Unconditional surrender

Why hasn’t the UN demanded the unconditional surrender of Hezballah?

Amid the calls for Israel to ‘stop the violence’ something seems to have been lost. Moral clarity. The international community seems unable to find the moral clarity to oppose Hezballah, a terrorist organization, with anything more than a few token words. It’s so much easier to demand that Israel ‘stop the violence’. The pathetic incompetence of the UN takes some time to digest but it staggers the imagination how very incompetent and pathetic it actually is.

Protestors ransack and destroy UN headquarters in Beirut and the, "personal representative of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Lebanon," condemns Israel! Is this not amazing? I suppose that if the IDF had instead bombed the UN headquarters in Beirut in retaliation for Hezballah rockets hitting a residential home in Israel that he would have condemned Hezballah? No? Well, why not?

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanese protesters broke into the U.N. headquarters in Beirut on Sunday, smashing windows and ransacking offices, after an Israeli air strike killed 54 people in south Lebanon.

Several thousand people massed outside the building in downtown Beirut chanting "Death to Israel, death to America. We sacrifice our blood and souls for Lebanon."

Geir Petersen, the personal representative of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Lebanon, condemned the Israeli attack on the village of Qana and called for an immediate investigation.

"I strongly condemn today's killing of tens of civilians by Israeli shelling of residential buildings in the village of Qana," he said. He was not in building when it was attacked.

By late afternoon, all the protesters had drifted away. ~news.yahoo

Hezballah has one goal, the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a fascist Islamic state. But the way the international community of the UN sees it, through the myopia of leftist logic, Israel should stop the 'disproportionate violence' because there would be no 'crisis' if Israel were not targeting Hezballah. Of course that requires us to ignore the fact that Hezballah will not stop fighting and targeting civilians in Israel nor using it's own civilians as human sheilds to do so. But this is what liberal logic inevitably requires of us-- surrender.

Hezballah invades Israel, attacks and kidnaps Israeli soldiers, and fires hundreds of rockets into civilian cities and yet we find the most vocal and vociferious condemnations are not of Hezballah but of Israel for daring to fight back.

Make no mistakes, the escalation of violence is due to one fact, and one fact only, that the UN has failed to disarm Hezballah. The sad fact is that the international community has been complicit in prolonging this conflict in the middle east precisely because of the peculiar rules of peace and diplomacy they follow rather than in spite of them. The UN's peculiar morality of peace puts terror organizations on the same level as democratic states and essentially elevates and protects organizations like Hezballah no matter what they do.

The end result of this perverted morality is that we, the moral agents in such conflicts, are required to unconditionally surrender when it should be the other way around.

IDF: Qana building fell hours after strike
Photos that damn Hezbollah

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 30, 2006 7:57 PM
Comments
Comment #172129

Eric:

The answer to your question is: If a nation does not consult the the UN, then the UN tries to pit the world against that nation.

The UN’s slogan is “Every nation needs us, without us, you are nothing.”

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 30, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #172133

The UN has never succeeded in establishing peace. It sometimes can police a peace, if everyone is already in favor.

Israel will never be treated fairly by the UN. Israel agreed to withdraw from Lebanon. Hezbollah was supposed to disarm. Israel kept its word. Hezbollah did not. All the deaths are on the hands of Hezbollah. They hide behind women and children and sometime probably dress like women. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible and they hope Muslims will die. So what would be the negotiating point?

Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #172136

Jack, we agree on something. I feel the same way. Here near Dearborn Mi, with the highest population of Muslims in the US, they are protesting Israel for attacking Lebanon, but nothing at all said about Hezbollah. They want Bush to tell Israel to stop the fighting and go back to status quo.

Posted by: KT at July 30, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #172139

Eric,
Throughout your essay you refer to “we.”

Since when are the national interests of Israel and the national interests of the US one and the same?

Israel is a terrorist state.

Israel is a Jewish state. The US has no reason to back a Jewish state, no more than it should back a Christian or an Islamic state.

Israel is a terrorist state.

There was a time when Jews could claim the moral sympathy of the world. Perhaps they still can make that claim. However, being Jewish and being a Zionist are not the same thing, not at all. Assuring Jews in this country and elsewhere of their Human Rights is the right thing to do, of course. But a Jewish state? That is another kettle of fish.

Israel is a terrorist state.

Hezbollah began at the same time as Dawa and SCIRIR (which currently rule Iraq). Hezbollah began as a amalgamation of various Lebanese groups fighting against the Israeli invasion, and formally came into existence in 1985.

“Hezballah has one goal, the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a fascist Islamic state.”

That is simply wrong. Hezbollah does oppose Israel. However, their primary purpose is to represent the Shia population of Lebanon.

The world does not define itself in terms of its relationships to Israel and the US. Beleive it or not, the rest of the world actually has much more important considerations.

When Bush pushed for the Sunni Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon, it opened the door to the Shia Lebanese to participate in their democratic process, through Hezbollah.

I believe Bush was correct, but it required a follow-up; to insist upon Hezbollah fully incorporating itself into the political life of Lebanon. It would have been a slow process, but I also believe it would have been a sure process.

“Hezballah invades Israel…” and Israel regularly violates Lebanese sovereignty. This needs to stop. But it is hardly a cause for the major escalation which the Israelis initiated.

“… Attacks and kidnaps Israeli soldiers,” and Israel arrests people suspected of belonging to Hezbollah. From time to time the two sides swap prisoners.

“Make no mistakes, the escalation of violence is due to one fact, and one fact only, that the UN has failed to disarm Hezballah.”

I wish you would not make mistakes, but you do. I do not believe you even realize you completely identify the interests of the US with the interests of a Jewish state. Furthermore, this escalation had been planned for the past year by the Israeli military. They were waiting for an excuse.

Israel is a terrorist state.

The Qana bombing targeted a city with 80 bombs. As a result, one bomb hit a four story building housing refugees, innocent men, women, and children. Over half the dead are children.

Israel is a terrorist state.

Hezbollah deserves condemnation for launching rockets at civilians in Israel. Israel deserves condemnation for bombing urban areas and killing hundreds of innocent civilians.

Should the US act as a neutral broker, and demand the two sides disengage? Yes.

Should the US rush bombs to Israel so they can continue slaughtering innocent civilians.

No.

That is terrorism.

And Israel is a terrorist state.

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #172140

It seems that France is this week’s John Kerry, “If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened.”

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters: “If people had listened to what the French have been saying for several days, this crisis would not have taken place. ~news.yahoo.com

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: esimonson at July 30, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #172141

phx8,

Israel is a terrorist state.

I assume by this that your definition of a ‘terrorist state’ is such that the U.S. can surely be defined as a terrorist state as well. If so, you’ve answered one of your own questions— the reason for the solidarity then is that “we” are both terrorist states in your mind.

But since, in your lexicon, Hezballah is not apparently a terrorist organization, I’m not sure what the term is really supposed to mean when you use it to apply to Israel or the U.S. … Unless, what you’re really trying to do is say that there is no difference between Israel and Hezballah. In which case you are making the same case I am in my post. That the left uses a perverted sort of moral equivalance that ignores basic human rights and conduct of war.

Posted by: esimonson at July 30, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #172142

Phx8

How can the U.S. be a neutral broker? Broker what? The outcome civilized people would seek is simply that Israel does not invade or attack Lebanon in Return Hezbollah does not attack Israel. That was the agreement in 2000. Israel did it and would continue to do it. If you can figure out a way to get Hezbollah to do it, you should get the Peace Prize.

What you are advocating is a ceasefire that gives Hezbollah a chance or regroup and reload.

How about this. IF the world guarantees that it will punish either party that attacks over the border (and will use lethal force to accomplish that), I think we could make an agreement. But up till now, the UN has done nothing to stop attacks. Hezbollah dug tunnels and built fortification within a couple yards of UN stations. In fact, Hezbollah has used UN vehicles to attack Israel.

Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #172143
Furthermore, this escalation had been planned for the past year by the Israeli military. They were waiting for an excuse.

phx8,

How are sure that they were looking for an excuse as opposed to planning for the eventuality. The eventuality they predicted, and came to pass, because the rest of the world refused to listen to their warnings and pushed hard for them to vacate the land in Lebanon that they are firing rockets into Israeli cities from?

