Israel & Lebanon

[mrhnau]

Incidently, the actions by Hamas, were a raid on Israeli Defense Forces. This raid was followed by a similar raid on Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah.

There is no definition of Israeli Defense Forces that includes the terms 'non-combatant', or 'not tactical or strategic value'. So, let us all be clear, whatever the activities taking place, it does not mee the definition 'terrorism', no matter how degraded that term has become.

Then let us use another definition. Invasion. Or perhaps Act of Aggression. Kidnapping by a foreign militia. The term in this instance is a bit irrelevant. This pot has been stewing for years. This latest incident was just the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Years of suicide bombers in Israeli markets does that to a nation.

An Israeli friend of mine talked to me about 9/11. Basically, it boiled down to the following: "Now you know how Israel has been living for the past 20 years". Taking into account the smaller population, they were getting 9/11's every couple of months, at least in terms of the casualties.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

It was only a matter of time before upnorth unveiled some conspiracy theory lunacy.

As to Israel, just how long do you recommend they should tolerate ROCKETS being launched into their cities from a neighboring country?

 

[michaeledward]

Taking into account the smaller population,.

The argument that 'takes into account the smaller population', is just foolish. Are you going to tell the 9/11 widow to 'buck up', after all, her husband's death was only 1/10th of a death for Israel?

 

[michaeledward]

As to Israel, just how long do you recommend they should tolerate ROCKETS being launched into their cities from a neighboring country?

Great question. I think there should be a low tolerance for rocket attacks.

Tell me, What is the range of the Hesbollah's Katyusha rockets?
What is the payload of a Katyusha rocket, used by Hesbollah?
Is the government of Lebanon authorizing the use of these rockets?

This link may offer some information .. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0279.shtml

With the limited range, and limited destructive abilility for these Katyusha rockets, one might look for an analogy that is more easily comprehended and accurate to describe than just 'rocket' ... and applying a quanitive argument of 13,000, as one poster did above.

These weapons are extremely primative. They are not the GPS guided cruise missles the United States fires in Shock and Awe.

While they are prehaps a bit more terrifying than the random gun violence found in some American city 'No-Go' zones, they are quite probably less lethal.

And, this brings us back to, what is an appropriate response?

... 381 Lebanese deaths.
.... 36 Israeli deaths.
600,000 Lebanese have left their homes ... refugees.

 

[mrhnau]

The argument that 'takes into account the smaller population', is just foolish. Are you going to tell the 9/11 widow to 'buck up', after all, her husband's death was only 1/10th of a death for Israel?

*sigh*

OK Michael, I'll explain.

The US has a population of roughly 300 million. Israel has a population of roughly 7 million. We lost roughly 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks. For Israel to have an equivelant attack (statistically speaking in terms of casualties) they would need to lose 70 people. This happened fairly frequently with suicide bombers scattered in markets through out Israel. In no way is this diminishing ANY of the deaths, either Israeli or US, but it points out the fact that killing 3000 people in the US is the same statistically as killing 70 people in Israel. If we were getting bombed by some terror organization and losing 3000 people every few months, we would probably get upset too and invade, especially if it could have been prevented by a neighboring country following UN mandates. If some group in Mexico were doing the same thing as Lebanon (harboring Hezbollah or at least letting them remain), we would probably go to Mexico and root out the problem. However, this would likely not happen since Mexico would realize this and take care of it themselves. Nor would they let a foreign body control their borders and run sections of their country.

In no way is it diminishing those deaths. I have no idea why you would assume so, unless you have some agenda/idea that requires such an asinine conclusion.

 

[michaeledward]

*sigh*

OK Michael, I'll explain.

The US has a population of roughly 300 million. Israel has a population of roughly 7 million. We lost roughly 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks. For Israel to have an equivelant attack (statistically speaking in terms of casualties) they would need to lose 70 people. This happened fairly frequently with suicide bombers scattered in markets through out Israel. In no way is this diminishing ANY of the deaths, either Israeli or US, but it points out the fact that killing 3000 people in the US is the same statistically as killing 70 people in Israel. If we were getting bombed by some terror organization and losing 3000 people every few months, we would probably get upset too and invade, especially if it could have been prevented by a neighboring country following UN mandates. If some group in Mexico were doing the same thing as Lebanon (harboring Hezbollah or at least letting them remain), we would probably go to Mexico and root out the problem. However, this would likely not happen since Mexico would realize this and take care of it themselves. Nor would they let a foreign body control their borders and run sections of their country.

In no way is it diminishing those deaths. I have no idea why you would assume so, unless you have some agenda/idea that requires such an asinine conclusion.

