One simple fact that gets overlooked

[ptabor]

I hear lots of talk (especially on the left wing nut websites) about making concessions of land for "peace" in the middle east (wrt Israel, of course).

This is sheer lunacy. This is not a conflict over land. If that were the case, the Israeli pullout from Gaza would've had a positive impact (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4235768.stm) . Instead, Hezbollah launches rockets at their civilians and kidnaps their soldiers (which is a valid tactic in my mind). So what is it, then? It is a jihad with the intention of murdering every last jew in Israel (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm).

Furthremore, It is stupidity to think that one can reason with these people. Even dumber to think that if we (the united states) were more "sensitive" to their needs that the violence would simply stop. There is very little reason in religion, even less reason in the act of strapping a bomb to yourself and running into a cafe to blow up innocent civilians. Therefore, there can be no peace with these people. They will come at us with every last man women and child until either they're all dead, or we're dead. It's that simple.

That being said, I'd also like to come out and say I do not support the war in Iraq. I think W's running of the war on terror is abysmal, as the only things we have accompilshed is to remove two enemies of our true enemy, Iran. Granted Hussein was a brutal dictator, but I don't think shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars just to bring "liberty" to a people is a valid strategy in prosecuting the war on Islam at large.

In summary, there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life.

Just my $0.02

 

[3trQN]

In summary, there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life.

That should be corrected to: There can be no peace between people with western ideals and those obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life.

Which isn't much of an opinion really, more a self validating statement.

Hezbollah launches rockets at their civilians ... a valid tactic in my mind

I don't agree with that. Maybe the slaughter of 6Million jews is a valid tactic to you also?

It depends what you call a valid tactic. To me a valid tactic means "A possible action or stratergy that we can use" not "A possible cause of action, but not one we would consider using".

Furthremore, It is stupidity to think that one can reason with these people.

ermm, ok...

I hope you don't actually believe what you wrote...please try and think a little more.

Remember the definition of Extremism: any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies

You seem quite uncompromising in your policies, perhaps extreme?

 

[ptabor]

Don't distort my words, what I actually said is the kidnapping of soldiers is a valid tactic - that's what they signed up for. the attack on civilian targets is certainly not a valid tactic.

By the way, there aren't 60 million jews.

and please explain to me how you can reason with someone who thinks that by strapping a bomb to himself and killing people he's going to go to heaven in the afterlife?

 

[ptabor]

I call it like I see it. Hamas has said it themselves as well as the palestinian people for electing them, there can be only one course of action - the destruction of the zionist state.

 

[3trQN]

Ok, my mistake i thought you were saying that the Hezbollah tactics were acceptable, not the kidnapping specifically.

er, 6 i meant...but its just a matter of time

 

[ptabor]

Look, I don't like the situation. I have never deliberately caused physical harm to someone in my life.
But my desires and personal values do not change the situation at hand. We ARE in a state of war with an extremist enemy, an implacable foe. It is a harsh but undeniable fact that there can be no peaceful outcome.

There is an exception to that, on second thought. If the islamic community itself were to mobilize to stop the behavior of their "extremist" bretheren then perhaps there could be a peaceful outcome. Let's face it, the vast majority of muslims in the world got their panties in a bunch over a satiric description of their prophet - going so far as to take to the streets. Do they take to the streets over the intentional murder of innocent civilians? To the best of my knowledge (please, PLEASE, if I am wrong on this point correct me) no.

On the other hand, as much as I may dislike the Catholic church I have to give it to them that when the allegations of molestation surfaced many catholics protested to signify that they in no way support the actions of a few bad apples (even if their church does). I simply don't see that with the muslim community (of course, this could be due to media bias in the US. Again, if anyone has information to the contrary please enlighten me).

 

[tiyusufaly]

You are quite wrong ptabor. First of all, it was not a majority of Muslims that took to the streets following the offensive depiction of Muhammad, and indeed many Islamic leaders around the world called for peaceful resistance to the cartoons. Here's just one article scratching the surface: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/ap/world/mainD8FM08HG0.shtml .

And you could not be more wrong about the fact that Muslims don't condemn terrorism done by a few loons acting against Islam. They do, and they do a lot. But guess what? The western media doesn't feel like reporting that. Just read this to skim the surface again: http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm .

And finally, I cannot find words to express my disgrace that you are calling this a "war on Islam". There are over a billion Muslims in the world, most of them peaceful and urging restraint, as I showed you. Go against those that ugly the name of the religion, but calling this a war on Islam itself is completely unjustified.

