patriot.

Rush bemoans the current international disdain for killing civilians.

would that we could only kill the civilians who think it's fine and dandy to kill civilians...

... the supply line through Shiite territory is THE weakness of the US army in Iraq which apart from unrest over Lebanon is why any action against Iran could be devastating for the US. It could mean US forces with little or no fuel fighting a disciplined and supplied foe.

Even the part of me that thinks it would be better for the world for the US to get a bloody nose doesn't want to see this.

The Bush administration wants all-out war in the Middle East.

They are fast losing their grip on power and if Rove believes anything it is that more evil begets more conservative votes.

Thus, create evil to create votes.

The Bush administration arranged this little foray into Lebanon in order to draw Syria and Iran into a shooting war with Israel that would allow the US further expansion of its military ops in the region without the ugly need to unilaterally invade non-belligerent countries like it did so unsuccessfully with Iraq.

Israel supports our position on Lebanon. Is that not a country? Or maybe it doesn't count, being Jewish?

For myself, I would rather have Israel on my side than Germany, France or Egypt, but my moral compass is evidently different from Kevin's.

The Al's are right. Peace is boring and lacks the moral clarity seen in John Wayne films and the original Star Wars.

Oh great, out foreign policy is now being dictated by a Shitte cleric.

Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation.

Yes, but as long as the GOP gets the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian vote this November, it's all good. Once that's out of the way, then we'll worry about U.S. and British forces.

"What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq's profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation."

And the Jews and Israelis are accused of ruling the world? Much has been written about the inordinate power that Jews and the Lobby have over American foreign policy. I think we are about to see who really has the power to crack the whip. While left and right nuts call Jews traitors and dualists for supporting a foreign power--Israel--the Islamic world has no qualms about marshalling the combined resources of all "Islamic nations" to "not forgive the entities that hinder a cease-fire" towards one of their brethren. It's funny how Jews get blamed for a war that is only bringing Islamic extremists into power!

War gives me bad thoughts. While I do not want anyone to kill or be killed, it would be much better if ony those who start wars and those who support those who start wars to suffer from them. Unfortunately, it is almost always the innocents caught in the middle who suffer the most. My bad thoughts will not contribute to finding a way to peace, which I think will have to come from the strong being generous and giving concessions to the weak.

sean: . . . my moral compass is evidently different from Kevin's.

You obviously don't have a moral compass, if you think destroying another country in retaliation for its (alleged) extremely indirect responsibility for a non-terrorist attack against military personnel is justified.

Advocate for God,

"You obviously don't have a moral compass, if you think destroying another country in retaliation for its (alleged) extremely indirect responsibility for a non-terrorist attack against military personnel is justified."

There are proximate causes, and long standing causes. Its hard to argue that most of the Western World went to war 90 years ago because some second rate potentate was assasinated.

Would the attack upon Israeli personnel have led to the reaction we have seen from the Israelis if there hadn't been continuous rocket attacks by Hezbullah over the past six years of "peace" with (at best) no intervention by the UN "observers" or the Lebanese government?

Things could get even uglier than they already are very quickly.

I don't really buy the Shiite revolt scenario, but the fact that the possibility needs to be entertained is, well, unfortunate.

Let's not forget how belligerent we were towards Syria and Iran shortly after the fall of Saddam. Now we may find ourselves begging them to call off their dogs. It's amazing how far and how fast our military mystique has fallen. Thanks guys!

When you ask yourself; how bad will they let this situation become?

Then ask yourself; how bad did they allow New Orleans become?

I highly recommend to anyone who doesn't believe that they are willing to destroy their own country, to take a trip to New Orleans, and see for yourself, the degree of destruction and degradation they will embrace.

For myself, I would rather have Israel on my side than Germany, France or Egypt, but my moral compass is evidently different from Kevin's.

Given than Germany, France and Egypt haven't killed fifty civilians -- many of them children -- at a stroke, I'd say it is different indeed. Sheesh.

Can we at least stop pretending that Israel is being careful not to target civilians?

Well, other than that, things are looking positive, right Gen. Custer?

Uri Avnery, an Israeli writer and journalist put it nicely, they mounted a tiger and don't know how to get off.

Even Clinton was not an honest broker between the Palestnians and Israelis, but Bush has joined the twins at the hips, the US and Israel are now siamese twins.

Looks like we are on a long and bumpy ride on the back of a tiger.

Would the attack upon Israeli personnel have led to the reaction we have seen from the Israelis if there hadn't been continuous rocket attacks by Hezbullah over the past six years of "peace" with (at best) no intervention by the UN "observers" or the Lebanese government?

There weren't continuous rocket attacks. What's been happening since Israel's response are continuous rocket attacks. Ask a resident of Haifa if the peace you consider imaginary is the same thing as what's happening now.

The terrible irony is that Israel launched the attacks to (A) degrade Hizb Allah's operational capability; (B) convince the Lebanese and Syrian governments that bringing Hizb Allah's paramilitary to heel was preferable to failing to do so and provoking Israeli retaliation; and (C) "show America how to crush an insurgency" (in the words of a source who has been briefed on talks between the Israeli government and outside organizations).

Hizb Allah's capabilities are not seriously degraded, to judge by the rain of rockets falling on northern Israel. PM Saniora is now openly supporting Hizb Allah in a reversal from the first days of the conflict, as are Maronite Christians in neighborhoods bombed by Israel; Nasr Allah is the new poster boy of anti-Israeli hatred in the Middle East. And if Israel commits ground forces to rooting out Hizb Allah village by village and house by house, we're back to the last occupation of Lebanon.

So Israel has failed by every measure related to its original goals. Internally, they originally estimated this to be a two-week offensive, after which world pressure and the U.S. would force a cease-fire -- hopefully with Israel holding the trump cards. Instead we're looking at an open-ended war in which all Hizb Allah has to do is survive to be seen as the winner.

Israel got into this because of our failing occupation of Iraq: if Iraq falls to the internal Shi'ite militias, then Israel is facing a continuum of geopolitical interest stretching from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Israel's front step in Lebanon. The calculation Israel made was that a brief and powerful offensive action could shake loose Lebanese toleration of Hizb Allah and convince Assad in Syria that his interests were not fully parallel with those of Iran. Syria is the gateway between Hizb Allah and Iran; if that were closed, Hizb Allah would, over time, cease to be a significant threat.

The gamble doesn't seem to have worked. So how do we -- the U.S. and Israel -- extricate ourselves from a storm that threatens to become a deluge?

Gregory,

"Given than Germany, France and Egypt haven't killed fifty civilians -- many of them children -- at a stroke, I'd say it is different indeed. Sheesh.

Can we at least stop pretending that Israel is being careful not to target civilians?"

If, every so often, shots came whizzing out of my neighbor's second story window at my head, my first reaction is to find a way to stop the shots. One shouldn't target the little girl whose room her daddy is firing from, but what happens if there is no way to defend oneself without hitting back at whoever is firing from that room?

It doesn't seem that the Israelis are celebrating when they hit civilians. Hezbullah, on the other hand, is not even making an effort to target military personnel, and the neither the Lebanese government nor the UN "observers" made en effort to stop them over the past six years.

"You obviously don't have a moral compass, if you think destroying another country in retaliation for its (alleged) extremely indirect responsibility for a non-terrorist attack against military personnel is justified."

First, Israel's reaction hasn't been adroit or successful. On that we all can agree.

Second, agreed that it wasn't a terrorist attack. It was an act of war by one country (Lebanon) against another, under international law. Hezbollah's militia is an adjunct to the Lebanese military under Lebanese law. Thus, in effect, Hebollah declared war for Lebanon by invading sovereign Israeli territory (the attack did not take place in the Shaeba Farms area).

Third, it wasn't wise for Israel to treat this as an act of war, however, they had the right to do so.

Gregory
Can we at least stop pretending that Israel is being careful not to target civilians?

You are a useful tool of the Hezbollah. Let's see what the UNIFIL folks are reporting this weekend, shall we?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/unifilpress.htm

There were two incidents of firing close to UNIFIL positions from the Israeli side in the area of Marwahin and Deir Mimess in the past 24 hours. At the same time, it was reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of six UN positions at Tibnin (2), At Tiri, Beit Yahoun, and Alma Ash Shab (2). UNIFIL strongly protested all these incidents to the Israeli and Lebanese authorities respectively.

30 July 2006:

It was reported that Hezbollah fired rockets from the vicinity of three UN positions in the area of Tibnin, At Tiri and Brashit. They also fired small arms fire from the vicinity of two UN positions in the area of Alma Ash Shab and Al Duhayyra. UNIFIL strongly protested all these incidents to the Israeli and Lebanese authorities respectively.

31 July 2006:

Two tank rounds from the Israeli side impacted directly on a UNIFIL position in the general area of Hula yesterday afternoon, causing extensive material damage, including the ammunition shelter, but no casualties. One aerial bomb impacted in the vicinity of a UN position in the area of Alma Ash Shab yesterday morning, causing damage to the parameter wall. It was reported that Hezbollah fired rockets from the vicinity of this UNIFIL position prior to the aerial bombardment. Hezbollah also fired small arms fire from the vicinity of the same position. They also fired rockets from the vicinity of two UNIFIL positions in the area of Tibnin and At Tiri in the central sector. There was one more incident of firing from the Israeli side close to UNIFIL position in the area of Mays al Jabal, when 10 tank rounds impacted 100 meters from the UN position. UNIFIL strongly protested all these incidents to the Israeli and Lebanese authorities respectively.