I understand division and multiplication.

And your argument does diminish death.

So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

 

[mrhnau]

I understand division and multiplication.

And your argument does diminish death.

So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?

My arguement only diminishes death in your point of view. Not in mine, and I'm wagering not in the views of many others. In no way have I claimed the deaths in Israel and 9/11 attacks are in any way diminished. Far from it. I see them in the same light. Results of terror attacks. Every one is tragic.

Have innocent lives been taken in Iraq? Of that, I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in Lebanon and Israel? I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in WW2? I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in almost EVERY war since the beginning of time? I have no doubt. Loss of innocent life is tragic in this instance too, but sadly inevitable as a result of war.

The difference is we are not targetting civilians for death (at least them I'm aware of). 9/11 was not targetting a military structure (well, Pentagon is, but not the towers). There are casualties from wars, sometimes not the ones you want. Thats the bad part of war. The only way to get rid of innocent casualties is to stop war. However, as I highlighted earlier, living in a world w/out war only allows the crazies to maintain control. I'm not interested in living in that kind of society. Are you? Pacifism is a great ideal. In reality on a national scale, its not practical.

In answer of your question... what is the proper response from Iraq? The same from Lebanon. Remove the dangerous elements. If they were gone, we would disappear once the country can govern themselves and has a somewhat legitimate military to secure itself. The only problem I see is that civil war may be inevitable. Once we leave (or perhaps while we are still there) I see civil war breaking out. Hard for me to envision a unified Iraq in the next 10+ years.

Now, since this thread was started about Lebanon, I'd very much love to see a thriving democracy in Lebanon and a good relationship with Israel. Once the Hezbollah faction is removed and some of the infrastructure is repaired I don't see why the countries can not reconcile. As long as Hezbollah is still infested there, peace won't be lasting. I think Lebanon can be a very good example of what a peace loving nation in the Middle East can be. They can substain a good relationship with Israel as well as other Islamic nations in the region. I'd love to see that happen! I'd also like to see Israel get back the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but thats for another thread. Land for Peace simply does not work.

 

[mrhnau]

And your argument does diminish death.

So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/canadiancoverage.html

Claims that Baghdad's civilian murder rate is lower than almost evey major city in the US, if you exclude those guys taking up arms against us (insurgents). So, if you are law abiding, you have a LOWER chance of getting killed in Iraq than in the US!

Yes, I've seen pages saying the opposite, but those typically include the deaths of gunmen and suicide bombers.

He showed that higher murder-rate figures cited by several other scholars and the media had included victims of other causes of death, such as accidents or suicide.
"A lot of the early counts were based on all bodies entering the morgues, including people killed in car accidents, and everything else that was there," he said in an interview.
The more recent figures are more precise.

This was in 2003. Add in gunmen, car accidents, suicides... I'm sure its probably higher.

 

[michaeledward]

My arguement only diminishes death in your point of view. Not in mine, and I'm wagering not in the views of many others. In no way have I claimed the deaths in Israel and 9/11 attacks are in any way diminished. Far from it. I see them in the same light. Results of terror attacks. Every one is tragic.

How do you square the sentiment listed above with this statement

Taking into account the smaller population, they were getting 9/11's every couple of months, at least in terms of the casualties.

and this

The US has a population of roughly 300 million. Israel has a population of roughly 7 million. We lost roughly 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks. For Israel to have an equivelant attack (statistically speaking in terms of casualties) they would need to lose 70 people.

These arguments, whether you intend them to or not, state that 70 Israeli lives are the same (equivelant) as 2,996 confirmed, reported and missing (assumed) dead Americans.

That argument is ********. Plain and simple.

Sean Hannity once made the statement that U.S. Soldiers were safer in Iraq than if they lived in California. Good Grief.

And, the last thought for now ... Today, The Prime Minister of Iraq made the statement that Sectarian violence in Iraq is killing 100 Iraqi civilians a day. You're last link is a bit out of date, I think.

 

[Cryozombie]

These arguments, whether you intend them to or not, state that 70 Israeli lives are the same (equivelant) as 2,996 confirmed, reported and missing (assumed) dead Americans.

That argument is ********. Plain and simple.

For what it's worth, I read his statement as a comparason of percentages, and not a statement saying one is the same/more important that the other.

 

[mjd]

This war is not about numbers, its about religion, extreme religion, there will be no PEACE, ever, they do not want peace, land, or money, only us dead.

Playing nice will only get us killed.

When 100,000's of people will strap bombs on their backs and blow themselves to pieces killing anybody they can, man, woman, and children without remorse and calling it a holy calling from their God.