 

[ptabor]

I call it a war on islam because to declare war on "terror" is nonsensical. You cannot declare war on a tactic. You can, however, declare war on a religion.

Thank you for providing information that contradicts my statements, I shall amend my position accordingly.

 

[Hurkyl]

I call it a war on islam because to declare war on "terror" is nonsensical.

Just because you think a "war on terror" is nonsensical doesn't mean you can (justifiably) call it a war on Islam. It has to be a war on Islam for you to call it that.

Anyways, the thing you forget is that these "sensitive" people are trying to combat the reasons people support and join terrorist organizations, rather than going after the organizations directly.

 

[Smurf]

and please explain to me how you can reason with someone who thinks that by strapping a bomb to himself and killing people he's going to go to heaven in the afterlife?

The same way you reason with anyone? Lots of people believe in going to heaven and lots of people put themselves in deadly situations all the time. These people are not necessarily unreasonable. I don't see the problem frankly.

 

[Smurf]

I simply don't see that with the muslim community

I think that if you are unable to find such examples in Islam, it is not from lack of examples but from lack of trying.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

You are quite wrong ptabor. First of all, it was not a majority of Muslims that took to the streets following the offensive depiction of Muhammad, and indeed many Islamic leaders around the world called for peaceful resistance to the cartoons. Here's just one article scratching the surface: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/ap/world/mainD8FM08HG0.shtml .

And you could not be more wrong about the fact that Muslims don't condemn terrorism done by a few loons acting against Islam. They do, and they do a lot. But guess what? The western media doesn't feel like reporting that. Just read this to skim the surface again: http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm .

And finally, I cannot find words to express my disgrace that you are calling this a "war on Islam". There are over a billion Muslims in the world, most of them peaceful and urging restraint, as I showed you. Go against those that ugly the name of the religion, but calling this a war on Islam itself is completely unjustified.

well actully i think u should know, that here in israel, when the missiles kill arab israelis, those close to them blaimed israel for their death. and yes they embrace hizbullah.

and arabs never go agains the extemists, never, whether the majority is peacful or not, they never struggle. hibullah and hamas use civil areas as launching grounds, just so israel will think twice before using full power, and oh god we have lots of it, and before lebanon, we were foolish enouth to use infantry instead of heavy cannons...
so they use civs as a sheild, instead of shielding civs, yet i have not seen any force of resistance...

it is not racism to say "war against terror", just watch the new, what is the origin of those planning major massacures in the western world...

 

[TuviaDaCat]

The same way you reason with anyone? Lots of people believe in going to heaven and lots of people put themselves in deadly situations all the time. These people are not necessarily unreasonable. I don't see the problem frankly.

was bombing north israel reasonable?

or is the hamas goverment, in which many times sent its man to bomb buses loaded with people reasonable?

was arafat rasonable when barak offered him all he could ask for, yet he
refused by making up a new demands in the end of a negotiation of a long long dispute...

is iran reasonable? have u heard of his intentions of nuclear options, and the speeches on a new holocaust, to both israel and americans?

its a sad thing, a very sad thing, that when arab countries can be called reasonable only when the country is controlled by dictator, or a fake democracy. lybia, egypt, jordan, are good examples...

reason has left the house if u ask me

 

[DaveC426913]

...there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life.

Just my $0.02.

Actually, that's Bush's $0.02.

So, way to think for yourself.

 

[alexandra]

and please explain to me how you can reason with someone who thinks that by strapping a bomb to himself and killing people he's going to go to heaven in the afterlife?

This is a very simplistic (though popularly believed) myth of why suicide bombers do what they do. Detailed studies have shown otherwise, as discussed in the article (published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2006) I'm quoting from and referencing to below:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's question two years ago seemed reasonable enough: "Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?"

It's a popular notion: Charismatic religious leaders and their ideologies inculcate violent convictions among their constituents, and desperate or zealous individuals act on those convictions. By this logic, terror is bound to religious extremism.

But a growing body of scholarship on suicide bombing suggests that it doesn't work that way. These authors, primarily drawn from political science and social psychology, concur that suicide bombings — with or without the trappings of religion — are largely a response to occupation, or, since September 11, 2001, to perceptions of general political oppression in the Muslim world. Consider, for instance, that approximately half of the suicide missions in the three decades before 2003 were carried out by secular rather than religious organizations. Consider also that 95 percent of the bombings during that period occurred as part of coherent resistance campaigns and enjoyed significant levels of home-base support. If exalted motivations for self-sacrifice are involved, invoking religious beliefs is not the only way to induce or exploit them...