Think Hezbollah wouldn't hesitate to shoot from an Elementary school playground?

"Things could get even uglier than they already are very quickly."

Oh really, Kevin, and what possible new "ugly" could surpass what's going on now?

BTW, I think we're drowning in ugly right now.

>> There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon.

Hey?! What about Canada? When Bush speaks, Harper salutes.

galsnost,

"There weren't continuous rocket attacks. What's been happening since Israel's response are continuous rocket attacks. Ask a resident of Haifa if the peace you consider imaginary is the same thing as what's happening now."

Sure, things have escalated quite a bit, and tragically so. But OK... let's eliminate the word "continuous" and say that there were only "sporadic" rocket attacks against random civilian targets over the past few years. I don't remember any criticism about that at this site.

And my earlier question holds - if someone, be it Unifil, be it the international community, be it the Lebanese government, be it whoever, had tried to do something about the sporadic rocket attacks, does anyone think the Israeli reaction would have been the same as the one we observed?

Further thoughts:

Tragically, what Qana (II) shows, is that using "human shields" works. Using civilians as cover is an act of terror in and of itself, but, tragically, when fighting an ethical Western force (i.e. Israel in this instance) it is effective. Either that force doesn't attack, thereby proving the effectiveness of the "human shield" or it does -- killing civilians and providing a massive propaganda victory for the terrorist. The deaths at Qana can be rightfully attributed to Hezbollah.

There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon.

How about Poland? Has Kevin even bothered to look up the positions of Vanuatu or Fiji?

"You mean some repug is going to nominate Rice for the Nobel Peace Prize?"

Tookie was nominated, and Arafat actual received it in 1994... who did Rice murder earning her a shot at this prize?

WatchfulBabbler, you're assuming the goal of those in power is to extricate ourselves. It may very well be that all is going according to plan, ultimately leading us to war with Iran.

We already know that we can't win a consensus for attacking Iran by bringing up the "WMD" charge, since we used that up for Iraq. Therefore, the only way we are going to be able to attack Iran is for there to be a real (or preceived real) threat on the ground. These latest developments seem to be setting the perfect stage for such desirable circumstances.

After all, if Syria and Iran get into it, won't we be *forced* to *defend* our ally, Israel, from attack by these neighbors?

The sad thing is that we are lead to believe that the Arabs are the problem, and once we eliminate them from the face of the Earth, all will be well. What we're not told is that it's not just the Arabs, but next come the Russians and then, ultimately, the real targets of all this posturing....the Chinese. So, as long as the NeoCons are in power, my guess is we're going to be at this for a LONG time.

Not sure if it's nationalism or fascism, racism or whatever other "ism" that's driving all of this, but there is definately a strategy behind it all. It's nice and easy to assume that Bush & Co. are incompetent. I think it's easier to assume that they are idiots than to believe that they actually know what they are doing...it's just that what they are doing goes counter to what any reasonable human being would ever dream up...therefore they look incopetent in their actions. To consider the truth behind their motives would be to admit to being lead by madmen.

So, to my original point, it may be premature to assume that we want to extricate ourselves from this situation.

"You obviously don't have a moral compass, if you think destroying another country in retaliation for its (alleged) extremely indirect responsibility for a non-terrorist attack against military personnel is justified."

Actually, the responsiblities fall squarely on Hezbollah's shoulders for deliberately using civilians as human shields.

If, every so often, shots came whizzing out of my neighbor's second story window at my head, my first reaction is to find a way to stop the shots. One shouldn't target the little girl whose room her daddy is firing from, but what happens if there is no way to defend oneself without hitting back at whoever is firing from that room?

Under the laws of most state in the US, if by firing back at your neighbor you kill his little girl then you've committed murder or, if the prosecutor is feeling especially generous, manslaughter, even if he started firing first. While you have the right to defend yourself, exercising that right does not give you legal immunity to harm others so that you may live. By your own analogy you're conceding that what Israel is doing would be considered a crime if done here.

"And there was hardly any one left in the entire world who supported England's position on Nazi Germany when Churchill stood alone in the 30's to fight the Nazis."

Al, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? At least you have Freedom Farter to look down on.

"Either that force doesn't attack, thereby proving the effectiveness of the "human shield" or it does -- killing civilians and providing a massive propaganda victory for the terrorist. The deaths at Qana can be rightfully attributed to Hezbollah."

It can only be a victory if people will actually buy the nonsense. And so, the terrorists will continue to use the civilian human shields tactics because they know the useful idiots in the West will, without fail come to their aid.

Contemplator,

Well, "competent but insane" is certainly one option -- but if it is, then all this jaw-jaw isn't going to change the war-war, is it?

If the people running the show really believe we can attack Iran or Syria and not face apocalyptic consequences (and whatever eschaton the neoconservatives may immanentize, to use Voegelin's phrase, it's not the "Left Behind" one), then we're beyond any kind of normal democratic dialogue and into the realm of pure power politics. We may indeed be at that point -- certainly the Schmittian discourse of the administration's legal filings lend support to that interpretation -- but God help us if we are.

"Even the part of me that thinks it would be better for the world for the US to get a bloody nose doesn't want to see this."

LOL, like the 99.999% of you? I am sorry, but the US military will not lose to Iran as you may hope. If there's any lesson to be learned in Iraq, maybe it's that Iran won't be rebuilt after we win.

" While you have the right to defend yourself, exercising that right does not give you legal immunity to harm others so that you may live."

Well no. You do not have legal immunity to intentionally harm others so that you may live.

If you are exercising reasonable self defense and someone is inadvertently harmed then you may indeed plead self-defense as ann affirmative defense and escape liability.
In other words, if your use of lethal force in self-defense was justified, then you are not culpable for the death of the little girl so long as you exercise such lethal force reasonably (i.e. you at least attempt to aim). However, the death of the little girl would, in most jurisdictions, be chargeable to the guy who actually started the matter.

Carrots & sticks.

One of Israel's apparent goals was to teach the Lebanese that Hezbollah is to blame for their suffering, and that support for Hezbollah brings pain. The Lebanese no longer see it that way.

One reason Hezbollah was/is so popular the last few years was their community support (albeit w/Iranian cash). What would it have cost Israel to do the same?

"By your own analogy you're conceding that what Israel is doing would be considered a crime if done here."

Maybe the EU should issue an arrest warrant...

Stefan,

"Under the laws of most state in the US, if by firing back at your neighbor you kill his little girl then you've committed murder or, if the prosecutor is feeling especially generous, manslaughter, even if he started firing first."

So what would you do if the option is to fire back or possibly die? To extend the analogy, the cops and the neighbors have turned a blind eye to this for years.

" While you have the right to defend yourself, exercising that right does not give you legal immunity to harm others so that you may live."

Nathan: Well no. You do not have legal immunity to intentionally harm others so that you may live.

How exactly does the "well no" in the second sentence follow from the one above?

Frankly, I'm just amazed that Nathan is posting under his own name given the flaying he endured a few weeks ago....

you're conceding that what Israel is doing would be considered a crime if done here.

Under intl law Israel is engaging in war crimes, pure and simple. No need to analogize to criminal law.

Stefan,

I'm certainly no attorney, but I was curious about your homicide comment and did some googling. I found this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/homicide
"Noncriminal homicides include killings committed in defense of oneself or another and deaths resulting from accidents caused by persons engaged in lawful acts. "

It really seems to me that this falls under both defending oneself, and an accident which occurs while one is engaged in a lawful act, namely defending oneself. I'm sure there are limits to how far this can be pushed, but there it is.

Stefan:

the key part that you omitted was the word "intentionally"...

cactus' analogy was, in fact, apt...as in that scenario he would not be on the hook in any American jurisdiction.

do you really think that cops get charged with murder or manslaughter everytime they inadvertently kill a bystander in a shootout? bullshit.

as for the purported "flaying"...my arguments stand for themselves...I understand your need to resort to ad hominems and the constant revisiting of old threads (do you guys really want to go back over the old Plame threads and see whose predictions were born out?)

Militant capitalism's goal is to eliminate useless eaters.

So what would you do if the option is to fire back or possibly die? To extend the analogy, the cops and the neighbors have turned a blind eye to this for years.

Well, then you're fucked. You have to choose if saving your own life is worth more to you than the little girl's life. You may decide that you'll risk that little girl's life to save your own, if you're that kind of fellow. But if you do so, you should acknowledge that fact, and if you wind up killing her you should accept the consequences of your actions -- turn yourself in to the police, tell them what you've done and why you did it, and let the legal system run its course.

What you should not do, if you're a civilized man, is to kill the girl, shrug your shoulders, say "bitch got in the way" and pretend as if you didn't do anything wrong.

To help you understand this better, let's say someone broke into your home, barricaded himself into your little daughter's bedroom with her in it so you couldn't get him out, and then started firing on the neighbors. Would you want your neighbors to respond by firing back into your daughter's bedroom or not? Would you be OK if they killed your daughter?

Babbler,

No, I'm afraid that we...here in this forum...won't be able to affect the war-war in any immediate way. :P

However, in a Republic as we have it (if in fact we still do) it is important for the people to share ideas and contemplate the actions of their representatives in order for the conversation to have a chance of spreading beyond the small pockets (such as what we have in this forum, for example).

Now, of course, we also have to deal with the likes of Al and his ilk who are more than likely paid to patrol these corridors and spew their nonsense, but they are easy to spot as their drivel is nothing more than copy/pasted talking points modified to fit within the narrative of the moment.