I would like to know how you can be sure it is one and not the other.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 30, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #172144

The left and the their ally the UN hate Israel. So they just need to lied down and die as far their concerned.
Well I got news for y’all. THET AIN’T GONNA DO IT. And that’s a good thing. If they cave to the pressure of the UN then the US will be the next country that the UN will demand to lie down and die for because it hates the US too.
The UN needs to be disbanded. And if not that kicked out of the US. And the US needs to withdraw from it. It ain’t done squat and can’t do squat.
And before y’all UN apologist trot out your list of so called good the UN has done just stop and think who has paid for 99% of that. WE HAVE. So it’s the US that has done all that good.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 30, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #172150

Eric,
The word “terrorism” has been used so frequently lately that it has lost all meaning. Since this is your article, why not provide a definition we can all use for the sake of discussion?

Can there be such a thing as state terrorism?

If not, Hezbollah is a political party which evolved from terrorists to militias; does its participation as a political representative of the Shias absolve it from being defined as “terrorists”?

If terrorism is just a tactic, is it only an act which can be perpetrated by civilians, or does the act still deserve to be called terrorism even when perpetrated by a state?

The only difference I see between Israel and Hezbollah is that Israel is a Jewish state with a government and uniformed military, while Hezbollah is a political party with a militia.

As for moral clarity, Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of dozens of Iraeli civilians through indiscriminate rocket launches. Israel is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians through bombings and missiles.

It seems clear to me that both deserve condemnation.

Jack,
I do not know if you realize it, but I actually think Bush was right when he advocated democracy for the Middle East. The problem is that democracy will not come easy. The groups which are part of the problem today- Hezbollah, SCIRI, Dawa, Hamas- are also going to be part of the solution tomorrow.

They need to have a stake in the process, to see the benefits of observing international law, of trade, and globalization.

Lebanon was on its way. Personally, I think Lebanon is a better long term candidate for true friendship with the US than most other countries in the region.

Backing a violent solution achieves precisely the opposite of what we want.

We cannot go back. Hezbollah will come back for revenge. But at some point we have to break the cycle.

How can anyone accept an atrocity like what happened at Qana? Let us see if cooler heads can eventually prevail.

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #172154

Phx8

I am advocating a non-violent solution. Find a way to stop EACH parties from attacking the other and we have no trouble. I am sure Israel would accept peace and secure borders. They traded land for peace in Lebanon. What did Hezbollah do? They traded land for peace in Gaza. What does Hamas advocate. They offered almost the whole of the W. Bank to the Palestinians (with Clinton as a broker) what was Arafat’s response?

Peace now! If we COULD get an international force in S. Lebanon with robust rules of engagement, great.

So you don’t get to advocate what you cannot accept.

Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #172155

Israel is taking a pause. What will Hezbollah do?

Posted by: Jack at July 30, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #172162

Folks, you will have to excuse the unsophisticated analysis here, but, frankly, I’m sick unto death of both parties in this Lebanon debacle.

In the sixties and seventies, there was noone more of a pro-Israeli supporter than I. It was obvious then that Israel lived in a sea of hostility, and much of its actions were obviously predicated on self-preservation and self-defense.

Over the insuing 30 years, the Middle East and Palestine has had it’s ups and downs, and , for the large part I have remained an Israeli ally.

Over the last 10-15 years, though, I have slowly started to give Israel less and less of my support. I believe an unexamined Zionism is every bit as dangerous and myopic as is Arab terrorism. I keep seeing the innocents caught between, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the people of Gaza.

I have reluctantly come to the point where I cannot unequivocably give my support to any party who finds violence a logical solution to so intractable a problem, especially when they resort to that solution time and time and time again without any positive effect. The Palestinians are not going away, neither is Israel.

To believe that Israel is blameless in all this, and is just defending itself is naive at best, and delusional at worst.

Hezbollah and Hamas and the Palestinian authority have their greivances. They do not have my support.

An unconditonal support of Israel by the US government at the expense of innocent lives, I believe is unacceptable. A lack of a real and effective condemnation of Hezbollah and Hamas is no less unacceptable.

The US should offer their offices for peace negotiations—we should always keep our door and feelers open. But an unconditional support of Israel, I believe, is becoming untenable, and maybe even undesirable.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #172163

What did Hezbollah do to Israelis between 2000 and 2006?

“A total of six Israeli civilians died in that six year period, including one who was killed by a falling anti-aircraft round (fired at Israeli aircraft violating Lebanese airspace) and five in a March 2002 incursion, which Hizballah claimed it had nothing to do with (a claim that I discount). A sixth Israeli victim died in the March 2002 incident, but he was an army officer. I may have missed one or two deaths, but I do not think that the total number is no more than ten.

Additional Israelis may have died due cardiac events during alerts, exchanges of fire, etc., but that would not add more than a few people.

Of course, a number of Israeli soldiers were killed in the period, most of them in the occupied Golan Heights, including the disputed farms.”
http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/07/note-on-israeli-deaths-from-may-24.html

Any deaths are too many, of course. Still, this followed the 18 year occupation of Lebanon by Israel between 1982 and 2000, and some pretty horrific incidents.

But dropping 80 bombs and missiles on Qana, including one that killed so many innocents? That is so over the top. I really am disgusted.

Why should your tax dollars and my tax dollars go to arming a country which perpetrates such an atrocity?

The biggest gift for a possible peace came with the death of Arafat. There may still be hope, but after the botched political backing of Israel in this latest conflict, and the US standing alone in stalling a cease fire, I have no confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to accomplish anything constructive in this conflict.

Now we have this. Qana.

Eric
The Lebanese were all over the UN building in Beirut because they knew the US ambassador was trapped inside.

Jack,
Here is a peace plan put together by one group:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4282

The plan makes a prescient observation:

“And horrific as it is, the current toll of death and destruction could reach entirely different proportions should a new threshold be crossed – a Hizbollah rocket that strikes a chemical plant or a heavily populated area in Tel Aviv or Haifa, an Israeli bombing raid resulting in massive casualties, a major ground offensive, or the expansion of the war to Syria or Iran. A political solution to the twin crises of Lebanon and Palestine must be the international community’s urgent priority. Waiting and hoping for military action to achieve its purported goals will have not only devastating humanitarian consequences: it will make it much harder to pick up the political pieces when the guns fall silent.”

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #172164

Eric,
In your link, you show Hezbollah fighters posed among civilians with an anti-aircraft gun. How does that damn Hezbollah?

Whoops. Try again.

Tim,
I went through a similar experience to the one you described. When I was a teenager I read everything by Leon Uris, and accepted it as a true account of the formation of the nation of Israel. In addition, once upon a time I studied German language and history extensively; I am inclined to be very sympathetic to the Jews.

Although I achieved fluency in various German dialects and even translated medieveal German poetry, and although I have been fortunate enough to visit many countries, to this date I have never visited Germany or Austria. I do not know if I ever will, despite the urging of my family. There is no way I would ever visit the scenes of the Holocaust. The crime is just too damnable.

For a long time, that sympathy translated into support of Israel.

The rose colored glasses came off somewhere in the 1980s, when Israel invaded Lebanon.

It increased in the mid 90s, when I became very aware of just what happened to American Indians. I mean, I knew intellectually- but I experienced it firsthand during the brief years I lived in the southwest.

So anyway, you outline an attitude and an experience which is similar to my own.

I understand how we reached this point. But I will not support continuing in the same direction.

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #172165
Hezballah invades Israel, attacks and kidnaps Israeli soldiers, and fires hundreds of rockets into civilian cities and yet we find the most vocal and vociferious condemnations are not of Hezballah but of Israel for daring to fight back.

Thank you for speaking up!

Posted by: Sherrie at July 30, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #172166

phx8:

Understood.

But speaking as one who has been to Germany, I would urge you to go. If only to try and understand what can never been understood.

Wow, medieval German poetry! Yummmmm!

Just thinking of our treatment of the Indians makes me very, very weary. And discouraged. Much the same way I feel when I think of the Middle East. Different circumstances, the same beat-uo, exhausted feeling.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #172167

… can never be understood.”

and “beat-up”

I’ve been at the keyboard too long.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #172171

How come the instigator of this whole mess is neither condemned or protested? That would be like these same kooks blaming England France and the Allied Nations for Germany invading Poland, but then again the Allies appeasment plan enabled Hitler then, just like appeasment is encouraging terrorism now.

Posted by: George at July 31, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #172174

I don’t care who Israel is fighting, this stupid hate thing that goes on century after century is just completely beyond reason and shows a complete lack of brains and common sense by most middle eastern countries. Its no wonder most of these countries are still living in the 8th and 9th centuries, there just to stupid to learn from past behavior. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m very sure that Israel will continue to fight. Instead of pooring money down a rat hole like we have been for decades the United States should spend money to educate these idiots. Maybe some day they will realize that being stupid and raising your kids to hate isn’t in there own best interest. If parents can’t settle differences, what chance do the generations of the future have.