Of the books under discussion here, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, by the political scientist Robert A. Pape, has received the most attention. Pape argues that occupations (loosely defined as military presence) and U.S. support for oppressive authoritarian regimes are the best predictors of where human-bomb campaigns will occur. Pape analyzes 315 attacks, drawn from a database he compiled to include every human-bomb attack around the globe from 1980 to 2003. To show a connection between Islamic fundamentalism and human-bomb campaigns, he says, we would need to find a correlation between violent Salafism, an extremist wing of Muslim thought, and the bombers. Instead, more bombers came from countries with low Salafi populations than those with high Salafi populations. Moreover, not one of the bombers in Pape's database came from an Islamic country designated as a "state sponsor of terrorism"; rather, most came from Muslim regimes considered ! allies by the United States[emphasis added].

In Pape's view, then, bombers are individuals who aspired to freer opportunities but saw their dreams stymied by dictators, often in collusion with U.S. oil and other interests[emphasis added]. The core idea is that motivation for human bombs stems largely from perceived injustice. All these authors agree with that notion, but Diego Gambetta's edited volume of essays, Making Sense of Suicide Missions, uses a variety of methods to produce congruent findings.

More: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/students/nargo/Argo_social_context_of_terror_attacks.pdf

And why is this important? Well, because unless one accurately identifies the source of a problem one has no hope of solving it

alex

 

[TuviaDaCat]

yep, its not the 72 virgins in the sky that made the twins fall...

yet I am not sure wether it is: vengence, a fanatic dream to relive the saladin era, bombing stuff as a well versed political arguement, or brainwashing made by a greedy leader, or maybe they blame the western world for their poor situation... i pretty much should find a time for such subject, i never gripped the source of their behaviour since there are no arabs where i live...

though i think that the most resonable thing is, that they live very poor poor life, and religion doest make it any better with all the restrictions, so they gather furstration, and one barking charismatic man could give them a reason for this furstration, and manipulate people by hate, and myth about bloody monstrous christians and jews...

but maybe I am wrong. and also it can't be a collective explanation to all communities, because there never is, but sometimes there is a main one.

 

[Smurf]

was bombing north israel reasonable?

or is the hamas goverment, in which many times sent its man to bomb buses loaded with people reasonable?

was arafat rasonable when barak offered him all he could ask for, yet he
refused by making up a new demands in the end of a negotiation of a long long dispute...

is iran reasonable? have u heard of his intentions of nuclear options, and the speeches on a new holocaust, to both israel and americans?

its a sad thing, a very sad thing, that when arab countries can be called reasonable only when the country is controlled by dictator, or a fake democracy. lybia, egypt, jordan, are good examples...

reason has left the house if u ask me

Yes I have heard the speeches by the dictators and the terrorists. I've also heard the American government make similar speeches. They're all the same, really. Whoever is speaking declares the evilness of their enemy and that they won't rest until they're destroyed. Sometimes colorful illiteration are used such as proclaiming a new holocaust or what have you. It's your basic we-good-they-bad-let's-go-kill-them speech that's been in use by leaders worldwide since before the alphabet was invented. Only the sides have changed.

yep, its not the 72 virgins in the sky that made the twins fall...

yet I am not sure wether it is: vengence, a fanatic dream to relive the saladin era, bombing stuff as a well versed political arguement, or brainwashing made by a greedy leader, or maybe they blame the western world for their poor situation... i pretty much should find a time for such subject, i never gripped the source of their behaviour since there are no arabs where i live...

though i think that the most resonable thing is, that they live very poor poor life, and religion doest make it any better with all the restrictions, so they gather furstration, and one barking charismatic man could give them a reason for this furstration, and manipulate people by hate, and myth about bloody monstrous christians and jews...

but maybe I am wrong. and also it can't be a collective explanation to all communities, because there never is, but sometimes there is a main one.

As far as I can see, it's a lot simpler than any of that. They fight because there is a conflict. The only question is the choice of weapon. However, None of your suggestions address this Brainwashing? Vengeance? Fanaticism? Build up frustration plus charismatic leader? These suggest reasons to fight - But they explain nothing of the method, suicide bombings, of which we should be (and I thought we were) speaking.

