Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[Hans de Vries]

Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.

 

[kyleb]

Are you getting the picture?

I believe so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?

 

[Anttech]

How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isn't actually the government of another country? Perhaps you don't seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

Well put. The sh*t for brains started all the wars in the hope of "wiping out" the newly created state and lost all of these wars.
After loosing they start screaming for "justice".

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

The Israelis have been suicide bombing Arab communities at what rate? Compared to the Palestinian rate of, what, couple a month averaged over nearly sixty years? Doesn't "wash

Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say that's 13 years not 60.

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.

Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?

 

[Anttech]

I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.

The IRA typically were not living in Northern Ireland, they were living in Eire. They would cross the border and bomb the UK, they would also have proxy suicide missions against the UK Military and N.Ireland Civilians. All funded by the Americans. There are many similarities between the two cases, To ignore what happened there and not learn from the experience of the Brits there would be rather ignorant.

 

[Anttech]

Classical islamic apologist stance.

What is an Islamic apologist? Someone who apologies for being a different religion that you? Quite the Racism, please.

 

[loseyourname]

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

There are large pockets of refugee populations that live in the US. For a simple example, a group of mountain dwellers in Laos known as the Hmong were enlisted to fight alongside the US to bring down the Laotian government during the Vietnam War. When they lost, they were relocated to refugee camps in Thailand and promised residence in the US. Not all of the promises have been kept, but there is a huge population in California's central valley in Merced County. There are parts of towns that are basically entirely Hmong. They have never assimilated into the surrounding culture and do create a lot of resentment from the fact that so many live off of welfare rolls and refuse to learn English and continue to practice an animistic religion that involves shamanic rituals and animal sacrifice (which somehow bothers people even though the deaths are a heck of a lot cleaner than what would happen in the average slaughterhouse).

I imagine that if the federal government decided to just carve out a piece of the central valley the size of Israel and let the Hmong govern themselves on it, there would be a good deal of objection to it, but ultimately, Californians would respect the fact that these people have nowhere else to live and there is plenty of other land in California to move to when the government buys you out and gives yours away. I cannot imagine any situation in which native Californians would start to bomb the Hmong ambulances and schoolbuses.

I don't speak for every Californian, but honestly, I've moved plenty of times in my life before. If the government came to me and said I needed to move again to make room for a group of displaced southeast Asians that had suffered a genocide in their own land, I'd gladly do it. Obviously, people in many parts of the world feel more attachment to the land than the average American, who moves two or three times in an adult lifetime, but even so. All of the friends I have from former Soviet republics felt attached to their land as well, but they were smart enough to know when it was best to just leave.

I realize this wouldn't be a truly analagous situation, but it's about as close as anything would ever come in the US. The real point is that the population that became Israel was not exactly in the easiest situation at the time, either. Would it really have been any better if they were simply told to remain in Germany and Poland and wherever else they had been prior to the roundings up? Granted, they wouldn't be in the same position the Hmong would be in, in that they would not have been openly killed by the government of the country they returned to, but even so. There is no easy solution to the problem posed by large groups of refugees that are not particularly well-liked just about everywhere they go.

Think about what happened to other groups of people hurt by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The situation with the Azeris, Armenians, and Turks has involved just as much displacement, unfair land grabs, and even an all-out genocide, not to mention continued economic depression in the wake of the Soviet breakup. The situation there is arguably even more complex and historically one-sided, yet we do not see Armenians living in Turkey demanding the return of their ancestral land via terrorism. Many have ended up leaving the region entirely, with a heavy heart, no doubt, but is not leaving with a heavy heart just a bit more noble than blowing up schoolchildren? Hell, if the Armenians I've known and conversed with are any indication, many hate the US for its support of Turkey as much as any Arab hates the US for its support of Israel. Yet we haven't seen any Armenian religious groups crashing airplanes into US skyscrapers.