Posted by: Ed. McConnell at July 31, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #172176

I agree with Jack. If there can truly be a ceasefire with the possibility of continuation, then I’m for it. But if it is a ceasefire as in the cessation of punching between rounds in a boxing match, then I’m not for it.

Lets put UN troops into Lebanon to enforce a peace on both sides. Lets have the world unite to condemn the first side that breaks a ceasefire, and not just condemn with words, but with military action.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 31, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #172182

Hezbullah might lay down its weapons. Actually it would be good strategy. They look good, Israel looks bad, and five years from now when they’ve recovered from the pounding Israel is giving them they’ll just buy more weapons from Russia, China and France with money from Iran and Syria.

Yes, France sells bad guys guns quite regularly. Saddam’s missile batteries that were shooting at our pilots? French. The machetes and guns and rockets that slaughtered Tutsis in Uganda? French. O yeah, then they went in as “peacekeepers” to protect the Hutus from the Tutsi rebels who were demolishing the Hutus despite French guns. Yes, France has quite a history of opposing the moral high ground to support their business interests.\

I, for one, support Bush’s policy: Let Israel kill as many Hezbullah fighters as it can. But I do not forget Lebanon. Israel must be critized for bombing civilians. Is this not the very reason they invaded Lebanon? With the cross-border raid and kidnapping, yes, but pretty much they invaded cause Hezbullah was/is shooting rockets at their cities. So Israel drops more, bigger bombs on Lebanon. Interesting.

As a preemptive answer who will say giving weapons to Hezbullah is no different than than the US giving bombs to Israel: Yes, it is. Israel would be perfectly willing to accept peaceful borders. Actually, the would probably be joyful. Hezbullah will do no such thing. As long as one infidel inhabits Israel they will fight. Or want to. They wait and bide their time, but there will never be peace until these guys cease to exist one way or another, sooner or later. If it happens to be sooner by less than natural causes, fine by me.

Posted by: Silima at July 31, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #172186

Silima,
The US exports as much weaponry as the next 14 largest exporters combined. In 2004 the US exported $18.5 billion in arms, followed by Russia with $4.6 biillion, & France with $4.4.

The US spends as much on “defense” as the rest of the world combined.

The US provides Israel @ $3 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the US spends $2 billion per week on Iraq.

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #172187

I’m just waiting for a consensus on how to spell Hezzbollah.

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 31, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #172189

My Name Is Roger

ISRAEL: The land of Israel belonges to the Jews! It was given to The decendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by GOD. The Jewish people are in the promised land today as a result of a devine decree of GOD.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

ISRAEL became a nation around 1450 B.C. some 2,000 years before the rise of what is called Islam.

JEWISH people have lived in the land CONTINOUSLY since the days of Joshua, that is for some 3,000 years.

JEWISH people were the main population in the land from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 637, that is for 1,637 years.

Even if the Arbs had been the main population in the land from 637 to the present { WHICH THEY WERE NOT }, they would have to remain the main population for 268 more years merely to equal the time JEWISH people were the main population prior to A.D. 637. They would have to live there even longer to account for the years of JEWISH residency after 637.

The Muslims controled the land from 637 tp 1099, that is 462 years, but JEWISH people still lived there.

The Crusaders took the land from 1099 to 1291. JEWISH people joined with the Muslim people against the Crusaders, who totured and killed JEWS in their quest for ascendacy.

The Muslims retook the land from 1291 to 1917, that is a total of 626 years, and during that time JEWISH people were still living there, even if they were not the main population. Howerver, by 1880 the JEWS again were the main population in Jersalem, as they had been in Safed and Tiberias.

The British captured the Holy Land from the Muslim Ottoman Turks in 1917.

Fifty Eight years ago the United Nations decreed what GOD had already decreed. ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE JEWS! ! ! !

TO THE JEWS ! ! !

ROGER

Posted by: ROGER at July 31, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #172191

My Name Is Roger

I would like to add a PS to what I just said….

Go back to the top to commets and click on to THE MIDDLE EAST IN PROPHECY.

ROGER

Posted by: ROGER at July 31, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #172193

Our president should read what you guys post, because obviously he’s losing his way. Why just today, after the death of a bunch of school children, the Bush administration pushed for a suspension of bombing in Lebanon.

I hope some rogue group never flings rockets at Mexico because you guys clearly wouldn’t object if our southern neighbor destroyed Texas.

Posted by: Trent at July 31, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #172195

I say with no shame that I agree with Bush’s current policy in the handling of this foreign battle. It seems that he’s doing something right for a change. Isreal is defending itself from a terrorist threat, and they’re doing it their way. The leaders in Isreal are adults, and they can take responsibility for their actions. We need not intervene, except to offer aid to civilians.

I wouldn’t have believed what I heard coming from the mouth of Matt Drudge had I not heard myself, the CNN international anchor blasting away at the Isreali spokeswoman. This “journalist” was absolutely hostile about the Qana attack yesterday. She said, and I’m paraphrasing: “Hizbollah is firing rockets, not missiles, let’s be frank. How can you justify hitting this apartment building when you have guided missiles … why can’t you just shoot their rockets down - you certainly have the military capacity to do that, right?” Oh boy!

Does she think that this is some kind of first person shooter game, and the Isrealis are using a hack?! Look, in war, when someone fires rockets at your population, you don’t answer it with the same mediocre weapons against the same targets - you hit back hard. The whole point of war is to outgun your enemy! I didn’t hear this same “journalist” giving Rumsfeld the same verbal treatment all throughout the Iraq invasion, even though similar event took place.

I am completely unbiased politically (regarding the two parties), but I am noticing an anti-Isreal slant seeping from CNN’s coverage. The opposite is true for FOX news. Go figure.

My personal observation is that Bush is proving himself as a pro-war president, and he seems to be getting a little more comfortable each day the middle east grows more unstable. Keep your eyes open everyone: Bush apparently does have a plan for the middle east tensions, and it looks to be revealed soon from action, not from speeches. What it is exactly, and whether or not it’s a good thing, only time can tell.

Posted by: Bill C. at July 31, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #172196

Phx8

So if your argument is that Hezbollah is a part of the Lebonese government. ThenIsrael is completely justified for doing what is is doing. As a sovereign country they were attacked by another nation.

All of the innocent deaths are on the head of Hezbollah they started this and they could stop it at any time.

Posted by: Keith at July 31, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #172197

Here’s the link if you want to listen for yourself:

javascript:cnnVideo(‘play’,’/video/world/2006/07/30/miri.eisen.intv.cnn’,’2006/08/06’);

(copy and paste into address bar)

Or go to cnn.com and click the video link entitled ‘Isreal is deeply sorry’.

Posted by: Bill C. at July 31, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #172199
Why hasn’t the UN demanded the unconditional surrender of Hezballah?

You’re talking about John Bolton, right?

Posted by: American Pundit at July 31, 2006 3:26 AM
Comment #172200
Lets put UN troops into Lebanon to enforce a peace on both sides.

We should have done that two weeks ago when we had Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt on Israel’s side. With backing from the Arabs, there was a real chance for a solution to the Palestinian problem as well as severing Syria’s ties to Iran and terrorism.

I said a while back that if there wasn’t a strong peacekeeping force deployed immediately, the chance for real lasting peace would slip away — that the Sunni Arab governments wouldn’t put up with Israel killing Lebanese civilians much longer.

The Arabs were backing Israel for Christ’s sake! Well, not any more.

The Bush administration — and many of you on the right — are thinking small. This could have been about so much more than a rinky-dink terrorist outfit.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 31, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #172201

“Unconditional surrender”

——————————————————————-

Fox News reported a poll indicating that a staggering 87 % of the Lebanese support Hezbollah now, up astronomically from earlier figures. Even 80 % of Lebanese Christians now support what we call a terror group but they dub “freedom fighters against the current genocide by Israel”. You think they will agree Hezbollah disarming to Israel now, after having lost friends, family members and basically all of their infrastructure?

Would you allow the Minutemen to be disarmed when Mexico had such an “incursion”, slaughtering innocent people by the U.S-Mex border?

This is what we are reaping by sowing hatred and sabotage against a strong UN stance - veto here, veto there - and letting Israel continue their rampage - while providing them with the “precision” ammunition to kill civilians (many of them children).