To go back to what you brought up regarding facing apocalyptic consequences....again, I would have to say that we would be premature to assume that they are NOT trying to bring about apocalyptic consequences. Not that they all believe in the apocalypse, but that such consequences definitely benefit each of the interests involved in their own respectful way. Israel gets to rebuild their temple, the Christian fundamentalists can be happy to know that once it's rebuilt, it can be destroyed again so that Jesus can return, the Military Industrial Complex gets to sell more weapons and bombs, the racists get to see ethnic cleansing and rejoice, the oil companies make tons of profits, the bankers profit-take...many industries and special interests stand to gain a great deal from such circumstances.

And yes, I would agree with you that we are beyond any kind of *normal* democratic dialogue, as we have been since the election some 6 years ago.

God help us indeed, to identify and reveal the true nature of the madmen so that the American people can take appropriate action, because America represents the hope of mankind, not its destruction.

cactus:

like Stefan I am an attorney...but it appears that my recollection of first year crim law (probably the last time both he and I had it) is better...his might have been much longer ago.

yes, inadvertent deaths as a result of "reasonable" (a legal term of art) self defense are not culpable to the person exercising self-defense. they can, however, be part of a felony murder charge to the original attacker, in most jurisdictions.

"To help you understand this better, let's say someone broke into your home, barricaded himself into your little daughter's bedroom with her in it so you couldn't get him out, and then started firing on the neighbors. Would you want your neighbors to respond by firing back into your daughter's bedroom or not?"

I can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable.

That's simple fact. You're confused on the law.

Israel gets to rebuild their temple, the Christian fundamentalists can be happy to know that once it's rebuilt, it can be destroyed again so that Jesus can return,

Jeez, I want them to build it and just blow it up again the day it's finished, just so they can see that Jesus ain't coming back. (at least not with this contrived fetish bs prophecy fulfillment crap).

Stefan,

"Well, then you're fucked. You have to choose if saving your own life is worth more to you than the little girl's life. You may decide that you'll risk that little girl's life to save your own, if you're that kind of fellow."

You're kidding, right? Shots are ringing out from a window and I'm supposed to figure out not just where the shots are coming from and how to defend myself, but also if other innocent people are in the room as well? And I can't react until I determine all that, plus their state of mind (i.e., is the girl in on it?) or I'm some sort of an asshole? All the while taking fire?

I can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable.

How many innocents can one man kill in order to save his own ass before he becomes legally culpable? As a legal matter, of course....

cactus:

Stefan is simply wrong. Don't worry about it.

His confusion stems from his (correct) recollection that you're not allowed to kill innocents to save yourself. This is true as far as it goes: if someone says "I will kill you unless you shoot Joe Blow"...you cannot then kill Joe Blow and assert self-defense or necessity. That is correct. However, inadvertent deaths as a result of reasonable self defense are defensible in every American jurisdiction. Stefan confused the former case with the latter.

You're kidding, right? Shots are ringing out from a window and I'm supposed to figure out not just where the shots are coming from and how to defend myself, but also if other innocent people are in the room as well?

Well, yeah. That's the cost of living in a society -- you can't just shoot wildly, and you have some responsibility to determine that you're not shooting at innocent people.

And I can't react until I determine all that, plus their state of mind (i.e., is the girl in on it?) or I'm some sort of an asshole? All the while taking fire?

If you're trying to analogize to Israel's situation, you have to admit you have knowledge other innocent people are in there. Israel, after all, knows perfectly well it's firing on population centers filled with civilians.

Stefan,

"To help you understand this better, let's say someone broke into your home, barricaded himself into your little daughter's bedroom with her in it so you couldn't get him out, and then started firing on the neighbors. Would you want your neighbors to respond by firing back into your daughter's bedroom or not? Would you be OK if they killed your daughter?"

Which is why I started this by asking - would Israel's reaction have been any different if someone, anyone, Unifil, the Lebanese military, the international community, whoever, had done anything about the Hezbullah attacks on Israel over the last six year?

However, inadvertent deaths as a result of reasonable self defense are defensible in every American jurisdiction. Stefan confused the former case with the latter.

I can't believe I'm responding to the idiot Nathan but...

There's nothing "inadvertent" about deliberately firing into the bedroom that you know the innocent little girl is in -- quite the opposite, it's a premeditated and deliberate act. Nathan is confused about the meaning of "inadvertent."

nathan:

inadvertent deaths as a result of reasonable self defense are defensible in every American jurisdiction.

Now you're equivocating or walking back. Previously you said:

I can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable.

Which is a much broader standard.

So which is it? Either you can kill innocents if your only other option is death, or only if the deaths are inadvertent to your self-defense.

Stefan
If you're trying to analogize to Israel's situation, you have to admit you have knowledge other innocent people are in there. Israel, after all, knows perfectly well it's firing on population centers filled with civilians.

In fact, if you want to *find* the civilian population centers and UN outposts, just follow the Katushyas back over the border.

I give the Hezbollah points for sheer ruthlessness.

You're kidding, right? Shots are ringing out from a window and I'm supposed to figure out not just where the shots are coming from and how to defend myself, but also if other innocent people are in the room as well? And I can't react until I determine all that, plus their state of mind (i.e., is the girl in on it?) or I'm some sort of an asshole? All the while taking fire?

Then what about my analogy above, where I said:

To help you understand this better, let's say someone broke into your home, barricaded himself into your little daughter's bedroom with her in it so you couldn't get him out, and then started firing on the neighbors. Would you want your neighbors to respond by firing back into your daughter's bedroom or not? Would you be OK if they killed your daughter?

Do you think your neighbors should perhaps figure out if your little daughter in in that room before firing back? Would you want them to, or would you prefer they shoot before before making sure?

I understand your need to resort to ad hominems and the constant revisiting of old threads

Shorter Nathan: please don't bring up that humiliation again!

Nobody gives a hoot about justifications when the twisted faces of dead children are shown on television screens around the world.

Osama Bin Laden did not expect the World Trade Center to collapse. If he had said, "my bad", would there have been no need for a War on Terror?

Disputo:

"Which is a much broader standard.
So which is it? Either you can kill innocents if your only other option is death, or only if the deaths are inadvertent to your self-defense."

er no. I was simply articulating how self-defense would be reasonable in that situation. Normally, your neighbors should simply move out of the line of fire. the only way they could be reasonably firing back at that bedroom is if they had no other option. the death of the girl would be, of course, inadvertent.

Stefan: "There's nothing "inadvertent" about deliberately firing into the bedroom that you know the innocent little girl is in -- quite the opposite, it's a premeditated and deliberate act."

um, you know better than that. what would be inadvertent (because unintended) would be the death of the girl.

of course the amusing thing in all this is that since Israel has a legal obligation to protect its citizens, it is better analogized as a cop shooting at a gunmen shooting at civilians. Does anyone here really want to claim that when a cop kills an innocent bystander in shootout with a gunman that the cop is culpable?

Thought not. For the record, in most American jurisdictions, the gunman would be charged with felony murder even though it was the cop who killed the bystander. And that's a fact.
Stefan, before you continue your ad hominems you might actually want to look this up.

"you have some responsibility to determine that you're not shooting at innocent people."

Nice backtrack. This is, of course, correct. But if you're shooting at a gunman and there are innocents in the room with the gunman, you may not be liable for their deaths (depending upon the reasonableness of your firing at the gunman)....even if you know that they may be there as well.

"Shorter Nathan: please don't bring up that humiliation again!"

Not at all. My comments stood for themselves. And you proved yourself a liar.

It's sad that there seems to be zero recognition of the documented fact that Hizbollah are operating from civilian locations. There is even photographic evidence that Hizbollah were in fact operating in Qana. This does not make the killing of civilians around Lebanon all right, or absolve Israel of responsibility, but the double standard applied to Israel is just outlandish. And of course, one justification for that double standard has long been that Israel's military is so much more powerful than its opponents, so those opponents have no choice but to aim deliberately for soft-target civilians. But the fact that Hizbollah, with its own massive foreign-state backing, has reached a degree of fighting parity, while cause for smirking from the critics of Israel, will no doubt do nothing to alter the double standard.

There is talk of Hizbollah having brilliant PR skills, but they don't need them. If you are fighting against Israel, there is virtually no act you can perform that will turn world opinion against you. This frees you up to engage in all manner of tactics otherwise considered moral outrages--oh, people will say they condemn such acts, but the condemnations never get legs or teeth, just as they have not done this time. The outcome, that "essentially, no one left in the entire world [...] supports" Israel, is a no-brainer requiring no PR work at all from Hizbollah. If Israel makes any mistake whatever, the world immediately breathes a sigh of relief and returns to its default position.

The fact that Hizbollah's killing of civilians, albeit in smaller numbers, is not a mistake, but openly and avowedly deliberate, is instantly dismissed in everyone's calculus of where to apply outrage and international pressure.

"Do you think your neighbors should perhaps figure out if your little daughter in in that room before firing back? Would you want them to, or would you prefer they shoot before before making sure?"

These are all factors that go into whether their actions would be reasonable....something which is determined by the totality of the circumstances.

But, it's a quite a bit different from your first (wrong) blanket statement to cactus. I give you credit for recognizing your error. Now if you would just admit it....