I don't wish to conflate innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians with the basically warlord groups attacking Israel, but how much sympathy would there be for an independent Sicily movement that elected a mob syndicate to govern them which subsequently began to attack mainland Calabria with surface-to-surface missiles provided by Libya?

Edit: Perhaps an equally good question to ask is what would the mainstream European and American east coast reaction be if the federal government did decide that because the Hmong had been living in refugee camps for the last thirty years, they did deserve a homeland, and decided to give them one in the central valley, and Californians did decide to go to war with this new country instead of allowing it?

 

[Bystander]

I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.

Finally --- does your disgust with the lunatic fringe who've been inciting the violence match, or exceed, your disgust with my language? There have been enough "poetic" paraphrases of less primitive statements of the situation that something unambiguous is necessary to clarify the point.

As to the "agression and mentality," and what "should not be allowed here (PF)," attacks on people posting rather than on content are NOT allowed --- check your mirror.

The OP had to do with the current situation and its potential to trigger WW III, hence the reference to "Same ol' sh*t." That is, the 20th century history of the area, and its "cultural traditions."

20th century history:

Ottoman dominion;
collapse of the Ottoman Empire;
League of Nations Mandate to GB, UK, "John Bull," whatever you like;
GB partitions, and withdraws from area in 1948 in accord with UN resolution, supported by or in support of UN resolution, whatever you will, following lengthy negotiations with affected parties;
Palestinians, Arab govts., and Islamic hardheads ignore UN mandate and partitioning agreement, declare war and perform as T. E. Lawrence would have predicted;
having behaved like complete fools, a cultural tradition of compounding the idiocy is invoked, and several more wars are started and lost.​

Relevant cultural history:

not worth occupation by Egyptians;
not worth occupation by Greeks;
not worth occupation by Rome;
not worth occupation by Ottomans;
that is, an accidental conditioning of cultural expectation that war does NOT involve loss of territory;
resulting in cultural indignation, surprise, and disappointment following the wars of the 20th century.​

Having made fools of themselves, and having found an unexpected "rule" change regarding warfare, we are witnessing the Palestinians going through the "n" stages of grief --- shock, denial, rage, and maybe the day comes when they accept the fact that this is planet Earth --- I ain't holding my breath.

______________________________________________________________

Are you getting the picture?

I believe so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?

A simple "No" suffices --- you needn't demonstrate with incorrect paraphrase.

The Palestinians are "suffering" as a consequence of the actions of Palestinians. The Palestinians will not stop "suffering" the consequences of the actions of Palestinians until such time as they adjust those actions to result in something other than suffering. The Jordanians CONTROL extremists, something the Palestinian Authority would do well to emulate. Most people get the idea that hitting themselves on the head with a hammer hurts after the second or third impact. Do I feel any sort of compassion for Palestinians? A little --- they didn't ask their great grandfathers to be so idiotic as to trust other Arabs in conspiring to make war. I'd feel more so if they weren't insisting that their problems are the result of the actions of someone other than their great grandfathers, and if they actually took steps toward alleviating the problem rather than aggravating it.

"Flagrant disgust" with all M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms? Hardly --- those who listen to the likes of Zawahiri, Nasrallah, and other bearded psychopaths are on their ways to mass graves. The rest of the Islamic world need not follow. They wanta bang their heads against the ground five times a day? That's cool. They want me to pay them for breathing Allah's air? They're in for a big shock.

 

[Gokul43201]

LYN, the whole idea of just letting the land go does not apply to a large number of very devout Muslims. It is a terrible sin to do that. In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

You are applying an honor system to a people that go by a very different one than yours.

 

[kyleb]

Where did you get the wife/land bit?

 

[kyleb]

And also:

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

 

[Bystander]

How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isn't actually the government of another country?

The half of Palestine awarded to the Palestinians in the 1948 partition, which the Palestinians gambled away, the Golan Heights which the Syrians gambled away, the Sinai Peninsula which the Egyptians gambled away and the Israelis gave back, the West Bank which was whatever it was. If there is "no well defined enemy," the Palestinians don't exist, nor the other Arab states and militant Islamic and Arab organizations.