What are ya gonna do, play nice.

 

[mantis]

This war is not about numbers, its about religion, extreme religion, there will be no PEACE, ever, they do not want peace, land, or money, only us dead.

Playing nice will only get us killed.

When 100,000's of people will strap bombs on their backs and blow themselves to pieces killing anybody they can, man, woman, and children without remorse and calling it a holy calling from their God.

What are ya gonna do, play nice.

what about when your F-16's fly and drop bombs killing everyone and everything. Remember they did not come to your land, you came to THEIRS

 

[michaeledward]

For what it's worth, I read his statement as a comparason of percentages, and not a statement saying one is the same/more important that the other.

Technopunk, I understand what argument he is making. I also can do the math that makes this argument seem valid, but it is not valid.

I am just saying it is a rather ridiculous argument. Peoples lives should not be reduced to 'percentages'.

70 Israeli families losing loved ones to a suicide bomber is the same as 70 Israeli families losing loved ones.

It is not the same as 2,996 families losing loved ones in New York City. It is not the same as 381 Lebanese families losing loved ones to F-16 strikes. It is not the same as 2,567 United States families losing loved ones in Iraq.

To make such suggestions is to attempt to 'sanitize' killing. It is to dumb down an argument to launch an emotion laden counter-argument (e.g. 9/11) - much the argument that Ms. Coulter makes concerning the widows from New Jersey by the way.

So, in the mean time, Israel is dropping U.S. Built GPS Guided 500 pound high explosives into Lebanon in retaliation for extremely inaccurate, short range rockets, very similar to what we can buy in hobby shops in this country ... and the United States is not calling for ceasefire.

Seems we are 'piling on'. And I just don't think that's helpful.

 

[Phoenix44]

Here is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:

What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?

Diplomacy? Complaining to the UN? Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?

 

[mantis]

Here is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:

What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?

Diplomacy? Complaining to the UN? Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?

ask the question from the other side:
what do you feel would be an appropriate response to a country that bombarded your country and drew masterpieces of the ugliest massacres history has ever known for more than 50 years?
what about complaining to the UN where they issue resolutions that only YOU have to follow but who attacks you does not (like resolution 425)

what terrorists are you talking about, and what attacks?! you have never openend a history book other than FOX NEWS, have you?!

look with both eyes guys! otherwise just close this thread because there's not point behind it.

 

[Phoenix44]

Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK? I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.

 

[mantis]

Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK? I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.

that's not a question. or at least not asked in the proper way. it's as if you are asking "what do you feel about this filthy dirty criminal?" if you ask that to anyone you will get "filty dirty criminal" for an answer
you already put the answer. Im sorry man, nothing personal against you but i really find it ridiculous that people have no idea what's going on but they just pick up on things they hear on fox news and take them for granted!

again, i dont mean to offend you or attack you personally, but It'd be much more interesting if people use both their eyes and evaluate both sides of any conflict to consruct a positive discussion environment

 

[mrhnau]

Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK? I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.

In an ideal situation, you cooperate with the Lebonese government to get rid of the threat. Unfortunately, they do not seem to want to get rid of Hezbollah. Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars into Hezbollah, alot of which is used for social services of some fashion or the other. Its a popular group in some sections. I don't think Lebanon is going to help Israel.

Given the choices, I think Israel is currently doing what is best. The logical conclusion is going to be messy though, since Hezbollah is likely to escape into Syria and Iran. I particularily don't want to see Israel going head to head with Lebanon, Syria and Iran all at the same time. Not that I think they would lose, but it would further destabalize the region.

 

[Phoenix44]

have no idea what's going on but they just pick up on things they hear on fox news and take them for granted!

You seem to like this Fox News concept, so let me say a couple of things up front: I DO have an idea of what's been going on, not only from reading, but from the fact that I've been following the events in the Middle East for a few more decades than you have. Not that wisdom always comes with age, but I assure you, I've been around a lot longer than Fox "news," which I cannot stomach. I have a doctoral degree, I am extremely well read on the subject, I do have a sensitivity to both sides of the issue. And just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't know what's going on...it just means they disagree with you.

Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which is not the legitimate government of Lebanon, launched an Iranian missile at Haifa, 30 miles into Israel from the Lebanese border. In your opinion, how should Israel have responded? That's the question.

 

[donna]

The thing that upsets me the most about all this , is that while men all over the world argue , the innocents, women and children are just as dead no matter who is right or wrong, or which "side" they are on.
It dosnt seem that it will ever end, no matter which century you are born into.