Don't ask, why do they fight? Ask, instead, why do they fight with bombs?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

about the americans, bush's speeches are a good laugh, not many here in israel talks about forces of evil and the prevail of democracy, though many are not very fond of arabs, but its only natural in such a condition...
the majority of this country just want the best practical solution to stop being threatened in the street...
though, the americans with all the jibbering, are the only ones with the balls to actully do something about the terror threats. its not like they massacure all those who deny democracy. u can't compare them in any way, to the arab world.
imagine israel shutting all its guards down, what whould happen? will they just take the golan, and yehuda, and shomron(semaria?)?

its much worse in europ, where they talk about poor children dying. the UN rejects all kind of wars, it is always evil and unnecesery to make war for them. when the war with hizbulla started, they say we overreacted. ovvereacted? did we need to wait so more would die and then we could strike back hard?
being passive can have bad results, and WWII is the perfect example.

all leaders has this stupid black and white speeches, its always that way, but the way things really work is different.

about the second part of ur post:
it has to do a lot with suicide, a man who is poor, and doesn't have much to live for, can be easly used a pawn to die for the king.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I still can't believe so many people think that what the US has done in the Middle East has had positive repurcussions, it's a bit of a disaster. Civil war, civil war, and provoking Iran. This is political ineptitutde on another level. Why do people get so enamoured of shooty shooty kill kill? It's scarey ,well at least they go in there without a clear plan for post war Iraq/Afghanistan and then it all goes pear shaped would be a better summation of actions so far by the US. It's plainly an incompetent series of events, and my country has to trail along behind like some ever loyal lap dog. Bugger!

 

[Smurf]

about the americans, bush's speeches are a good laugh, not many here in israel talks about forces of evil and the prevail of democracy, though many are not very fond of arabs, but its only natural in such a condition...
the majority of this country just want the best practical solution to stop being threatened in the street...

The part in bold is the most important sentence in your post. You're correct of course, it is only natural in such a condition. What we so often forget is that it's natural for them as well. Not just us.

about the second part of ur post:
it has to do a lot with suicide, a man who is poor, and doesn't have much to live for, can be easly used a pawn to die for the king.

But again that's not really the argument. It could be argued (and is argued from time to time) that the poor, who don't have much to live for, are used by the US as pawns to die for their country. I've even heard someone argue that it's a good thing, because the is helps class mobility or some whatnot. But they don't go turn into suicide bombers. I think this is still a reason for why they fight. Not a very good answer for why they use suicide bombs in particular.

 

[DaveC426913]

Point of order here. This thread is dead before it gets off the ground.

Subject: "One simple fact that gets overlooked"

Abstract: "there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life"

So, let me just get this straight, ptabor, "there can be no peace" is a fact.

Fact - n. - a thing that is indisputably the case. (Oxford)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Point of order here. This thread is dead before it gets off the ground.

Subject: "One simple fact that gets overlooked"

Abstract: "there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life"

So, let me just get this straight, ptabor, "there can be no peace" is a fact.

Fact - n. - a thing that is indisputably the case. (Oxford)

Let P = "There can be peace"
Q = "There exists a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life"

Proposed as fact: "If Q then not P". Your problem is?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Let P = "There can be peace"
Q = "There exists a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life"

Proposed as fact: "If Q then not P". Your problem is?

It's black and white, it's unrealistic, it doesn't make sense when applied to the real world.

Also and more importantly this idea that fundementalists are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life is false. Therefore Q is a fallacy.

I'd say they are obsessed with intolerance to western systems as they oppose their own countries theological systems, they have a right to fight for theocracy over democracy if that's what they want, self determinism is important, democracy has this as a key element; should they feel the need to overthrow their leaders they have done and will, another right guaranteed by democracy. I'd say they are even obsessed with driving Israel into the sea in some cases, but not obsessed with destroying the western mentallity or ideal, this is not their primary goal, it is not even realistic, I fear DaveC you have been listening to Bush's propaganda machine too much.