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #172202

American Pundit wrote:

I said a while back that if there wasn’t a strong peacekeeping force deployed immediately, the chance for real lasting peace would slip away — that the Sunni Arab governments wouldn’t put up with Israel killing Lebanese civilians much longer.

The Arabs were backing Israel for Christ’s sake! Well, not any more.

————————————————————————


I could not agree more.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 3:43 AM
Comment #172203

Just watched a “panel of Fox news contributors” stating that “in that part of Lebanon Hezbollah is equal to the civilian population”.

Gimme a break…

Probably the worst case of “just let God sort ‘em out” I have EVER seen. And they are supposed to be the ones upholding the highest moral values as an example to the world?

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #172204

Josh

“Would you allow the Minutemen to be disarmed when Mexico had such an “incursion”, slaughtering innocent people by the U.S-Mex border?”

That’s about the worst analogy I’ve ever seen. The “Minutemen” as you want to call them started this. If the “Minutemen” attacked Mexico by crossing the border killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping 2 all the while sending rockets into Mexico, I would think the Mexico incursion force would have the right to do whatever it felt it needed to.

Posted by: Keith at July 31, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #172205

“I hope some rogue group never flings rockets at Mexico because you guys clearly wouldn’t object if our southern neighbor destroyed Texas.”

If that were to happen then OUR government (police, ATF, US Marshalls and FBI) would be on that rouge group before Mexico could load their Burros.

And we would probably pay Mexico billions of dollars in reperations.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 31, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #172206

Keith wrote:

“I would think the Mexico incursion force would have the right to do whatever it felt it needed to.
————————————————————————

And what if that included continuing to murder more innocent civilians than killing terrorists, and bombing all of our infrastructure near the border back to the stone-age? To no result other than creating more terrorists to stand up between the ruins and the dead family members and friens?

The whole nation - just look at the poll numbers among ALL Lebanese irrespective of ideology supporting Hezbollah some time ago versus now, huge increases - would stand by them.

It wasn’t supposed to be a perfect analogy. I hope I got that clear.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 4:50 AM
Comment #172208

Josh,

The analogy don’t fly at all. If a rouge group fired a couple of rockets at Mexico the US government would take care of the problem immediately.

If we were in a position where we couldn’t or wouldn’t take care of the problem, I would have no problem with Mexico doing it.

Posted by: tomd at July 31, 2006 5:23 AM
Comment #172210

Until they “accidentally” hit you where it hurts you must, i.e. in your hometown or your children. And keep hitting, and keep hitting,…

It’s quite easy for us to say “we would not have a problem with being bombed” in order to justify the outrageous Israeli military response to the conflict, no? Try explaining that to the Lebanese people.

Posted by: Josh at July 31, 2006 5:30 AM
Comment #172212

To all UN bashers:

Stop whinning and vote instead for a leader that will actually make US quitting UN. Officially.

Meanwhile, every nations who are UN members are all to blame along UN itself. Without these nations, there is no UN alone. UN is not a independent nation nor a body in itself. We’re (UN nations) all to blame for that. In particular the most powerfull members.

Make no mistakes, the escalation of violence is due to one fact, and one fact only, that the UN has failed to disarm Hezballah.

Eric,

*Funny* how with you it’s never ever the responsability of the ones who pull the trigger if people are killed by the bullet but everytime anyone else. Afterall, these children in Kana should NOT have being on the bomb target, that’s their ALL fault, damned stupids kids, right!?

You know what, go to hell and tell them yourself how it’s all their fault. And the UN responsability too. I’m sure many of them have seen far closer than you what’s is written on these bombs… And then died.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 31, 2006 5:31 AM
Comment #172211

“If the “Minutemen” attacked Mexico by crossing the border killing 8 soldiers and kidnapping 2 all the while sending rockets into Mexico, I would think the Mexico incursion force would have the right to do whatever it felt it needed to.”

—Keith

No way, Keith. Unlike Lebanon, the U.S.A. has “full” control of it’s statehood. I put “full” in quotes because of the dismal job of protecting our borders the government has so far done. Unlike the weak government of Lebanon, our government would not allow such an attack on U.S. soil.

For the better part of my mature life, I’ve always said that I wouldn’t fight a foreign war that I could never agree with. Instead, I would protect against an invasion. Now that we are being invaded by mexican intruders, I’m putting my money where my mouth is and I’m working towards becoming a border patrol agent. I’ve all but given up on the prospect of running for counsil in my home town, and have decided to serve the country at large (without having to serve the world at large). Border patrol agents earn a decent living, and I appreciate that, but I’m going in on principle. Next step: spanish lessons and a bacholer’s degree in criminal justice!

Posted by: Bill C. at July 31, 2006 5:31 AM
Comment #172214

“Afterall, these children in Kana should NOT have being on the bomb target, that’s their ALL fault, damned stupids kids, right!?”
—Philippe Houdoin

How could you be so obtuse? Nobody (sane) wants to kill innocent civilians, especially children. Hizbollah was launching rockets from the vicinity of that building. The Lebanese have only Hizbollah to blame. Why else, could you imagine, that Isreal would have sent a missile to that particular location? You really think they were targeting kids? That’s ridiculous and you know it. Imagine if Al Qaeda were launching rockets from Monterrey Mexico into the U.S. … do you honestly think that the U.S. would restrain from blowing that region of Mexico apart?

Civilian casulties are a natural part of war. This is the law of the universe. We will continue to devour in order to survive, and anyone who gets in our way will be removed from the gene pool, or indoctrinated into a new mindset. There will either be an equilibrium reached, or an annihilation of the weaker force, ideally. The other option is never-ending war. So, what exactly is a temporary cease-fire going to do?

Posted by: Bill C. at July 31, 2006 5:52 AM
Comment #172215

Ron Brown,

And before y’all UN apologist trot out your list of so called good the UN has done just stop and think who has paid for 99% of that. WE HAVE. So it’s the US that has done all that good.

Bullshits. By own UN rules, there is a “ceiling” rate for financial independence sake: no UN members can contribute more than 22% of total UN budgets.
Still, US is the only one member meeting that ceiling. Japan contributes 19.6% since years, too.
Doesn’t make US the main nation who has paid for *everything* UN. 78% come from this famous (and “annoying”, if I follow the actual american feeling) Rest of The World.
Yeah, I know, the ROTW could go to hell. Thanks for you help in speeding the move…

I wont even talk about the US debt to UN, nor UN programs who are NOT funded from regular budgets, like UNICEF or UNAIDS.

Please, next time you want to bash UN, check your numbers *first*, becaue this time it make look you fool and arrogant.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 31, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #172216

Bill,

How could you be so obtuse?

Easy: I’m french.

Nobody (sane) wants to kill innocent civilians, especially children. Hizbollah was launching rockets from the vicinity of that building. The Lebanese have only Hizbollah to blame.

Unfortunatly, that’s not the conclusion Lebanese who lost loved ones will make.
And I disagree about the “only” part. Bombs killing these kids were not dropped by Hezbollah and the people who choose to drop them have some responsability too. At least their leader.

You see, in “collateral damage” *buzzword*, there’s two words, the most important one to me being “damage”, when clearly for many it became “collateral”. Since when because it was not the main objective such damage doesn’t matter that much??? Shouldn’t be exactly the reverse!?!

It’s a complete shame.

Imagine if Al Qaeda were launching rockets from Monterrey Mexico into the U.S. … do you honestly think that the U.S. would restrain from blowing that region of Mexico apart?

Alas, I’ve no such hope anymore, indeed. Violence, revenge and destruction seems the only answer you guys have to reply to fanatism & terrorism.
Which means terrorists are winning.

Civilian casulties are a natural part of war. This is the law of the universe.

This is the law of human evilness. Nothing “natural” here: no other species do it in such massive way on earth. I can’t say for the whole universe, but nobody could either.

In Lebanon vs Israel crisis, civilians casualties are a not “a” part of war, they’re the “major” part of if. Among them, many kids and women and old people who are/were not launching rockets into Israel.

What’s you civilians per hezbollah killed limit?
1:1? 2:1? 10:1? 100:1? 1,000:1? 10,000:1?
Whatever:1?

We will continue to devour in order to survive, and anyone who gets in our way will be removed from the gene pool, or indoctrinated into a new mindset. There will either be an equilibrium reached, or an annihilation of the weaker force, ideally. The other option is never-ending war.