Perhaps you don't seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you don't seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --- assert that I'm unaware of that fact, or ask if I'm aware of that fact --- at least give people the impression you've got both oars in the water. The Lebanese government is hosting Hezbollah, has made no effort to intern, disarm, deport, or otherwise control Hezbollah, and is going to collapse as a result of its impotence. What that has to do with "spoils of war," in this instance is that the Israelis having to clean the Lebanese house of cockroaches are now in a position to "bill" the Lebanese for services, or occupy a "buffer zone" until the Lebanese demonstrate a commitment to controlling their own territory and border.

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

Palestine was taken from the Ottomans, given as a "mandate" to the British by the League of Nations, and the British gave half to the Israelis, and half to the Palestinians; there was no Palestinian control of Palestine prior to 1948. The great grandfathers of today's Palestinians then decided to play "all or nothing," and got what they deserved. The U.S. loses a war with France and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it deserves it. The U.S. picks a fight with France, loses it, and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it really deserves it.

Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say that's 13 years not 60.

Giving the peace-loving Palestinians a break --- average the suicide bombing over the full sixty years of Arab belligerence to cut the rate down to where someone can claim the Israelis are just as nasty. Fine, we'll do it your way --- someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings --- less than the number of fingers on one hand? And the Palestinians total that many a month --- we can pitch the "Israeli terrorist" argument. Agreed?

Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?

"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."

 

[Bystander]

And also:

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

Islam's direction and fate is up to Islam --- there is no "ultimatum" here. It is a statement of fact; there is no room in the world for a bunch of medeival, spoiled brats like Zawahiri, Nasfallah, bin Laden, and the like. Islam purges itself of the looneys, or the world purges it of looneys. Few more grade schools in Russia, Madrid bombings, WTCs, and that purge the world performs might be prosecuted with more rigor than is necessary, but certainly enough rigor to be prudent.

Does the rest of the world fear Islam? No. It's a caricature of religious lunacy --- is it enough a nuisance to provoke serious responses in the future? Yes.

 

[kyleb]

You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?

 

[Bystander]

You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?

Islam meets the world's standards for tolerance of others, restraint of its reactionary membership/adherents, or it's gone with the Thugs, Aztecs, Druids, Nazis, and every other religion built around homicide and/or other criminal activities.

 

[Skyhunter]

someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings

When you have a superior force and can impose your will, why would you resort to suicide bombing?

Reminds me of another war of occupation.

“Give us your bombers and we’ll give you our baskets,” says FLN leader Ben M’Hidi to the French, in reference to Algerian
women hiding bombs in handbaskets. He explains how the insurgents are forced to use their “unconventional” guerilla tactics
because of the disparity in traditional military might, because of the non-reciprocal structure of the conflict. What’s interesting is
that the French take the relatively clever tactics of the Algerians and demonize them as uncivilized and heartless. The French
seem to say: “Look at how the Algerian scum explode bombs in our cafés! It’s so much more refined when war is fought with
modern tanks and planes.”

It is all a matter of perspective. As long as both sides are unwilling to recognize the others grievances, real and/or perceived, they will continue the harsh words, name calling, and violence. Whether they drop bombs them from the air, or blow themselves up in a cafe. Roll in on tanks, bulldoze homes and orchards, or fire rockets from neighborhoods. Both sides are wrong, because violence is wrong.

Hezbollah and Israel are equally guilty for the destruction of Lebanon. And I might add that the US, by supplying the weapons, and keeping the international community from calling for a ceasefire share a portion of the blame as well.

 

[sid_galt]

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

I didn't want to get into this debate but I have to respond to this comment.
If religious fanatics are attacking you and you respond by defending yourself, that is not genocide. That is self-defense. It is the religious fanatics who initiated force.
Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

To not support Israel in this war is tantamount to sanctioning the massacre (Suicide bombings and a few wars), the Palestinians, with the help of most of the Arab states around Israel, have inflicted on Israel in the past 60 years.