Their concerns are strictly for the Middle East to retain the right to detemine it's own culture and way of life. Sadly the US thinks it's because of a lack of understanding, fundementalists become radicalised by politics, an Iliterate or uneducated person doesn't see too much of the outside worlds politics, there too busy trying to survive. Which means in the main fundementalists are lead and controlled by well educated men with every clue about democracy, it's what makes them technologically adroit and very western savvy, and also very dangerous, because those terrorists they brainwash are also in the main well educated, and open to propaganda.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is a very simplistic (though popularly believed) myth of why suicide bombers do what they do. Detailed studies have shown otherwise, as discussed in the article (published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2006) I'm quoting from and referencing to below:



And why is this important? Well, because unless one accurately identifies the source of a problem one has no hope of solving it

alex

That is exactly why even those who support the war are infuriated with Rumsfeld. The grizzly oaf has still not identified the problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let P = "There can be peace"
Q = "There exists a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life"

Proposed as fact: "If Q then not P". Your problem is?

1] You can propose a fact? Wouldn't proposing something mean it is disputable? Which, by definition, means it is not fact?

2] ptabor is not proposing it, he is insisting that this "fact" was already in place before the discussion began, since - as he puts it - it is "being overlooked" by the rest of us.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

The part in bold is the most important sentence in your post. You're correct of course, it is only natural in such a condition. What we so often forget is that it's natural for them as well. Not just us.

But again that's not really the argument. It could be argued (and is argued from time to time) that the poor, who don't have much to live for, are used by the US as pawns to die for their country. I've even heard someone argue that it's a good thing, because the is helps class mobility or some whatnot. But they don't go turn into suicide bombers. I think this is still a reason for why they fight. Not a very good answer for why they use suicide bombs in particular.

i never thought that it is natural for them to not hate us, its even more natural... with all the modesty, israel's growth in all aspects in from when it was founded, is amazing. i can say that israel is a western world country, not as rich, but not very far from that.
so here we are, and they still live in low level of economy. add to that the fact that armed forcess of israel can enter whenever they want(though only when needed, gaza doesn't rock like tel aviv =\), if political interest are not too jepredised.

so ofcourse, without doupt they will hate us. ohhh and arabs don't forget hate... vengence is a part of the arab culture... an eye for an eye they say.
about the poor american soliders, i must say that a poor arab is much worse than a poor american... and the enviorment is much different in both countries..

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

so ofcourse, without doupt they will hate us. ohhh and arabs don't forget hate... vengence is a part of the arab culture... an eye for an eye they say.

An eye for an eye is a Jewish old testament idea, it doesn't exist in the Quran. I would ask you to back up this claim as It's not really indicative of Arab belief.

If you want to make assumptions at least understand where the beliefs come from, and what they mean.

Firstly Exodus 21:23-27

And

In reference to torts, the Old Testament prescription "an eye for an eye, etc." has often been interpreted, notably in Judaism, to mean equivalent monetary compensation, even to the exclusion of mirror punishment.The term lex talionis does not always and only refer to literal eye-for-an-eye codes of justice (see rather mirror punishment) but applies to the broader class of legal systems that specify formulaic penalities for specific crimes, which are thought to be fitting in their severity. Some propose that this was at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state. The most common expression of lex talionis is "an eye for an eye", but other interpretations have been given as well. Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common: prescribed 'fitting' counterpunishment for an offense. In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person's child, that person's child would be put to death.

The simplest example is the "eye for an eye" principle. In that case, the rule was that punishment must be exactly equal to the crime. Conversely, the twelve tables of Rome merely prescribed particular penalties for particular crimes. Under the British Common Law, successful plaintiffs were entitled to repayment equal to their loss (in monetary terms). In the modern tort law system, this has been extended to translate non-economic losses into money as well.

The Jews knew that the code was for fitting punishment, not necessarily mirror punishment, but some corrupt the first code of laws by Hammurabi as a realistic approach, there is a milenia or two difference from this code of laws, Jews progresed and still progress, they no longer invoke the death penalty for murder and only did so then in exceptional cases.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

An eye for an eye is a Jewish old testament idea, it doesn't exist in the Quran. I would ask you to back up this claim as It's not really indicative of Arab belief.

If you want to make assumptions at least understand where the beliefs come from, and what they mean.

yes, an eye for an eye is a jewish statement, but since when we jews live the bible. its also told to stone to death a man who works at saturday... i haven't heard of the jew who got stoned for it by other jews...
the only man eeeeevvvveeeeer who was sentenced to death in israel by court, was eichman, a man who was very close to hitler...

my mother has a degree in arabic literature, i may find some matter for u if u want to see what I am talking about.
in the south if israel, where where there are a lot of beduins, which doesn't seem to like the idea of living in towns, so they live in the desert, where country laws doesn't exist.
there, big differences between families are settled with a compromize, or death. and death is legitimate in their moral code.
and that applies from what i hear to about all the arab world.

one of the major reasons for arab countries to attak israel in the past, was the loss of honor from the last attack.
especially the humiliation of the 6 day war... did egypt attack after that war for the soil we barely had? nope, it was because the 6 day war...vengence.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Then don't use the Torah to explain Islamic belief is all I ask, anyway it's time for bed here, so I'll have to bid you adieu, and address any points you have on the morrow.