With such mindset, I’m not suprised you don’t mind about lebanese kids that much, and that you’re already commit to kill everybody you want/can.

Never I’ll siding with this “whatever it takes” mindset. I don’t want to loose myself doing it. Call me your enemy if you want, I don’t mind, but I’ll never siding with people who reject *their* (notice here that I’m not saying “all”, only “their”) responsabilities in causing deaths.

So, what exactly is a temporary cease-fire going to do?

Allowing a few hundred thousand of civilian to evacuate south lebanon and reach a more safer zone thru humatirian corridors. Allowing israelis to reach settlers in north israel, or evacuates more to south.
And both belligerants brains to get some cold meanwhile, which could not hurt as much as bombs and rockets…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 31, 2006 6:28 AM
Comment #172217

Re: Mr. Houdoin’s comment:

The US is the biggest contributor to UNAIDS. The US overall contribution to the UN is understated because the US does not normally bill the UN for the logistical support and air transport it provides to UN forces. Consequently, this does not appear anywhere in the UN accounts, and is not easy to find in the US defense budget and/or foreign aid budget either.

The overall budget of the UN is not transparent and the organisation is badly run. This is why the US Congress has refused to appropriate the full US dues. This was a cop-out, or if one wishes to be generous, a compromise. The US has a treaty obligation to pay its dues, as long as it is a member. Ergo, the legal remedy is to withdraw from the UN, as the US has done from several UN organisations. However, in this case, the legal remedy would be the end of the UN, so status quo suits everyone. LIberals can complain about US policy towards the UN, while conservatives can be happy that some slight pressure is being applied on the UN to reform itself.

Posted by: Charles Kovacs at July 31, 2006 6:40 AM
Comment #172218
France sells bad guys guns quite regularly. Saddam’s missile batteries that were shooting at our pilots? French.

Silima,

At time that missiles sell happened, the bad guy was not in Iraq but in Iran, its enemy. And our thru Iraq proxy.
And yes, ironically, 10 years after Iraq Iran vs war the same missile batteries were shooting at US pilots. As well as at french pilots. During Gulf War, french were on US sides. Remember?

The point is France sold arms. Every time you sold a weapon, you take the risk that guy will use in a bad way. If a good way to use a weapon ever exists. US do it as well too, in a far bigger range. OBL was helped by CIA, for your memory…

Last but not least, I agree with our shamefull behavior in Rwanda.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 31, 2006 6:40 AM
Comment #172223

Charles Kovacs,

The US is the biggest contributor to UNAIDS.

Hum, I guess you mean US is the biggest contributor to Global Funds against AIDS. Which is both true and hopefully better but not the exact same. For some reasons (abstinence vs UNAIDS official prevention, condoms?), Bush choose to not put US’s effort against AIDS under UN umbrella.
You can’t have both way: or you’re doing with UN or you’re doing without. In the second case, your participation to UN program is null. You may find this a good thing or not, but fact is you can’t claim you’re paying 99% for UNAIDS. Which, BTW, is funded around 60% by Europe alone.

The US overall contribution to the UN is understated because the US does not normally bill the UN for the logistical support and air transport it provides to UN forces.

Probably. Why not charging then, for tranparency sake?
Until we knows the actual numbers, it’s hard to know how much this understated contribution ammout for, rigth?
Maybe in the process the magic of “free market” will bring some fair competition in areas where US is not the unique possible provider for UN?
I’m sure Europe, Russia, China and India will be happy to bill UN for some new military markets…

PS: what about when the UN troops transported and supported happened to be US ones? What? Will never happen again?

Consequently, this does not appear anywhere in the UN accounts, and is not easy to find in the US defense budget and/or foreign aid budget either.

Then it make it even harder to back a claim that US is paying 99% of all UN costs, right?

The overall budget of the UN is not transparent and the organisation is badly run.

Agreed. In Europe we call that bureaucracy.
And it’s not limited to UN. US federal bodies and Europe counterparts are sick of the same decease too.
Pretty much every organization this huge and rich get eventually fat. Diet is due. Doesn’t make the mind trapped in the body necessarly bad.

Ergo, the legal remedy is to withdraw from the UN, as the US has done from several UN organisations. However, in this case, the legal remedy would be the end of the UN, so status quo suits everyone.

Well, I’m not sure it doesn’t suits US too, in fact. If Bush wants to send a big “our way or the highway” symbolic message worldwide, ending US’s UN membership will be an easy way to do it. He does that on ecology realm at Kyoto.

But I guess the cost could be found a bit too much expensive for US. Afterall, US seems to have less and less “blind” allied these years, and the rest of the world is more critical about US policy than ever. Which make protecting US interests worldwide a bit harder now than a decade before.

conservatives can be happy that some slight pressure is being applied on the UN to reform itself.

I’m all for reforming UN. For a more reactive and less bureaucratic one. Not for a more Western leaded body. UN was never created for friendly nations only. It was since start about uniting as much as possible nations all together in trying to keep the world at peace.

And ending it will not reform it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 31, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #172230

This is so complicated. I am here in Italy. To get the people to understand, they have compared Israel to Zidane and Hezbollah to Materazzi. To those that don’t understand, Zidane is the French guy who head butted the Italian guy in the World Cup Final.

Anyway, I kind of felt like Israel should just wipe Hezbollah off the map and have been arguing with people intensely here. But then I read this article by Kristof.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html?inline=nyt-per (Scroll to see the article) - In Lebanon,echoes of Iraq?

Yes, he’s a liberal from the NY Times, but it really made me change my thinking.

1) There are way more Muslims in the world than Jews or Americans. You have to, have to play by their opinion. Because if you give them fuel to be angry they will be collectively angry and feel justified in criticizing Israel. That recent bombing gives them double reason to be mad and the moral high ground, which I hope we feel is still important to have.

2)My friend described Hizbollah as a “gang.” In LA, Houston, NYC, Chicago, you have gangs. You don’t send the national guard in or drop bombs on them, you have to wheel and deal. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU MUST INFILTRATE THEM WITH SPIES, GATHER INTELLIGENCE AND CHECKMATE THEM. The Atlantic Monthly had a great article a year ago on how British spies were able to severly cripple the IRA. They did brutal things to their own side in the process, but they got the job done in the end. I never knew the Shiites of Lebanon (Hizbollah) made up 40% of its population!!! You can’t wipe them all out without becoming a villan yourself.

Israel should not sit back like Kristof says, nor should they use total diplomacy either.

A total navy blockade of Lebanon, while appealing to the UN would have been the best course of action. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but the Lebanese in the North would have demanded Hizbollah disarm and their hatred would be focused totally on Hizbollah and not Israel or split to both. We have to learn our lessons on a quick strike and explore other ways of forcing our enemies to surrender.

Posted by: Steve C. at July 31, 2006 8:27 AM
Comment #172259

Phx8

The plan is fine. Make it happen. Israel offered almost all this in 2000. The current attacks against Israel are coming from places they evacuated in return for peace.

Maybe we should start by Hamas and Hezbollah saying that destroying Israel is not their goal. It is hard to negotiate with someone is is loading a gun that he says he will shoot you with.

Posted by: Jack at July 31, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #172260

By the way, Amal is the Lebanese group which dominates Qana. Amal is not the same as Hezbollah- actually, Amal is a rival, with its own political party.

So when the bombs drop, it may be Amal, it may be Hezbollah. It would be more accurate to say the Israelis are bombing the Shias. The Israelis seek to depopulate southern Lebanon, up to the Litani River.

What word should we use for “depopulation”?

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #172285

There are truly innocent victims (e.g. especially children), but Lebanon, its government and people must bear some of the responsibility for allowing terrorists to exist among them. The Lebanese government should not have allowed it. So, they are largely to blame also.

Hezballah may be viewed by some as an independent group, independent of Lebanon, but the reality is that Lebanon attacked Israel, because Lebanon allowed (many even embrace) Hezballah to co-exist among them.

That does not condone intentional or accidental targeting of civilians (as in any war), but Lebanon attacked Israel, and continue to attack Israel civilians (via rockets). Hezballah hide among civilians, as most terrorists do, with no regard for the life and property they endanger and destroy.

Where’s the outrage against those that started it?

Once you ask that question, those that don’t want to answer it honestly will begin to dredge up ancient history to divert attention away from their lack of a valid answer.

Why doesn’t the U.N. disarm the terrorists, and remove their capability to shoot rockets at Israel ?

Well, since when did the U.N. ever do anything, but give warnings, more warnings, and more warnings, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The U.N. truly deserves the label “pathetic”.