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends). IMO, because of the half-hearted nature of the attack, it will harm rather than help Israel in the long run. But I do support fully Israel's right to defend itself against brutal barbarians.

 

[kyleb]

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?

 

[Anttech]

This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you don't seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --

It is my first tongue! You like to harp on about you world view as if it is *fact* yet you post are riddled with misinformation, and opinion twisted as if it is fact.

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

Islam has >1.2 billion followers, 300 million of those are 'Arabs'. So an overwhelming majority would be what? For the sake of argument let's assume you mean 200 Million. If 200 million strong Army was to attack a country of 7 Million, I think we can assume that Israel would no longer exist, and those spoils of war which bystander likes to go on about would be in the Arabs domain. Yet strangely enough that isn't actually what is happening, is it?

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends).

Lucky that is the 'overwhelming' consensuses of the free world, and of course the geneva convention and other international human rights contracts, that the leaders of the free world ratified.

 

[Anttech]

"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."

My friend here is about to move to Dubai (Arabic and Islamic state) to start work for an 'infidel' company. I know many people who have worked in Saudi, hell I have even been asked if I would be interested in an interview for a job there. I turned it down because I wouldn't want to be so far from my Family (and I make more money here).

The actions of one person within a community of 1.2 Billion does not constitute anything, nor does it indicate the whole. (Is that not completely obvious?). So why not give some real examples, this time.

 

[sid_galt]

Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?

?
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that the Israel is defending itself against the genocide (i.e. destroying or killing a political, racial or cultural group - in this case Jews) initiated by the Arab Muslims against Israel which has been going on for the past 60 years.

 

[sid_galt]

Islam has >1.2 billion followers, 300 million of those are 'Arabs'. So an overwhelming majority would be what? For the sake of argument let's assume you mean 200 Million. If 200 million strong Army was to attack a country of 7 Million, I think we can assume that Israel would no longer exist, and those spoils of war which bystander likes to go on about would be in the Arabs domain. Yet strangely enough that isn't actually what is happening, is it?

I didn't mean to say that every Arab Muslim is arming himself for assault at this moment. They simply don't have the ability produce that many resources. The overwhelming majority does however sanction the initiation and use of force against Israel. If it didn't their Hezbollah support ing government would have collapsed by now. By supporting the attacks against Israel, they are morally responsible for the murder of the Israelis if not legally so.

Lucky that is the 'overwhelming' consensuses of the free world, and of course the geneva convention and other international human rights contracts, that the leaders of the free world ratified.

What do you mean?

 

[Gokul43201]

Where did you get the wife/land bit?

Heard it twice on a fairly moderate Middle Eastern TV (interview) show on the Asia Channel (or some similar name). Okay, 'heard' is incorrect; I read it in the sub-titles.

I'll look for supporting sources.

Wow, this may happen to actually be from one of the interviews I watched : http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=820

Edit: Found the entire video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=820wmv&ak=null

(note to mods: I'm not sure if these links violate guidelines. delete if they do)

 

[Hurkyl]

Bystander: The word "Islam" is not synonymous with "Islamism", nor is it synonymous with "Countries whose populations are primarily Islamic".

 

[Gokul43201]

News Update:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/w...&en=59074a966f18b6b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — A series of Israeli airstrikes in this small mountain town were the deadliest single attack in the war here so far.

[At least 56 people were killed, most of them children, The Associated Press reported.]

 

[clj4]

What is an Islamic apologist? Someone who apologies for being a different religion that you? Quite the Racism, please.

No, it is someone who sucks up to islamists. Like most europeans who hope that they will be spared the islamo-fascist expansion. Today India and Israel are at the foreforont of the battle, tomorrow your country will be the next battlefront. You should know, the belgians are amongst the biggest suckker-up to the islamo-fascists. As a "reward" for its apologism, your country is swimming up in religiously motivated murders. Theo van Gogh, remember?