Contemplator,

It's useful to remember how far beyond the conservative mainstream the administration is on this issue; when Ed Luttwak starts telling you you're making a massive military mistake, it's time to listen. (Kissinger and Scowcroft are also examples of conservatives renewing their attack on what they see as an administration spiraling out of control due to neoconservative influence.) More pointedly, each of these Wise Men of the GOP are saying the same thing: engage, engage, engage. Bring Iran to the table and expect some hard, long neogitations. Open the door to Syria and give them a reason to move out of the Iranian axis. Bashar doesn't come with the psychological baggage against Sadat and hence the unwillingness to meaningfully negotiate on Israeli security. Syria is never going to totally withdraw its influence from Lebanon, so try to stabilize the area rather than command it.

Now, you can argue that the old guard, with its limited allegiance to Israel, has about as much power as the Democrats do in Washington. But I see some faint hope in that the serious face of the GOP is rallying against what I fear will be a downward spiral of chaos in the Middle East.

MidEast expert Patrick Lang's latest blog, which states that Lebonese would view any peacekeeping force as an occupation force, to be met with resistance:

"An editorial in the Syrian government daily Al-Ba'th, titled "International Force or New Occupation?" read: "Whoever thinks that the presence of international forces on Lebanese soil is the solution is wrong – since these forces, in the eyes of the resistance fighters and in the nationalist and pan-Arab view, would be occupation forces, like the forces that have occupied Iraq and other places in the world.

"As long as [the international forces] are of this type, it will be necessary for the forces facing Israel in southern Lebanon, the Arab brothers, and those friends in the world who stand alongside the resistance to put up resistance against them and to clash with them, [and this will be done] through various means and methods. Whoever puts his trust in the [idea that] destruction, murder, and even occupation can impose solutions that violate sovereignty and national honor – he is wrong."(1)

In an editorial in the Teshreen daily, Izz Al-Din Darwish wrote: "What is the meaning of an international force? The meaning is the subjugation of Lebanon to Israel's will and placing it before the potential of a renewed civil war. [It would also mean] the removal of the reasons for living in southern Lebanon in which these forces would be stationed – this in light of the reports that are filtering in, according to which Israel is placing a condition that it be the one who will decide who will be allowed to live in the south and who will not. In addition, it is demanding that these international forces [be deployed] in the greater part of the southern territories, to a depth of 30 kilometers. " MEMRI

---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Yes. I know. MEMRI. I got it.

Nevertheless, if these translations are correct, then the chance that existed for the US and Israel to make a deal with Syria is now gone.

Pat Lang

"Osama Bin Laden did not expect the World Trade Center to collapse."

But he certainly would have wished it.

"Do you think your neighbors should perhaps figure out if your little daughter in in that room before firing back? Would you want them to, or would you prefer they shoot before before making sure?"

Not to sound flip, but tragedies happen. Cops inadvertently shoot innocent bystanders. It doesn't make them bad people, nor, in many cases, is it their fault. Unfortunately, if a guy is shooting at other people from a window, people will react. They often will not have the opportunity to simply flee (to where exactly would you have the State of Israel flee?), or to determine who else is in that room, and what the state of mind of the others in the room might be. That is tragic. And I mean that whether it is my child or someone else's child in that room. (I'm very unhappy about what is going on in Lebanon - for almost all involved. Some, and this includes some all sides, are assholes.)

But it is even more tragic if you insist on putting the blame for the whole affair on the guy who was getting shot at in the first place. Especially if the shooter has been taking random potshots at him for a while, and each time, your reaction so far has simply to break out with the popcorn and watch.

Thinker
which states that Lebanese would view any peacekeeping force as an occupation force, to be met with resistance:

To be precise, it really said not too much about the Lebanese (of whom the majority have said they'd welcome the UN to put troops along the border and to help disarm Hezbollah). The article is a threat from Syria.

"Jeez, I want them to build it and just blow it up again the day it's finished, just so they can see that Jesus ain't coming back. (at least not with this contrived fetish bs prophecy fulfillment crap)."

I want to see them rebuild it too. Not that I care about Jesus returning or anything of that sort, but I really want to see that Mosque torn down.

Here is a link to an account of a man who was acquitted on self-defense grounds for the death of an innocent bystander.

Note that the prosecutors didn't argue that you couldn't plead self-defense in the case of the death of an innocent (Stefan to the contrary) but rather that his self-defense claim wasn't authentic.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060415/NEWS01/604150389/1077/rss02

But, it's a quite a bit different from your first (wrong) blanket statement to cactus.

You mean this wrong blanket statement?:

I can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable.>/i>

Really, Nathan, you shouldn't throw stones.

I really want to see that Mosque torn down

FF, you really are a sick puppy. But you're all talk apparently. You give extremists a bad name.

If one is cynical, and it is stupid not be cynical about such matters, it will be easy to conclude that the agenda all along has been to replicate the success of Iraq in the other countries of the region. A chaotic middle east where tens of people die every day in each of the countires there might be perceived by some to be in the best interest of some entities. Who and which I don't know.

The most egregious story I have heard involving "self-defense" was this guy who came home, heard a noise in his daughter's bedroom closet, and shot through the closet door, killing his daughter who had arrived home early.

The prosecutors declined to indict the man, apparently believing his actions to be "reasonable". I say that the prosecutors should be charged with failing to protect the man's other daughters, but such is the way the in US gun society.

Disputo:

I, of course, stand by that statement " can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable."

for one thing, that's very narrow...I don't comprehend how you read that as "broad."

if their only other option was death, then yes, they may fire back:

here is the NY statute on self-defense:

A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:

(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or

(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Disputo:

I understand that you don't like the American understanding of "self-defense" ...contrast it with the current British one...but its also the law, even though you and Stefan may not like it.

But he certainly would have wished it.

Who knows, you're probably right about that. Maybe FF can englighten us on the intentions of violent extremists.

"Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation."

I've been saying this since the war started. The Iranians are not a paper tiger. They have real teeth and real claws, and the ability to essentially take 140K American hostages by cutting off those supply lines.

I am a parent and as a parent I love my sons, but I also realize that there comes a time when the boys need to learn to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.
Yes, consequences, because teenagers are brain-dead, no matter how I as a parent would like to reconcile my parentage to my sons behavior, there are times when a solid dose of reality is a good thing. A healthy thing for a full-of-himself boy to experience.

Same thing with client states whom we have held a patronage relationship. Our relationship with Israel has always been one of supporting the underdog. Few here have shown the intellectual capcity to actually put aside their biases long enough to realize that the fledgling Jewish state was once not all powerful. And like a big brother, we took our little brother under our wings so that the other boys in the neighborhood knew whose Israel's bigger brother was.
But change is always occuring, and instead of our little brother gaining in stature and respect, our little brother has embraced brutal revenge out of proportion to the actual offense.
A taunt is now responded with a black-eye, a black-eye is responded with a full round-house kick to the jaw, and a kick is responded with a cap to the heart.
Our little brother has become dangerous to others and himself. Vengeful, and hunted in his own fears, he is lashing out. No amount of reasoning is going to bring him back to normalcy, and not even dragging his butt to church is going to get him to change his paranoia.
It is time to do what every family has done when a sibling has gone over the edge...............

Cut em loose.

I love Israel and the Israeli's, but it is time for Israel to go her own way. Perhaps our paths will cross again, and we can walk a little more together. But Israel is now doing things that I cannot, and will not support.
For those who are Christians and have the same love of Israel, it is time to let G-d have his way with Israel. We're now getting in the way and I fully believe G-d is encouraging the US to cut Israel loose, so lets be obedient to G-d...for once in our self-deluded state of spirituality, and do the right thing.
Israel must find her way without the US.

Disputo: The guy in New Orleans(?) who shot the foreign exchange student who knocked on the wrong door looking for a Halloween Party didn't get indicted either, iirc.

"I've been saying this since the war started. The Iranians are not a paper tiger. They have real teeth and real claws, and the ability to essentially take 140K American hostages by cutting off those supply lines."

They certainly have real claws as their orchestration of the Hezbollah attack on Israel demonstrates (funny how it perfectly coincided with the deadline for Iran's response on the nuclear issue)...but this is hyperbole.

They could certainly arrange for the Badr Brigades to attack us and make life even more miserable in Iraq...but through a combination of airlift and max-protect on ground convoys we could supply our forces as necessary. It wouldn't be fun though.

Let's keep going with the analogy of returning fire on the apartment from which shots appear to be coming, and with the knowledge that that apartment also houses a little girl.

So you fire back and shoot the shooter. Okay, that seems like justifiable self-defense.

And if you fire back and shoot only the little girl? That's not clearcut "self defense" to me. Seems to me that you'll have some serious explaining to do.

What if your response is broader - you toss a grenade into that apartment, or spray it with an automatic weapon, and you kill several uninvolved people, including perhaps the original shooter. Do you think you'll be able to shrug it off as "justifiable self-defense"?

What if you blow up the entire apartment building, killing the original shooter and, unfortunately, 60 bystanders? Is that justifiable self-defense?

Clearly, the term "proportionate response" applies in this analogy, as well as in Lebanon. Otherwise, using that blanket "self defense" argument, Israel can flatten Lebanon with tactical nuclear weapons and say, "Sorry! Had to do it! Self defense!"

JohnH:
I think you've almost got it. Of course, the darker the bystanders, the more likely their deaths become justified.

Trolls, trolls everywhere and not a club in sight.

Hey shrub still has tony "poodles" blair on his side, doesn't he?

JohnH:

The legal requirement is that said "self-defense" be reasonable...something which is determined by the totality of the circumstances (including the factors you mentioned above).

Stefan's error was in assuming that if an innocent was killed the self-defense was automatically unreasonable.

let's look at your factors:

"And if you fire back and shoot only the little girl? That's not clearcut "self defense" to me. Seems to me that you'll have some serious explaining to do."