If the Lebanon does not want Israel making war with Lebanon, perhaps Lebanon should not start a war with Israel? Duh !

Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #172288

Trent:

If Mexico were to attack Texas, then we would wipe them out.

Israel doesn’t need the UN, then neither should we. The vast majority of the members of UN are cowards.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 31, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #172292

“The Israelis seek to depopulate southern Lebanon, up to the Litani River.”

It is good to see that no one is going overboard.

So if regional leaders from Hezbollah did in fact specifically tell civilians to stay in areas they knew were going to be attacked, does this Iraeli goal of “depopulation” now alleviate all of their responsability to their own citizenry? I think it would be much more accurate to say that Hezbollah is seeking to “depopulate” southern Lebenon by using the people as human shields. I realize it is easier to tell Israel to just stop attacking and roll up in the fetal position, but I’m more for living in the real world where no one will put their safety in jeapardy by going to a negotiating table with both arms securly tied behind its back by the UN. It won’t help anyone to force a negotiation that does not take into account the true state of affairs.

We are in the midst of a global war of propaganda. So essentially, we fight against the interpretation of our own actions, and then the subsequent popular response to that interpretation. Doing nothing after years of intervention sends a similarly negative message…especially now with bombs/rockets dropping. All we can do is tell the simple truth. Even where it is not immediately appreciated, the end result will be better.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 31, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #172294

So lets see if I have this correct according to phx8
Hezbollah, is a legal party in the country of Lebanon, and represent the people of that country. Therefore since they kidnapped 2 soldiers from inside Israel and then shot rockets into Israel, they declared war on Israel in the name of Lebanon. So Israel is now at war with Lebanon,(similar to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor).

If Hezbollah does not represent the country of Lebanon, then they are a terrorist organization and as such should be destroyed.

I guess phx8 you can’t have it both ways and make it look like Israel is wrong. Put down the rose color glasses and see the world how it really is.

Posted by: KT at July 31, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #172305

“The Israelis seek to depopulate southern Lebanon, up to the Litani River.”

Get real! If Israel wanted to depopulate Lebanon to the Litani River, the job would have been done already to the tune of 10s of thousands of casualties. I agree with Israel’s right to defend itself and do think they’re going too far, but too accuse them of genocide is just as stupid as it is wrong.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 31, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #172309

Recently, Bush has been talking about getting to the “root causes” of the conflict in the middle East.

Does even the most ardent supporter of Bush believe you could sit down with him and have a genuinely thoughtful, historically based conversation about the root causes of the conflict between the Western and Arab worlds?

Perhaps he is educated and thoughtful enough to discuss the root causes, but he has said and done nothing to indicate it.

Posted by: Trent at July 31, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #172323

PHx8,

Hizbollah has been given every chance to negotiate peace with Israel over the years. Israel now has to do what it has to to secure itself against their terrorism.

This would only be like the American Indians if they were still attacking US citizens and saying they would never stop. In which case, tragic as it would be, we would have to do something about that. Its not in Lebanon’s interest to continue to threaten Israel, but Hizbollah does it anyway. The minute Palestinians and Hizbollah turn to peaceful means to settle their differences with Israelis is the time they will make progress. However, I can’t help but think it may be too late. They claim to be unreasonably devoted to killing all Jews no matter what, and I guess at this point I believe them.

Posted by: Max at July 31, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #172325

Jack,
A recognition by Hezbollah & other parties of the right for Israel to exist seems obvious. A better solution would be for Israel to become secular, with equal rights guaranteed for all of its inhabitants.

That will not happen.

The US is preventing a ceasefire and backing Israel in its attacks. Obviously I cannot do anything about the insanity which drives people believing in Middle Eastern religions. All I can do is advocate my own government not support any versions of religious insanity, neither Jewish nor Islamic.

Roger,
While a lot may be unknown, I am quite sure of the following:

God is not a real estate broker. God does not prefer Jews over other people. God is not some primitive totem on a stick. God does not file certificates, deeds, or transfer titles of ownership. God does not get all jolly when petitioned by prayer, nor does God get mad and vengeful if paid insufficient attention. God does not draw lines on maps and divide dirt between ethnic groups.

Does anyone- anyone at all- believe Israel will become more secure by bombing Hezbollah?

KT,
It may well be that you are right, and the US & Israel is rightm, while the rest of the world is wrong. But I would not bet on it.

And please look into the background of this conflict. It did not begin with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

1LT,
The Israelis dropped/fire 80 bombs into Qana before slaughtering the refugees in that four-story residential building. The Israelis have dropped leaflets ordering everyone to flee. I did not call it “genocide.” But it is unquestionably a war crime, and monstrous.

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #172352

Bill C. please tell me that the follow is intended as satire

“Civilian casulties are a natural part of war. This is the law of the universe. We will continue to devour in order to survive, and anyone who gets in our way will be removed from the gene pool, or indoctrinated into a new mindset. There will either be an equilibrium reached, or an annihilation of the weaker force, ideally. The other option is never-ending war. So, what exactly is a temporary cease-fire going to do?”

You scare me…

So war and genocide should never be stopped because “the other option is a never-ending war”.

Really, I thought the “other option” was peace.

Posted by: abhcoide at July 31, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #172369

phx8 — once again we share the same views on an issue. Btw, my husband, who is Jewish, also shares this view.

There is no excuse for what happened in Qana. None whatsoever.
Interesting article: Turning Point At Qana

Posted by: Adrienne at July 31, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #172410

Adrienne,
Good article.
This whole thing is scary. It brings out the crazies in force. There seems to be this weird attitude that violence is advantageous.

There seems to be an attitude that, for example, if the US bombs Iran, that will solve a problem. No thinking goes into the aftermath. Or at least, no one is willing to discuss the consequences.

It is shaping up as the US and Israel v the world. Not that long ago, I would have thought WWIII was a ridiculous idea, foolish beyond belief. Now I am not so sure.

Colin Powell called them the “F****** Crazies.”

I cannot believe it. Right before our eyes. Osama bin Laden is winning.

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #172415

Can somebody tell me where the bodies of all males 18-45 are. It’s very interesting to me that the only people killed in that building that took 8 hours to fall down were woman, children and elderly.

Posted by: Keith at July 31, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #172421

How many governments of Mulim countries recognize Israels right to exist? How many times have Muslim countries tried to wipe Israel off the map? Hezballahs main supporter, Iran, is still publicly calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Let’s get real here, most Muslims given the opportunity would support the killing every Jew on earth and be proud of it. Why are some people surprised by the actions of Hezballah and why would anyone expect them to ever live up to any truce?

Posted by: Carnak at July 31, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #172447

I think an investigation will show that the building at Qana collapsed because of forces that are not Israeli forces, but are Hizbollah forces. They packed women and children into the building and then brought it down. This was their way of putting the blame on Israel, when in fact the deaths of women and children are the responsibility of Hizbollah. Sit tight for the next page.

Posted by: tomh at July 31, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #172491

phx8,

I wasn’t suggesting that Israel was right or justified to bomb that building. I don’t know. It could be that they tracked a rocket to it, its not hard, we track incoming roounds back to their point of origin all the time. In any case, all I was saying was that if Israel truly wanted to kill all of the Lebenese south of that river, they would already be dead. Hell, with the Air Force we had in 1945 we could’ve done this in a few days at most, and the Israeli Air Force is far more lethal than ours was back then. Contrast the numbers of dead in Lebenon to what happened in Chechnya when the Russians artillerized it to the ground. You don’t always know who’s in a building when you shoot at it, but you don’t often shoot into buildings without getting shot at from it first.

Posted by: 1LT B at August 1, 2006 3:38 AM
Comment #172499

The main point is that Israel is doing everything the U.S. approves of. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody thought Rumsfeld, Cheney & co would actually carry out the strategies described in papers such as the Project for a New American Century. They are.

The neo-con/rightwing republicans will only “ask” Israel to stop when a “peacekeeping force” - under our control and with a clear mission to disarm Hezbollah and protect Israel - can be put in place in Southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah was born out of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the oppressive occupation that followed. As a result of recent incursions by the IDF an overwhelming majority of all Lebanese, including Christians, currently support Hezbollah as freedom fighters. Much like and in the same spirit as the French Resistance freedom fighters the Nazis called terrorists, formed to resist their illegal occupiers and expel them.