 

[Smurf]

about the poor american soliders, i must say that a poor arab is much worse than a poor american... and the enviorment is much different in both countries..

So you think it's because of the environment then? And not something 'natural' now?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

So you think it's because of the environment then? And not something 'natural' now?

i said that is is natural to hate us, but ffs, i never said that its natural to bomb urself on citizens...

 

[Anttech]

was bombing north israel reasonable?

or is the hamas goverment, in which many times sent its man to bomb buses loaded with people reasonable?

was arafat rasonable when barak offered him all he could ask for, yet he
refused by making up a new demands in the end of a negotiation of a long long dispute...

is iran reasonable? have u heard of his intentions of nuclear options, and the speeches on a new holocaust, to both israel and americans?

its a sad thing, a very sad thing, that when arab countries can be called reasonable only when the country is controlled by dictator, or a fake democracy. lybia, egypt, jordan, are good examples...

reason has left the house if u ask me

Heres some facts for you, you interpret them as you please:

Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4791125.stm

For a terrorist group they are quiet a good aim, wouldn't you say? Anyway the terrorist tag on Hezbollah is in the dock right now.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

wait... so.. what is ur point?
i know that we lost less, should we be the ones in misery to have the legitimacy to attack any agrresors? we are stronger, does that make the reaction on our behaf unjust?

also, u should add the fact that hizbulla stored missiles, and launched missiles from civil areas, so, would u expect us to just walk in there to urban areas where terrorists lurk in every home? we tried that due to "humanitarian UN" pressures in many operations in palestine cities, that costs a lot of death to the infantry units...
so the method was: tell the house holders to evacuate, and then we destroy the damn thing. though hizbulla found it reasonable to hold people by force in their villages. i almost didnt believe it myself, but there are pictures of it... captured by israeli airdrones, u see how missile carriers enter a random house, as a good spot to shoot from.

oh god ffs , u people complicate the obvious... we have no need of being there besides defence, why the hack would we enter lebanon? are we evil maybe? with sadist urges? or maybe we should minimize civ from dying, and we just send infantry to every home in lebanon and by that lose another 300 soliders?

two dogs know understand this situation better then u...
when a dog bites another, the other dog bites back, and when one cannot fight, it is left alone.
thats all to it.
and btw, the millatery operation cost us a loooot more...
and the civs killed was minimized because most people just ran away, with the suppurt of israeli foundations, and all else stayed for a month in shelters.

again, the one in greater condition, is not the one to blame.

 

[Anttech]

My point is that the 'random rocketing at Israeli civilians' doesn't hold as much weight as it did before we knew all the facts! In fact it is moot in my opinion, They were a lot more sophisticated than anyone expected..

though hizbulla found it reasonable to hold people by force in their villages. i almost didnt believe it myself, but there are pictures of it... captured by israeli airdrones, u see how missile carriers enter a random house, as a good spot to shoot from.

Provide a source to this, I find it strange what you say. Hezbollah are the largest employer outside the government in Lebanon. They *seem* to be loved by many for the 'resistance' fighting they were perceived to be doing. A group that is loved wouldn't be 'forcing' people to stay put, would they?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

i do not know an internet source for it, but i heard on the news not once, that people are being held in towns, to maximize casulties, since it is politicaly bad for israel.
it may be unbelivable, but since they launch missiles from towns instead of just shooting from open fields, it tells a lot about their uncare to civic casulties.
and it is a fact that they enter houses as a launching areas.i want to add, this country had enough war, we don't want any part in it, we hate it, we do not carry any fascist views, but it repeats itself, arab countries controlled by the religous cannot be resoned with on a table, and believe me we tried...
and we also know that terrorism cannot be diminished easly, so the army is working a lot on border defence... we have that laser developed on american budjets, but its not operational(though it could put down 46 low distance ground missiles), and the fence being built in this days, which is suppose to prevent intruders..

so if u can't beat them, nor talk to them, ignore them. i just hope that its possible.