Assuming that it was reasonable to shoot back in the first place (you couldn't move out the line of fire)...then you're probably ok here. So long as you were shooting at what appeared to be the firing position of the shooter.

"What if your response is broader - you toss a grenade into that apartment, or spray it with an automatic weapon, and you kill several uninvolved people, including perhaps the original shooter. Do you think you'll be able to shrug it off as "justifiable self-defense"?"

Is either of those your only weapon? Did you try something else unsuccessfully? This fact pattern can't be answered without knowing more of the circumstances.

JohnH,

Sure, 60 people is not one little girl. And launching rockets is not firing a handgun.

How should a country react when rockets are launched from another country's soil, for several years running, often from civilian buildings in civilian neighborhoods, or from right next to a UN observation post? Should they do nothing for ever? Is there any way to react that won't kill some civilians or UN observers? If the answer is no, does that country have any right to react at all?

Added questions... what if the civilians are encouraging the rocket attacks? What if the UN is purposely turning "a blind eye"? Do they still have no right to react?

As to flattening Lebanon... here's where the proportionate comment becomes more relevant. Israel apparently has had nukes for almost three decades. Does anyone think that if any Arab country had nukes, including Lebanon or the proxy state of Hezbullah, they wouldn't have been used on Israel in less than 3 decades? And that goes for the countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel.

Well, I am a human being first, an American second, and a (cultural, not religious) Jew third: Cut Israel lose and let them stand or fall on their own.

We don't want to see the Alamo in Iraq. It is essential that we treat our partners in Iraq with the respect they deserve. Or leave. If we don't, they may make the decision for us, for better or for worse.

Israel's war against Lebanon must stop immediately. Not tomorrow, not Wednesday, but today.

cactus:

" Does anyone think that if any Arab country had nukes, including Lebanon or the proxy state of Hezbullah, they wouldn't have been used on Israel in less than 3 decades? And that goes for the countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel."

Actually, I don't think that's necessarily true. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq would have used nukes for leverage with Israel, they would have no interest in actually engaging in a nuclear war with Israel.

With that said, the scary thing about Iran (and Persians are not Arabs) is that today's leadership actually appears to take Shiite eschatology seriously. This is frightening because they appear to believe that by stirring things up they can provoke the coming of the "Hidden Imam"....so, yeah, they might just use a nuke...since their calculus is different than other regional governments. (In this respect I'd much rather deal with Kim Jong Il...)

How should a country react when rockets are launched from another country's soil, for several years running, often from civilian buildings in civilian neighborhoods, or from right next to a UN observation post? Should they do nothing for ever? Is there any way to react that won't kill some civilians or UN observers? If the answer is no, does that country have any right to react at all?

That's a good question. How should Iraqis react to the continued US attacks, for several years running, into Iraqi neighborhoods? Is there any way for the Iraqis to defend themselves against the Americans that won't kill some civilians, especially considering that the Americans insist on driving their forces and conducting patrols through civilian neighborhoods, thereby endangering civilian lives?

Added questions... what if the civilians are encouraging the rocket attacks?

Another good question: if American civilians are encouraging the missile attacks on Iraqis, have the American civilians made themselves fair targets for retaliation?

if your neighbour is shooting at you and the police ignore it, then move!

this is the only thing that will bring peace to the ME. Move Israel to another neighbourhood.

would Israel's reaction have been any different if someone... had done anything about the Hezbullah attacks on Israel over the last six year?

No one stopped or countered Israel's attacks against the people of Southern Lebanon over the last six years, except Hezbollah. The US, instead of trying to stop Israel's attacks on the people of Southern Lebanon, gave more weapons to Israel so it could attack more. Kind of like US support of Israel's attacks on the people North Lebanon now. The idea Hezbollah attacks Israel without provocation is a lie.

Does anyone think that if any Arab country had nukes, including Lebanon or the proxy state of Hezbullah, they wouldn't have been used on Israel in less than 3 decades?

Maybe this is the problem. How racist do you have to be to believe that Arabs are so violent that MAD is not a sufficient detterent to the use of nuclear weapons. Arabs are human beings too. What is wrong with you people?

cactus: How should a country react when rockets are launched from another country's soil, for several years running, often from civilian buildings in civilian neighborhoods, or from right next to a UN observation post? Should they do nothing for ever? Is there any way to react that won't kill some civilians or UN observers? If the answer is no, does that country have any right to react at all?

How should a people react when their land is stolen from them, they are denied any political power, they are denied any advanced weapons to use as blackmail (like Israel can and does), their civilian structures are destroyed under the pretense of rooting out terrorists, the main sponsors of the land thieves consistently destroys democratic institutions in the region (except in the country of the land thieves) and sponsors its own terrorists and murderous dictators that rape your women and murder your brothers?

If we all just gave in to terrorist demands they would no longer be a threat. I'm already planning how to accessorize my burkha!

I think Israel has lost some foothold and credibility. The attack on Qana, coupled with the rapid backpeddling on the 48-hour moratorium on airstrikes has cost them.

The PKK has been using northern Iraq as a base for strikes against the Turkish army inside Turkey in recent months. The Turks are now losing as many men in this mess as the U.S. They have been preparing to invade Iraq, reasoning that their situation is exactly analogous to that of Israel. The U.S. has managed to hold them back so far. So far.

"Things could get even uglier than they already are very quickly."

Stefan: That's a good question. How should Iraqis react to the continued US attacks, for several years running, into Iraqi neighborhoods? Is there any way for the Iraqis to defend themselves against the Americans that won't kill some civilians, especially considering that the Americans insist on driving their forces and conducting patrols through civilian neighborhoods, thereby endangering civilian lives?

Not to mention American soldiers surrounding themselves with Iraqi children, enticed into proximity with candy handouts.

But let's just use the Bush justification for torture and other immoral acts by his administration: "we have to use these methods because the enemy cannot be destroyed by any other means and no means can be considered immoral or unjustified as long as it works and George Bush deems the method necessary to ensure victory."

The "terrorists" have no advanced weapons or economic or political power to advance their goals - the only weapons they have are the ones they are using which according to Bush (and his supporters) is a fully justifiable and moral course of action.

"Well, I am a human being first, an American second, and a (cultural, not religious) Jew third: Cut Israel lose and let them stand or fall on their own."

Global, I believe that G-d is making it very easy for us to walk away from this one, and you don't have to be religious to see it, either.

Michele;

I have to, this time, disagree with you on moving Israel to another neighborhood. Are we going to move Abraham's tomb as well? Israel was put where Israel was put because the Jewish people have over 5000 years of history and blood soaked into that particular patch of ground, not St. Petersburg, Florida.

That is an overly simplistic, and culturally insensitive stance to take. If there is to be an Israel, it must be where it is right now, not in Europe, not in the United States, not in Canada or anywhere else.

Nathan: I give you credit for recognizing your error. Now if you would just admit it....

I've just been knocked flat by a 500-lb. bag of irony. Oh, Nathan...you are too precious for words.

Howdy Shortstop - surviving the heat? (You audacious flirt you.)

I don't think it's really possible to draw any simple analogies with what's going on in the Middle East currently. For one defending your people as a government is different from defending yourself in a life-or-death situation. It is true Hezbollah has been a hazard and a nuisance, but it was not an existential threat to the state of Israel. Also if firing at this triggerhappy neighbour of yours only makes him fire back more, and make other neighbours pull out their weapons as well, one wonders if it was really the best thing to do. Whether Israel's response was really necessary, it is tough to say. I am inclined to say they had alternatives left, but that's the hopeful part of me speaking, not the knowledgeable.
Obviously it is wrong to kill civilians. That said, I can't blame (a) people for valuing their own life over others'. I just know that even if I were to find myself in a situation as described before, and I would kill/maim an innocent person to protect something dear to me, I would be leaving deep wounds inside myself as well. I guess it may be just me. I'd just like to see Israel take the time and effort when all is done to make sure any innocents killed by their bombs are honoured and remembered.

Globe, ixnay on the irtflay thing. I'm trying to keep an owlay ofilepray, 'kay?

Mea Culpa. Don't want Mr. Shortstop finding out, do we.

The PKK has been using northern Iraq as a base for strikes against the Turkish army inside Turkey in recent months. The Turks are now losing as many men in this mess as the U.S. They have been preparing to invade Iraq, reasoning that their situation is exactly analogous to that of Israel. The U.S. has managed to hold them back so far. So far.

Of course, if we used the Bush regime's own reasoning then Ankara would be fully justified in launching airstrikes against Baghdad and in destroying Iraqi Army facilities and Iraqi roads, airports, and infrastructure.

With that said, the scary thing about Iran (and Persians are not Arabs) is that today's leadership actually appears to take Shiite eschatology seriously. This is frightening because they appear to believe that by stirring things up they can provoke the coming of the "Hidden Imam"....so, yeah, they might just use a nuke...since their calculus is different than other regional governments. (In this respect I'd much rather deal with Kim Jong Il...)

With that said, the scary thing about America is that today's leadership actually appears to take Christianist eschatology seriously. This is frightening because they appear to believe that by stirring things up they can provoke the coming of the "Messiah"....so, yeah, they might just use a nuke...since their calculus is different than other regional governments. (In this respect I'd much rather deal with Kim Jong Il...)

Messiah, Mahdi, whatever myth gives you comfort and justification for dehumanizing and murdering your neighbors.

Bush, American conservatives, and Israel can see the handwriting on the wall, that the GOP may lose all or virtually all of it's control over American's foreign policy agenda in the next couple of years.