The U.S. is currently backing/using Israel to put that “peacekeeping” force in South Lebanon. Nothing more, nothing less. We’ll keep our hands clean while the peacekeepers will be handed the impossible task in creating stability and disarming Hezbollah.

As a lot of countries will be dragged in to the conflict via this force, Syria and Iran will not stand by idly. As Iran has strong links with China and Russia we can not currently estimate the size of the full-scale conflict that may erupt as a result.

That is why Israel, backed by Condi & co, are pressing for nothing but an unconditional surrender to a peacekeeping force. As if Hezbollah would ever lay its weapons down when faced with a U.S./Israeli-controlled force and supported by a large majority of Lebanese, as well as fellow Muslems.

If we don’t change course Lebanon is bound to be the next version of Iraq, only with more countries envolved in guerilla warfare. Another 40 people were reportedly killed by three separate bombings in Bagdad just today. But maybe this is the master plan? It would suit the PNAC framework perfectly. Maybe that’s why Dems do not dare openly criticising Israel, joining their fellow Republican House members in openly praising Israel for “minimizing civilian loss” just a couple of days ago? They probably see where this Administration is getting us into without any chance of stopping them. Nothing more than a full-blown war putting Muslems against non-Muslems, nothing less either. Just don’t say you didn’t saw this coming.

Posted by: Josh at August 1, 2006 5:13 AM
Comment #172500

phx8 wrote:

“It is shaping up as the US and Israel v the world. Not that long ago, I would have thought WWIII was a ridiculous idea, foolish beyond belief. Now I am not so sure.”

————————————————————————-

It is currently shaping up as US and Israel v the world. That’s why we will only force Israel to stop - and even better, provide them with enough “precision” and other ammo to continue - until “the world” joins us in a “peacekeeping force” to disarm Hezbollah and protect Israel.

Current diplomacy by this Administration/Condi & co is trying to set it up as US and Israel and a significant number of other countries v “terror”, sure to drag in other heavyweights on the other side. WW III, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Josh at August 1, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #172509

My Name Is Roger

Jack: IS GOD A REAL ESTATE BROKER DOES GOD PERFER JEWS OVER OTHER PEOPLE ? ? ?

GOD IS NOT A REAL ESTATE BROKER! ! !

B U T—-> He has given Israel to the decendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…..

GENESIS:12:1 TO 6
NOW THE LORD HAD SAID TO ABRAM: “GET OUT OF YOUR COUNTRY, FROM YOUR FAMILY AND FROM YOUR FATHER’S HOUSE,TO A LAND I WILL SHOW YOU. I WILL MAKE OF YOU A GREAT NATION; I WILL BLESS YOU AND MAKE YOUR NAME GREAT: AND YOU SHALL BE A BLESSING. I WILL BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS YOU, AND I WILL CURSE HIM WHO CURSES YOU; AND IN YOU WILL ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED”. SO ABRAM DEPARTED AS THE LORD HAD SPOKEN TO HIM, AND LOT WENT WITH HIM. AND ABRAM WAS SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OLD WHEN HE DEPARTED FROM HARAN. THEN ABRAM TOOK SARAI HIS WIFE AND LOT HIS BROTHER’S SON, AND ALL THEIR POSSESSIONS THAT THEY HAD GATHERED, AND THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY HAD ACQUIRED IN HARAN, AND THEY DEPARTED TO GO TO CANAAN. ABRAM PASSED THROUGH THE LAND TO THE PLACE OF SHECHEM, AS FAR AS THE TEREBINTH TREE OF MOREH. AND THE CANAANITES WERE THEN IN THE LAND. THEN THE LORD APPEARED TO ABRAM AND SAID, ” {TO YOUR DECENDANTS I WILL GIVE THIS LAND}”.

Genesis 13:14 & 15

AND THE LORD SAID TO ABRAM, AFTER LOT HAD SEPERATED FROM HIM ” LIFT YOUR EYES NOW AND LOOK FROM THE PLACE WERE YOU ARE - NORTHWARD, SOUTHWARD, EASTWARD AND WESTWARD; FOR ALL THE LAND WHICH YOU SEE {I GIVE TO YOU AND YOUR DECENDANTS FOREVER}.

Genesis 15:18 & 19

THE LORD MADE A COVENANT WITH ABRAM, SAYING: ” {TO YOUR DECENDANTS} I HAVE GIVEN THIS LAND, FROM THE RIVER OF EGYPT TO THE GREAT RIVER, THE RIVER EUPHRATES”.

Genesis 17:7 & 8

” AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND YOUR DECENDANTS AFTER YOU AFTER YOU IN THEIR GENERATIONS, FOR AN {EVERLASTING} COVENANT, TO BE GOD TO YOU AND YOUR DECENDANTS AFTER YOU. ALSO I GIVE TO YOU AND YOUR DECENDANTS AFTER YOU THE LAND IN WHICH YOU ARE A STRANGER, {ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN, AS AN EVERLASTING POSSESSION }; AND I WILL BE YOUR GOD.

Posted by: ROGER at August 1, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #172551

As if anyone gives a crap, my order of sympathy in this war is as follows:
1) Civilians
I coldn’t give a rats ass about Hezbollah, this is all their fault. But, we need to remain critical of Israel to ensure they retain their self control and conform to rules that minimize collateral damage. Unfortunately, I think we have a few more decades of this theocratic nonsense until the American and Islamic far right wings burn themselves out.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #172557

Dave1
I’m not betting on the few more decades bit. I won’t be here to collect. The rapture is right aroung the corner.

Posted by: tomh at August 1, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #172561

tomh,

Are you serious?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #172599

If Israel is committing genocide, then why have they sent warning pamplets. Israel’s war against Hezbollah is completely justified. Soon, Israel will attack Iran, then Syria will declare war against Israel or vice-versa. Then we will help Israel attack Iran. Our war and Israel’s war will be connected. If you think that our war now is not pretty, just wait. The ugly is still yet to come.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 1, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #172610

stubborn conservative,

If you think that our war now is not pretty, just wait. The ugly is still yet to come.

The ugliest is still yet to come. As always.
The ugly is already there since years. Never was far away, in fact. Just in different places on the planet than today.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at August 1, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #172617

Information coming out of Lebanon indicates the building in Qana (1) was being used as a shield for a Hezbollah missile firing station prior to the airstrike,(2)did not collapse for 8 hours after the strike,and (3)was surrounded by Hezbollah murderers who would not allow anyone to get out of the building before it fell in. Why? Simple. So stupid people would see the reports on Arab TV and CNN and the other pro Islam media and believe the worst about those murdering Jews.

No, Israel is not totally innocent in this matter. But, they do understand how to protect their country: overwhelming force. If mistakes are made and civilians are killed, it is regrettable and should be mourned. But that should not be a reason for the IDF to pull out, and/or give up the fight. To say that is to say that the Allied powers should have given up and gone home after the firebombing of Dresden or the use of nukes on Japan.

Don’t misunderstand me. I believe the loss of a single life to violence is cause for regret and mourning. But, I am realistic enough to know that if one’s home or country is attacked, the only proper response is to remove the threat whatever it takes.

Posted by: John Back at August 1, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #172630

tomh,

“I’m not betting on the few more decades bit. I won’t be here to collect. The rapture is right aroung the corner.”

For the benefit of us plebeians, please feel free to point out exactly where in your Bible the “rapture” is mentioned.

Posted by: Rocky at August 1, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #172635

dave1,

If you’re at all interested;

http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

It seems that the world has been predicted to end at varying times since at least 2800bc.

What tomh is talking about is just the latest.

Posted by: Rocky at August 1, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #172692

Rocky,

Thanks for the link, I’ve never had access to . I was actually just asking first before associating anyone with the loons you see walking the streets with “Repent Now, The world ends tommorow” signs

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #172694

Dave1,

Admittedly, the site is a bit tongue in cheek, but the guy that did the research claims that the info is true.

I’m not particularly religious, and I take the whole thing with a bit of salt.

“No man has learned anything rightly until he knows that every day is Doomsday.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted by: Rocky at August 1, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #172709

Rocky

Here are some Biblical references. They must be read in context. That is to say the scripture before and after the reference should be read and understood.

Matthew 24:30, 26:64
Mark 8:38, 14:62
Luke 21:26-27
Acts 1:11
II Thessalonians 1:7-8
Hebrews 9:28
II Peter 3:10
James 5:8
Revelation 1:7, 3:11, 22:7, 22:20

There are many more. This is a sampling.

Posted by: tomh at August 1, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #172720

tomh,

My question was very specific.