 

[Anttech]

clj4:

Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam, last time I looked that was in the Netherlands, not Belgium. Why don't you at least get your facts straight?

Anyway again you are exaggerating, 1 religiously motivated murder (2 actually but the other was a homophobic attack)in the Netherlands are they are "swimming with religiously motivated murders" (Islamic-fascist). Amazing. There are more religiously motivated murders in Scotland and Ireland every month, than in the Netherlands per year and that's Christians killing each other (Protestants v Catholics)..

 

[Anttech]

News Update:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/w...&en=59074a966f18b6b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"We must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms," Annan told the council.

"I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded," Annan said. "I repeat this call once again from this chamber and I appeal to the council to do likewise."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/new...62029Z_01_N291546_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-UN.xml

How long until Bush will stop this murder? It is in his hands

 

[Anttech]

What do you mean?

I mean that you are not allowed to wade into civilians with all disregard for human rights, unless you want to throw out the Geneva convention!

So since you have made it clear you hate all Muslims (Or the majority of them), and feel that there lifes are worth nothing what about the Christians in Lebanon? Its full of them, actually its about 50% Christian

 

[Rach3]

What the heck is "islamo-fascist" supposed to mean? It sounds like an anti-religious slur to me, perhaps I'm misinterpreting it. Since the mods haven't edited it out, I presume it's less malign than it sounds?

/off topic

 

[Anttech]

What the heck is "islamo-fascist" supposed to mean? It sounds like an anti-religious slur to me, perhaps I'm misinterpreting it. Since the mods haven't edited it out, I presume it's less malign than it sounds?

/off topic

Yes it does sound like that to me also!

 

[Rach3]

There's a strong suggestion that Iran may get involved very soon:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.
...
"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.
...
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are historically close to Hizbollah and were deployed in south Lebanon during the 1980s. Mostafa Chamran, spiritual father of the Guards, forged his reputation fighting in Lebanon.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-30T162043Z_01_OLI055342_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-IRAN-REVENGE.xml&archived=False

 

[kyleb]

?
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that the Israel is defending itself against the genocide (i.e. destroying or killing a political, racial or cultural group - in this case Jews) initiated by the Arab Muslims against Israel which has been going on for the past 60 years.

I'm am looking for clarifcation here:

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

So in where does your perspective stand here; how many Muslims is Israel defending against right now and by what means could those attackers inflict genocide on Israel?

Heard it twice on a fairly moderate Middle Eastern TV (interview) show on the Asia Channel (or some similar name). Okay, 'heard' is incorrect; I read it in the sub-titles.

I'll look for supporting sources.

Wow, this may happen to actually be from one of the interviews I watched : http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=820

Edit: Found the entire video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200...820wmv&ak=null/QUOTE]

That video it doesn't support your previous statement:

In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

"In fact" would be as in quoting the Koran or something close anyway. What the video you linked shows on man interviewing another man in matters of opinion.

 

[MeJennifer]

Does anybody know where we can find an accurate number of civilian deaths and injured. And how many refugees there are and collateral damages such a homes, bridges, schools etc?

 

[Skyhunter]

The "hiding among civilians" myth

I just finished reading this article and thought I might share it with the readers here. I think it explains the high percentage of civilians compared to Hezbollah guerrillas killed in Lebanon.

You may need to watch an ad for access to Salon.com.

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

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

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

A majority of Hezbollah are non-combatants. Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon.

While I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, I find the current destruction of a democratic state to be deplorable.

 

[Bystander]

Bystander: The word "Islam" is not synonymous with "Islamism", nor is it synonymous with "Countries whose populations are primarily Islamic".

Huh? I haven't used any meaningless, polysyllabic, "made-up" words, "Islamism," at any point in this thread --- whom are you correcting?