They desperately want to further their militant agenda of remaking the Middle East through war while they are still in power and they will do anything they can to push the region into all-out war before their opportunity is foreclosed.

That is why Israel has disproportionately responded to a small, purely military attack on the heals of a possible recognition of Israel by major Palestinian factions.

Without war in the Middle East, Bush and the GOP are doomed; without the GOP, Israel has lost an ally that will deal with actors the Israelies consider threats by shooting first and asking questions later.

Bush and Israel bet that Syria and Iran would jump into the fray right away; they lost that bet just like they lost the bet that massive stockpiles of WMDs would be found in Iraq along with connections to al Queda.

Now, its all going to hell in a handbasket, just like their little foray into Iraq, proving once again that conservatives are all talk and no competence when it comes to foreign policy and make America less safe in the long run, not more safe, creating more enemies than they destroy and wasting precious tax dollars with a futile and arrogant belief that peace can be won solely by killing as many people as possible with the hope that your enemies will be among them.

Not at all. My comments stood for themselves.

Oh dear. How sad.

And you proved yourself a liar.

Oh dear God. I should note again that Nathan accused me of lying for the sin of accurately quoting, in full, a sentence of his (a sentence he hilariously accused me of distorting by putting "misleading" ellipses in, only to discover to his shame that he himself had written the ellipses in the original sentence).

There's a line from Carl Sandburg's "The People, Yes" which goes "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." I see that Nathan's from the table pounding school of law....

"This is World War III. Bush is just like Winston Churchill "

Al, dear, self-imitation does not become you.

When Stefan is proven wrong he simply changes the subject.

Bye all.

Global Citizen, there was a period of 2000 years where there was no Jewish state in the ME and very few Jewish inhabitants.

I think the Jews forfeited their rights about 1900 years ago.

Shortstop, I think I just got hit by that same bag of irony....watch your heads, everyone.

Global Citizen, there was a period of 2000 years where there was no Jewish state in the ME and very few Jewish inhabitants.

Yes that was true, but that isn't true now. Israel's existence is a fact, and wishing it away won't make it so.

Additionally, the statement above could probably be applied in some form to most nation-states as they are presently constituted. Peoples move, borders shift, land goes back and forth.

Nathan says:

I, of course, stand by that statement " can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable." for one thing, that's very narrow...I don't comprehend how you read that as "broad." if their only other option was death, then yes, they may fire back:

LOL. You are quite the insufferable troll. We are of course speaking of the legality of killing innocents in the course of defending oneself, not under what circumstances it is legal to use lethal force against one's assailant.

Nice try though.

You really are a lawyer? Practicing? Pity your clients.

For those who are perhaps being swayed by Nathan's continuing equivocation on this subject, it is of course not legal to kill innocents for the sole reason you have no other option than death. For example, you may not shoot 20 little girls in order to get to the guy aiming for your skull.

The only question is whether Nathan recognizes this, and is simply being dense, or whether he is just dense.

Nathan: They certainly have real claws as their orchestration of the Hezbollah attack on Israel demonstrates (funny how it perfectly coincided with the deadline for Iran's response on the nuclear issue)...but this is hyperbole.

Yeah, they "orchestrated" a random kidnapping of soldiers who were serving their last day of duty and whose location was absolutely without question predicatable months in advance and because, just like Saddam, they have full, complete, and minute-by-minute control over every single Islamic radical in Lebanon.

And get this, each and every missle fired by Hezbollah is aimed and directed in accordance with detailed "orchestrations" from Damascus and Tehran, using international cellular conference calls I'm sure, and even the missles that miss are missing because those misses are perfectly "orchestrated" by those evil conspirators who work the Hezbollah radicals like puppets.

Word!

Nathan: Bye all.

When Nathan is proven wrong, he runs away to pout.

Btw, I cannot see how it is ever reasonable to fire a weapon at someone without first taking minimal steps to identify that they are indeed a threat.

Advocate:

You're totally giving away our sources and methods. Every time you remind the infidels, you put Allah in danger!

p.s., we are working on a new secret handshake. Check the NY Times style section for more. Peace and chicken grease. Dinejad_thePlayer69

Stefan, Israel exists now but the people they took the land from in order to build Israel are still trying to get the land back. They never gave up their right to the land. That is why they are so pissed. I would be too.

The only question is whether Nathan recognizes this, and is simply being dense, or whether he is just dense.

I wonder about this. Nathan's posts often exhibit a certain preening puffed-up pride in his intellect that is totally unsupported by the flimsy if not outright erroneous "arguments" (to be generous) he makes, so I'd tend in that case to put him in the dense category. On the other hand, he's often so laughably wrong and/or besides the point that you'd think no practicing lawyer could be that stupid -- which thought, I've found through experience, often turns out to be wrong -- and so he must just be lying. I suppose I come down in the "dumb, and lies to cover it up" camp.

do you really think that cops get charged with murder or manslaughter everytime they inadvertently kill a bystander in a shootout?

No, then again, cops tend to have a privileged relationship with the prosecutorsand are often only prosecuted for anything if there is both far more evidence than would be needed to press charges against anyone else and a major political outcry over the incident.

Then again, all that aside, there is a difference between accidentally killing an innocent when taking all prudent care and otherwise acting legitimately, and engaging in wanton violence with a legitimate end but means that demonstrate clear disregard for consideration of the safety of innocents.

Stefan, Israel exists now but the people they took the land from in order to build Israel are still trying to get the land back. They never gave up their right to the land. That is why they are so pissed. I would be too.

True, but that situation applies in lots of countries around the world -- Northern Ireland, Spain, even our own Canada and the US (where we stole the land from the Indians and, additionally in the US case, from the Mexicans). We can argue all day long about who did what, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel is there, it exists, and it ain't going anywhere.

Off topic: McCains 18-year-old son just enlisted in the Marines.

actually, I moved from North America for that reason: I didn't feel like I belonged on Indian land (my family has only been there for one generation)

however, there is no solution that will solve the problem than getting rid of the state of Israel in the ME and since I do believe the Jews should have a homeland, they should make an Israel somewhere else.

Nathan: I, of course, stand by that statement " can say without question that as a legal matter, if firing back was their only option other than death, they would not be legally culpable." for one thing, that's very narrow...I don't comprehend how you read that as "broad." if their only other option was death, then yes, they may fire back:

Disputo: LOL. You are quite the insufferable troll. We are of course speaking of the legality of killing innocents in the course of defending oneself, not under what circumstances it is legal to use lethal force against one's assailant.

True. While the person firing in self-defense may not be culpable for the first act of firing at his assailant, he may also be culpable for the second act of hitting any innocent civilians who come between him and his assailant. There are two separate consequences -- shooting the assailant and shooting the bystander -- that arise from the same act, and Nathan is trying to confuse by conflating the two.

however, there is no solution that will solve the problem than getting rid of the state of Israel in the ME and since I do believe the Jews should have a homeland, they should make an Israel somewhere else.

I hear the South of France is lovely. I'm sure Israel wouldn't mind taking Provence as its new homeland....

In this particular thread at least Nathan's explications of the law of self-defense have been accurate.

Stefan comes across as a boor but then I don't know the prior history between you two.

But the fact remains that Israel is going nowhere. And aren't you in Canada? That was Indian land, too.

Actually, I was thinking more of Bavaria which is where I live by the way. To be completely consistent in my thinking, to compensate for what the Germans seized from the Jews, they should be given a nice big chunk of the prime land right here.

That way, the people who did the harm actually pay the price (which is a good lesson for everyone around the world) not the Palestinians and not the Lebanese.

Isn't it ironic that this is the second bombing the IDF has done of Qana, where the most famous of Jews, Jesus the Christ himself, supposedly turned water into wine?

Oh, and here's a nice tip for everyone: newsgoogle "IDF Stratfor" every day to have the latest in the strategic assessment of the military situation free of charge from Startfor.

Here's today's link and assessment:

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=271067

Israel/Lebanon Update: July 31, 2006
July 31, 2006 21 18 GMT

This weekend saw a dramatic shift in Israeli military activity in southern Lebanon. Israel has pulled back from Bent Jbail and begun to deploy into Lebanon the forces massed in the northeast. While Israel Defense Forces (IDF) airstrikes were officially halted following the deaths of 54 civilians in Qana, the scale and tempo of ground operations have actually increased. Close air support has also continued. The IDF has begun pushing into the areas west of Bent Jbail and near the Israeli border town of Metulla.

On Hezbollah's side, the 144 rockets launched July 30 in response to the Qana bombing were followed by silence July 31, with no confirmed rockets striking northern Israel. Such a coordinated halt to Hezbollah's attacks indicates a phenomenally intact command-and-control network -- something the Israeli airstrikes should have destroyed. Hezbollah now hopes to force a permanent cease-fire, which would essentially be a victory.

there's a nice map at the link as well

Tschuess! It's after midnight here in beautiful Bavaria!

enozinho,

"Maybe this is the problem. How racist do you have to be to believe that Arabs are so violent that MAD is not a sufficient detterent to the use of nuclear weapons. Arabs are human beings too. What is wrong with you people?"

Sorry about the delayed response... I had to step away.

I was heading out and wrote in too much of a hurry... I meant, "if country X had nukes and Israel did not." Hence, no MAD. Merely counting on the restraint of country X. Since Israel's neighbors have been ruled by people who have not shown regard for the lives of their own people (think Hama in Syria or the "regrettable events" in Black September in Jordan) its unlikely they'd have treated the Israelis any better if given a chance. But MAD may not work. The leader of Iran (yes, I know, they're Persians) pointed out that the math of a nuclear exchange with Israel favors his country... that doesn't like MAD is a deterrant to some, assuming you are willing to trust their word.