I didn’t ask about the “second coming”, I asked where in the Bible does it speak about man (by that I mean men and women), being whisked bodily from this plane during what you referred to as the rapture?

There are many Christian sects that don’t adhere to the idea of rapture that first was expounded upon by John Nelson Darby in the 1800’s;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby#Later_Influence

“He originated the “secret rapture” theory wherein Christ will snatch away his true believers from this world without warning.”

I am not looking for your interpretation of the second coming.

The question still remains, where in the Bible does it specifically talk about this “rapture”?

Posted by: Rocky at August 2, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #172741

My Name Is Roger:

This Is For ROCKY & TOMH & DAVE 1

In the study of { ESCHATOLOGY } there have been many ideas concerning what is sometimes called the end of the world. All of these can be found on the enter-net.

The four most popular are
1. POSTMILLENNIALISM
2. AMILLENNIALISM
3. PREMILLENNIALISM
4. DISPENSATIONALSM

And it is true some do and some do not suport the idea of a rapture.

And those who do have different ideas when the rapture will occure.

But ALL SUPORT the Bible teaching that there will be a second coming of Christ, and that the Bible gives information concerning the events leading up to the second coming, with the instruction that we should be ready.

QUESTION: If Christ should come today… WOULD YOU BE READY?

QUESTION: Is He your Lord and Saviour, and if He is are you living the kind of life that is pleasing to Him, and could he say to you “WELL DONE,GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT”? MATTHEW 25

ROGER

Posted by: ROGER at August 2, 2006 7:07 AM
Comment #172750

Roger,

This is all well and good, but you still haven’t answered the question.

Posted by: Rocky at August 2, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #172756

Rocky

The second coming is the rapture. The word rapture does not appear in the scripture. The meaning is that he, Christ, will return for his church, which are all those who believe. The act is a rapture of those same ones.

Roger

I believe your list is correct and that there are those who believe different ways. There is evidence of each of those positions to be correct. I personally belive that there is one predominant position to take. And if I am wrong, then I have lost nothing. If I am correct then I will be prepared as best possible.

Posted by: tomh at August 2, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #172758

Roger-
What God gives, God can take away. He took Israel away from the Israelites once, and he can do so again.

Rocky-
The Scriptural basis for the Rapture is a line from the first of Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians:

Then those alive, who are left will be caught up in the clouds together with them [those who have died before judgment day] to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
First Thessalonians, 4:17 NRSV translation

Without context, this might seem to support the Rapture, except for one thing: In the Ancient World, when some King or Emperor came to visit a town, he would come to the outskirts of the town, and there the people would come to greet them. Having greeted their sovereign, they would bring the sovereign back with them with the city walls. in short, the best interpretation of that is that, having met the lord, the people will come back, and God will dwell with us here on Earth.

The Resurrection is not people simply coming back from the dead, nor we will go to some other place. What comes after the horrific struggle of the end times will be a new world, where the spiritual survivors have a new, transformed experience, and the distance between God and us is abolished.

The interesting thing to not is that there is eternal life for everyone. Some though, will spend that eternal life removed from God’s presence. That, quite literally, will be hell. Who suffers and who won’t is beyond our judgment we don’t know enough about people to make that judgment. I don’t think being a Christian in the sense of being a churchgoer and a professed believer is necessarily a free ticket to this glorious future. If a person claiming to be a Christian hasn’t acted like one, Christ himself would say “Go away, you evildoer, I know you not.” This is part of what allows me to have faith in a God whose religion has been so abused: however self-righteously these people have looked at themselves, when Christ looks at them, he will see them for exactly who they are, no more, no less.

Looking at the situation in Israel, I think you have people both in Washington and in the Israeli government who think a course of intimidation will make Israel safer, that displays of strength will ultimately overwhelm the opposition. They do not see that the opposition, being over grievances, will only increase as they add hurt upon hurt onto the innocent. To punish the innocent with the guilty is unjust, no matter what intention is claimed.

Unfortunately, we have people here and in Israel who believe like the tyrants of old, that if they punish the population with the perpetrators, they can intimidate the people into ending their support. Unfortunately, as many people find out when they try that route, it can make things worse, too. I accept that Israel has a right to defend itself, and to use all necessary force against Hezbollah. But against Lebanon? You can tie yourself in logical knots trying to justify it, but it’s unnecessary.

Trouble is, you’ve got people in charge who KNOW what’s going on, what the right choice is, and will be damned if they will take anybody else’s advice. Has such stubbornness solved the situation? Have similar tactics worked when used against the Palestinians?

It is unfortunate that folks in both our countries believe that diplomacy and peace are not of use in combatting forces like Hezbollah. If forces like HAMAS and Hezbollah cannot incite retributive violence that kills innocent civilians and destroys other means of support, they cannot maintain power through their charity support and their murderous “revenge”. The Lebanese and Palestinians need to be weaned off the support of these groups. Hamas and Hezbollah must be isolated from support if we wish to destroy them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #172762

tomh,

Let me preface my next questions with an explanation that I don’t wish to have you feel it is a personal attack.

Don’t you think the assumption that anyone might have lived such a righteous life that they will be whisked off to eternal happiness, a bit arrogant?

How does a person reconcile this arrogance with the humble attitude theoretically associated with Christian beliefs?

Posted by: Rocky at August 2, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #172765

Roger, tomh;
What do you think of this guy?

Stephen;
Good post re: denial of the food of hate for the groups of hate. How would you propose we “starve” them? Iran and Syria have a vested interest in the ongoing violence. Why would they stop stoking the fire and how can we adjust for that fact?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 2, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #172778

Rocky

Living a righteous life does not cut it with GOD. There will be a lot of righteous people in hell. The Bible teaches that whosoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved (John 3:16). Also Ephesians 2:8 says: “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God:”

There are so many scriptures that show one must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to enter into heaven. Otherwise, hell is the only other option, and that is personal choice.

Posted by: tomh at August 2, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #172781

Rocky

I did not address the question of arrogance.

I cannot speak for others. In my case it is not arrogance. It is purely acceptance that God is in control of my life. No, I do not hear an audible voice. I hear through the Word of God called the Bible. That is how I hear God. I do not condemn people. That is the providence of God. I can speak of wrongs and rights without condemnation. Does that make me better than the next person? NO! Am I more elite, or higher than the next person? NO! I am only a sinner saved by the grace of GOD, and that is all.

Posted by: tomh at August 2, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #172782

Stephen,

The truth is that if you are brutal enough, it will work. At least, through the lifetime of the despot or regime inflicting it, it will work.

Bullying is, ultimately, how we enforce law. Leadership is finding other ways to acheive the ends. I believe, sadly, there are too many disparate forces acting on the middle east to expect resolution in the foreseeable future.

Jimmy Carter came the closest, in my opinion, to approaching a resolution. We saw where that led. Assassination and loss of an election were the outcome.

I guess I understand why some people believe in the rapture. It often seems getting whisked away to Nirvana, is the only way to solve some of life’s issues.

Posted by: gergle at August 2, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #172786

gergle,

Ted Rall has a good post on this today.


Posted by: Dave1 at August 2, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #173121

Philippe Houdoin, abhcoide, all:

It took me a bit of time to find this post. I must explain; I was drinking heavily on the night(morning) that I posted this crap. I am glad no one agreed with my comments, as they are seriously misguided. I apologize sincerely to the watchblog community. I’ll try to remember the consequences of posting something on the internet in a drunken stupor.

That being said, I should point out the rarity of this kind of thing. I don’t want this to take away from the good intentions I have when I post here. I have a drinking problem, but it has grown worse of late, being compounded by depressed feelings. A devil on both shoulders you might say.

But I’m not here to throw you a crying towel. I’m just trying to take responsibility for this mistake. My apologies. I don’t really think that way. BTW I don’t know where I got the idea of joining the border patrol … a noble jesture indeed, but a lie nonetheless.

Posted by: Bill C. at August 3, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #173145

tomh,

While I don’t share your beliefs, you have at least been consistent in them.
Well said.

Posted by: Rocky at August 3, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #173165

Rocky

Thank you for the kind word on being consistent. To me it means more coming from someone on the opposite side, than from someone sharing the same views. Thanks again.
Tom

Posted by: tomh at August 3, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #173188

Dave1, good link. I baically agree with the article, although I think it is a bit simplistic. Realpolitik and ethically based policies are not necessarily opposites. Being ethical does not require naivety.

Posted by: gergle at August 4, 2006 2:36 AM
Post a comment