Michele,

On another thread, I mentioned I knew some Israelis whose families had been forced to flee from places like Libya, Egypt, and Iraq. Do you plan to force them to move to Bavaria too? I assume you never said anything about nor are willing to speak up about their rights to move back to Libya, Egypt and Iraq. And what would happen if their descendants did move to those places - how long would they remain alive?

And BTW... since you don't want to sit on occupied land... are you so certain that the folks sitting in Bavaria today are the original inhabitants? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Or does your rule only apply to "certain people?"

Although I would have disagreed with the UN 1947 Partition, it is the law now and Israel a legitimate nation-state. The US and other Israeli allies should suspend all aid to Israel until Israel evacuates the land outside of those borders. In addition, the US should guarantee the security of those borders as well as the borders of a new Palestinian state and Lebanon's air space.

I do believe the Jews should have a homeland

The proper Republican argument is that the Israelis have failed to assimilate with the culture of their neighborhood. I mean, there are portions of Israel where Arabs don't even feel welcome... And how are they supposed to read the signs, or order a falafel when Israelis speak that crazy language? Arabs should immediately create a group to man the borders with Israel. The Minutemen is taken? How about the "Party of God"? It represents the regions cultural and religious values.

Actually, I was thinking more of Bavaria which is where I live by the way. To be completely consistent in my thinking, to compensate for what the Germans seized from the Jews, they should be given a nice big chunk of the prime land right here.

Well, if there's one thing that Israelis would love more than anything it's moving to a landlocked section of Germany....

In this particular thread at least Nathan's explications of the law of self-defense have been inaccurate.

Nathan comes across as an idiot but then I don't know the prior history between you two.

Tschuess! It's after midnight here in beautiful Bavaria!

Take a dip in the Tegernsee this summer for me!

"I think the Jews forfeited their rights about 1900 years ago."

Michele - there has been a Jewish community in many parts of Israel for the entire 1900 period in which you feel they forfeited their rights. As an example... Hebron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron

"There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon."

Who else besides the American RightWing would support ongoing War Crimes ?
.

By things might get uglier I think they meant Condi mean mugging while playing the piano.

cactus:

You bobbed and weaved, but you're still saying that Arabs (and now persians aparently) can't be trusted to act the way the rest of the world does when faced with the possibility of nuclear war. And to say that Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons is pre-MAD is just wrong.

So what is it exactly about Arabs and Persians that make them more likely to use nuclear weapons? Their religion? Their race? Something in the water that makes em all crazy?

It's one thing for a police officer to accidentally wound or kill an innocent civilian in the "defense" of himself or another perceived innocent, but if the officer wounds or kills a handful of innocent civilians, the act will surely be treated as criminal, if only gross negligence that would immediately dictate surrendering the gun and the badge.

Further, if there was a pattern of a police officer wounding or killing innocent civilians in the "defense" of himself or another, this officer would also be disarmed in any civilized society.

Of course, these "police officer" analogies are completely irrelevant to Israel's current criminal and grossly negligent actions in Lebanon (or Hezbollah's for that matter).

It would be kind of like sending in the LAPD to "root out" the violent gangsters in South Central, having them get into wild firefights with whoever they consider "suspect" (intelligence), resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians, and then the mayor announcing that he's going to continue to allow such tactics since what's needed is a "lasting" and "sustainable" solution to the problem of gang violence (ignoring the fact that the duty of the LAPD is to defend the civilians, not concoct "solutions" that will themselves naturally and obviously kill civilians).

"So what is it exactly about Arabs and Persians that make them more likely to use nuclear weapons? Their religion? Their race? Something in the water that makes em all crazy? "

I am not saying Arabs and Persians are crazy. To repeat... I said (or meant to say) - if any of the Arab countries had nukes for 30 years and Israel did not (i.e., the current situation was reversed), I would have expected the nukes to have been used against Israel.

Consider Syria as an example. In those 30 years, Syria was ruled by Assad... a guy who had no problems massacring thousands (estimates range - 10,000? 20,000? more?) of his people in one day, February 2nd, 1982. That is not to say he didn't enjoy engaging in butchery on other days as well. Now, if he was willing to kill that many Syrians in one day, why would he not be willing to kill as many Israelis - a people he considered his enemy - if the opportunity arose?

Then there's Jordan. During that same thirty year period, the King, who would later be treated as an elder statesman, butchered at least tens of thousands of his own people. Think Black September. He did it because he could. Had he been able to do it against the Israelis, who he considered his enemy at the time, why would he have treated them any different?

I can go on, but the point is... I am not assuming anything about Arabs. I am assuming, however, that if some leaders were perfectly happy to massacre tens of thousands people using more retail methods had the wholesale option at their disposal, they would have used that wholesale option on an enemy. As to Iran... I am merely taking the leader of the country at his word. Would you prefer I assume him to be a liar?

Jimm,

"It would be kind of like sending in the LAPD to "root out" the violent gangsters in South Central"

I look at it differently. Say you live on a block with a bunch of gang members. Every so often, one or another neighbor takes a gun and shoots at you or one of your kids. You complain to the cops, and nothing is ever done, except that they write you up a citation for something or other. Eventually one of the neighbors manages to hit one of your kids. You can complain to the cops again, knowing that at best they'll ignore and worst they'll fine you for something, or you can take matters in your own hands.

The problem is... such a situation has made the Israelis somewhat irrational. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, and condemned regardless of what happens. If you are poked and prodded all the time, and you know that you'll be punished the same regardless of what you do, what will you do? Tip - try it with a rottweiller and see what happens.

"So what is it exactly about Arabs and Persians that make them more likely to use nuclear weapons? Their religion? Their race? Something in the water that makes em all crazy?

Who knows if they are more likely or not, or, if true, what makes them to be so. However, the history of continuous brutal attacks on India from the middle east for centuries culminating in the Mughal rule might provide some perspective.

Cactus: I'm the last guy to defend Authoritarian regimes. But I think you could make the case that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been anything but restrained. Their brutality was institutional and one of consensus, rather than the decision of a single ruler, as in other ME countries.

As far as believing Iran's threats, I would ask whether you think our use of Nuclear weapons is truly "on the table", as every single American president continuously exerts.

"As far as believing Iran's threats, I would ask whether you think our use of Nuclear weapons is truly "on the table", as every single American president continuously exerts."

Listen, if you don't want to be asked to defend dictators, don't ask me to defend our esteemed Mr. Bush. If you recall anything I've posted in the past, it should be evident I think he is incompetent, and that's one of the more positive things I am willing to say about him. I don't recall other presidents talking about willingly using nukes.

That said, Iran's president (I can't spell his name and won't even try) made the threat against Israel, not against the US. And my comment was about the use of nukes against Israel, and how in some cases (Iran being an example), even MAD may not be a defense any more for them, assuming you are willing to take the Iranian president at his word. Earlier you seemed to be hinting that I might be a racist - but would it not be more like a racist to assume that he must be lying because he's one of them Middle Eastern folks?

gotta shut down... have a good evening, all.

You too.

Later Cactus.

I’m late to the party on this thread, but Syria is loading their weapons and I expect Iran is crating up missiles for Lebanon as we write and may be placing a nuke-to-go order with Kim Jong Il today. Expect the worst, my friends. You won’t be disappointed.

One if by sea, two if by air.
.

Since the Jews have either deleted (four times now) or ignored this article, it needs to be posted again:

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 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.

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.

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 Lebanese 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 is it the Jews can just ignore the truth of the matter?

Oooops. My apologies, it appears that the above article has only been deleted 3 times. It was not deleted from this "Lebanon Update", as I initially thought, as it had never been posted here, but was posted on a previous "Lebanon Update".

it's no "reaction" to anything.

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10647.

and there's no way out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1834553,00.html

slim: THE JEWS BLAH BLAH BLAH

Mel? Mel Gibson? Is that you?

"Even the part of me that thinks it would be better for the world for the US to get a bloody nose doesn't want to see this."

freedom squeaker: LOL, like the 99.999% of you? I am sorry, but the US military will not lose to Iran as you may hope. If there's any lesson to be learned in Iraq, maybe it's that Iran won't be rebuilt after we win.

Well, for you, fweedie, maybe 99.999% of me. But you better run along to that enlistment station if that 'we' is to have any meaning.

(On a more serious note, the sort of military power the US currently wields - about half the world's spending - would corrupt anyone, it would corrupt my country, Canada; it would certainly corrupt my country of residence, Japan; it is currently corrupting the US - that part of me wishes you a bloody nose for your own sakes (yes, deep down I consider myself a friend to the States; though I'm not so sure it's a friend to Canada) Likewise, while I understand Israeli frustrations, Israel too is a country corrupted by what it has become, an occupying power. Recognizing there are limits to what they can do would be good for Israelis.Just as it would be good too for Hezbollah to come face to face with their limitations. We may then be in a place from where we can go forward to peace).

Oooops. My apologies, it appears that the above article has only been deleted 3 times

Good. Let's hope it can be deleted a fourth.

(I don't know who I hate more: dumb-fuck groupists or dumb-fuck anti-groupists. I think the latter. The first's love of group can perhaps be extended outwards.)

I realize I am late to the party, but I'm going to watch here for the next exchange between stefan and nathan...
I'm an attorney. Under the original scenario, stefan is right. You have a right to self-defense but only if you are attacked and then *only* against the *attacker*. If you're aiming a gun, and you shoot an innocent person, it don't matter none to the law that there was a firefight going on and you were at war for your life. What kills Nathan's analogy is the quality of those weapons: Israel must have known they were going to hit that particular building. To demonstrate self-defense, they would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew there was nothing in there but Hizbullah. By every account I've seen of the Qana massacre, this is very unlikely.

As for throwing a granade into a room from which someone is attacking you, that is slightly more justifiable, but again it comes down to intent: did you intend to kill everyone in the room, and did you know there were innocent civilians in there?

The key thing in criminal law is intent, not circumstances. Run over someone by accident, it's an insurance question. Run over someone because you were driving above the speed limit and couldn't stop in time, it's manslaughter. Run over someone because they hate you, it's murder. Hating someone is legal. Killing them is not. (And no, it doesn't matter that you thought they were trying to kill you. If you're in a vehicle, and they're not, they're not in a position to kill you. If they're shooting at you, and you're driving towards them, instead of away, you are clearly endangering yourself and therefore you cannot use self-defense to justify your actions.)

Personally at this point as a matter of law I would advise Israel to try for the insanity defense over a claim for self-defense. It fits the facts a lot better.

Late to the party. Interesting thread (also the previous one on grand strategy in the so-called GWoT).

I have to briefly say that while Stefan and Disputo are two of my favorite posters -- watching a pissing match between them and Nathan is always signally unedifying. A little too much like the IDF and Hezbollah for my blood ...

And this being an argument on the internet, a little too much like the Special Olympics. Even when you win, you're still a retard, guys ...

Anyway ... while I do recognize that Israel is a "fact on the ground," I must note in support of Michele's position that Zionism was originally a secular movement; Theodor Hertzl was a highly educated German Jew, and he (presciently) argued *against* taking the holy land as a Jewish homeland.

It was the less educated and less assimilated Jews of Eastern Europe who would take absolutely nothing but Palestine, and the rest is history.

Surely, if a Jewish homeland was made in Uganda or New Zealand as originally proposed, there would have been issues with displacing the population. But without one's holy book acting as a retroactive land contract, perhaps a greater sense of fairness and desire to be equitable could have been maintained with the locals ...

This is all vain speculation, I realize ...

Bob

Diana: Israel must have known they were going to hit that particular building.

I understand the argument and sympathize with the position that Israel is to some extent culpable. However, if I may...

It's not clear they intended to hit the building. Nor is it clear that they hit the building. (I assume we'll find out in due time.) People tend to overestimate the "precision" of those "precision guided weapons", especially in the real world. People also tend to underestimate the collateral damage from modern high explosives.

In short, "precision placement" does not mean "precision effect", especially in urban environments. They may very will have hit the intended target; that target may very well have not been the building in question; and the blast may very well have caused enough structural damage to nearby buildings for them to collapse.

...end of digression.

It's not clear they intended to hit the building.

The following is an excerpt from today's Informed Comment:

"That is why the massacre at Qana occurred. The Israelis had bombed Qana 80 times. They were destroying all of its buildings. Therefore, of course, they destroyed the building where dozens of children and families were hiding."

- Juan Cole, July 31, 2006

exasperanto -- Understood, although the particulars of Qana hold a lesson for all the Rambo-technowar-wannabees that too often infest this site. Something I suggested in a post a few days ago...

This stage involves flattening pretty much everything south of the Litani (or maybe even the Awali). In another time they would be called "free fire zones". I think it's wrong. I think it's bad strategy. Oh well. That and a $1 will get you a cup of coffee.

rmck1: Theodor Hertzl was a highly educated German Jew, and he (presciently) argued *against* taking the holy land as a Jewish homeland. It was the less educated and less assimilated Jews of Eastern Europe who would take absolutely nothing but Palestine, and the rest is history.

Bob -- I'm not sure the division was quite so clearly defined the intelligentsia and the "less educated and less assimilated". Maybe Herzl was too far ahead of his time, although Edwin Montagu made the same arguments later. In any case, bigger forces were in play at the critical junctures; if Balfour hadn't obtained Jewish-Zionist support, it might also be a very different world.

Now I'm not one to kick a man when he's down (OK, that's a lie -- I'm very much one to do so) but I missed Nathan's cite to the NY statute on self-defense the first time I read through:

"A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:

(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or

(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20."

Posted by: Nathan on July 31, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Note, therefore, that that cite is completely unresponsive to the whole subject of our discussion. No one is arguing that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself by striking back at its assailants, just as, to analogize, the NY statute allows one (under certain circumstances) to defend oneself.

What we are arguing, instead, is the legal consequences of harming another, completely innocent, person while engaged in the act of putative self-defense. The statute above only relates to the validity of the claim against the aggressor, not to any defense against a charge of causing the death of a third party not engaged in the initial aggression. (That is why the language mentions only "such other person" -- i.e. the aggressor).

I hope Nathan's really practicing law -- because without a lot of practice he's not gonna get much better at this.

There is, essentially, no one left in the entire world that supports our position on Lebanon.

You forgot Poland!

Psst...need some wood?

"Psst...need some wood?"

Need some wood! Ha! Cracks me up every time!

Ha! Me too jorge!

I've made it one of my standard jokes.

Though the guys at work just give me strange looks.

has407:

Well, I'm not as aware of the history of it as I ought to be, but I'd definitely figure that both cosmopolitanism and education would have a great deal to do with whether one was a political Zionist who merely wished to escape European anti-semitism or whether one was a religious Zionist who felt settling in Palestine had the dimensions of a Biblical imperative.

I'd imagine whether one was a city-dweller who fully participated in the economy (and subject to periodic bouts of ugly scapegoating like the Dreyfuss Affair) provided a different perspective than living isolated in a Polish or Russian ghetto.

Bob

rmck1
I have to briefly say that while Stefan and Disputo are two of my favorite posters -- watching a pissing match between them and Nathan is always signally unedifying. A little too much like the IDF and Hezbollah for my blood ...And this being an argument on the internet, a little too much like the Special Olympics. Even when you win, you're still a retard, guys ...

And they call themselves...The Aristocrats

我向大家推荐:您想要了解 粉末涂料 吗？请到中国粉末涂料网来寻找粉末涂料。您想要了解 粉末冶金 吗？请到中国粉末冶金网来寻找粉末冶金。要想寻找水性聚氨酯信息请访问 水性聚氨酯 网，各种水性聚氨酯应有尽有。北京 反应锅/反应釜 厂向广大客户提供反应锅/反应釜产品及反应锅/反应釜服务。上海 聚氨酯合成材料 公司专业生产聚氨酯合成材料产品，欢迎选择聚氨酯合成材料。北京 聚氨酯包装材料 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯包装材料产品及聚氨酯包装材料服务。您想要了解 铝材 吗？请到中国铝材网来寻找铝材。北京 铝型材 厂向广大客户提供铝型材产品及铝型材服务。您想要了解 光稳定剂770 吗？请到中国光稳定剂770网来寻找光稳定剂770。中国 橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料 网，打造橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料品牌公司及产品展示。聚氨酯硬泡 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的聚氨酯硬泡,丰富聚氨酯硬泡行业资讯助您成交。中国 聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料 网，打造聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料品牌公司及产品展示。中国 水性复膜胶 网，打造水性复膜胶领域专业搜索平台，提供全球水性复膜胶品牌公司及产品展示。试剂 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的试剂,丰富试剂行业资讯助您成交。上海 热熔胶 公司专业生产热熔胶产品，欢迎选择热熔胶。您想要了解 康普螺旋藻 吗？请到中国康普螺旋藻网来寻找康普螺旋藻。北京 生物试剂 厂向广大客户提供生物试剂产品及生物试剂服务。北京 脱氢醋酸钠 厂向广大客户提供脱氢醋酸钠产品及脱氢醋酸钠服务。北京 泡沫包装 厂向广大客户提供泡沫包装产品及泡沫包装服务。北京 聚四氟乙烯制品 厂向广大客户提供聚四氟乙烯制品产品及聚四氟乙烯制品服务。北京 特氟龙/铁氟龙/特富龙 厂向广大客户提供特氟龙/铁氟龙/特富龙产品及特氟龙/铁氟龙/特富龙服务。中国 防腐木 网，打造防腐木领域专业搜索平台，提供全球防腐木品牌公司及产品展示。有机玻璃/压克力制品 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的有机玻璃/压克力制品,丰富有机玻璃/压克力制品行业资讯助您成交。北京 聚氨酯仿木材料 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯仿木材料产品及聚氨酯仿木材料服务。上海 润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封 公司专业生产润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封产品，欢迎选择润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封。

The following is is a war criminal talking, and don't flinch from appreciating it (from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/073106A.shtml):

...last Thursday, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio, "All those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

Using rhetoric that set the stage for justifying the collective punishment of the Lebanese people in southern Lebanon, Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
...
~~~

BTW, neither persons nor nations have the right to appropriate other persons and their rights, at will, even in self defense. You don't get to do whatever you want to people either, just because you warned them you were going to do it! The above filth from Mr. Ramon included threats of collective punishment (war crime) and other outrages. The fact that Hezbollah is also committing war crimes by firing rockets indiscriminately, hiding them among civilians etc. does not excuse Israel.

BTW #2: AIPAC-ers and related trolls: go pick on Mel Gibson the Christianist media darling. The rest of us have serious reasons for concern here, not ancient fables clouding our thinking.