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

[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?

 

[Hurkyl]

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

See Wikipedia's entry on Islamism.

I am correcting your use of the word "Islam" -- it's rather inflammatory to use "Islam" when you mean a small sect of extremists, and is at least confusing to use the word when you really meant to refer to various nations in the area.

 

[Hurkyl]

Both sides are wrong, because violence is wrong.

That's a lovely sounding ideal. But an entirely ridiculous standard to try to hold a government to... and it's not even reasonable to hold individuals to such a standard.

Hezbollah and Israel are equally guilty for the destruction of Lebanon.

Why equal? In what ways is Hezbollah guilty? In what ways is Israel guilty? How did you weigh all those factors against each other to determine that they should be equally guilty?

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.

Why does that earn the US a portion of the blame? And why is the US's portion of the blame worth bringing up over any other particular party's portion of the blame?

I think it explains the high percentage of civilians compared to Hezbollah guerrillas killed in Lebanon.

That one's easy -- AFAIK the bombers are generally after rocket caches and rocket launchers, not guerrillas.

They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets

Don't you think this sounds suspicious?

 

[kyleb]

That's a lovely sounding ideal. But an entirely ridiculous standard to try to hold a government to... and it's not even reasonable to hold individuals to such a standard.

Why do you say that? If some guy cracks your jaw and in response you lop his arms off, you will quite certainly be held responsible for that.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why do you say that? If some guy cracks your jaw and in response you lop his arms off, you will quite certainly be held responsible for that.

Of course. Everyone's responsible¹ for their own actions. Being responsible doesn't mean being punshed, however. If the guy was continuing his attack, attempting to do a more complete job of it, you probably won't receive any punishment.


1: I hate universals -- I do not indent to assert there are no exceptions to this rule.

 

[Bystander]

See Wikipedia's entry on Islamism.

I am correcting your use of the word "Islam" -- it's rather inflammatory to use "Islam" when you mean a small sect of extremists, and is at least confusing to use the word when you really meant to refer to various nations in the area.

Have to go back through this trainwreck of a thread and check --- reasonably certain I made the distinction clear that looneys are looneys, and that Islam needed either to control the "small" (not as "small" as one might wish) sect or expect serious consequences; that is, lack of action, praising violence with faint damnation, and other current approaches, condones rather than condemns the current activities, and places Islam in the same position the Lebanese currently occupy regarding Hezbollah --- you got rats and cockroaches in your house and they're creating problems for the neighborhood, you clean them up, ask for help cleaning them up, or figure on being evicted and billed for the fumigation.

 

[Gokul43201]

That video it doesn't support your previous statement:

It doesn't? Did you watch it completely? Let me quote from the transcript.

According to the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, not only when an entire homeland is occupied, but when "even an inch of Muslim land is occupied, Jihad is a personal duty, a religious obligation incumbent upon everyone. A wife must go, even without her husband's permission, and a slave must go - if there are slaves, without his master's permission." They must liberate this land - and this is when only an inch is occupied, let alone when it is Palestine, Jerusalem, and Al-Aqsa that are occupied.

This is what I said from my recollection of two such interviews I'd watched:

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.

I think I was pretty close, but I'm okay with any correction you impose based on the one transcript. I could always search some more and come up with slightly different versions with each new hit.

"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.

"Another man"? "Opinion"? You don't think the Deputy Head of the Palestinian Clerics Association knows the Quran?

In any case, I don't want to go any further into what the Quran says, so I'm dropping this here.

I was only hoping to elucidate how LYN's point of view would be considered completely outrageous and and such action dishonorable, as far as a certain group of people are involved.

 

[kyleb]

Goku, it is hard to say exactly what the guy was talking about and how well he quoted whatever actually text, but even discouting that he says outright that it is from Hadith which is a large collection of works that very greatly in their authoritative value. Besides, look around at all the Muslims who aren't doing anything like that man suggests.

 

[clj4]

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)..

You asked me what an "apologist" is, I explained it to you.
Yes, both countries (Belgium and Netherlands) suck up big time to the islamists. You "invited" them into your two countries (France as well), now you pander to them. This is what apologists are. Capisci?

 

[Anttech]

I would be interested for examples of this pandering, I would also be interested to understand why your perception is what it is, why don't you attempt to explain? I doubt considering your Geography knowledge of the area you have never been here, am I correct?

The French and Dutch indeed did invite Moroccans to do the manual labour in their countries around the 60's/70's. The French where colonialist, and actually had administrative control of most of North Africa, thus many of them spoke French, and hence people migrated there.

However the USA has FAR more Muslims than France and Belgium and the Netherlands combined! There are over 10 Million (AFAIK) in the States, so using your "invited them in" Logic it would seem *you* are also appolgists.

Edit, it seems actually that it is closer to 7 Million, even so its still more than NL FR and BE Combined

 

[Yonoz]

Hi,
I have a few moments with internet access so I thought I should let you know what I can tell about my experience so far.
The way up north was a little surreal, I've never seen it so empty. It's not completely dead, though we can't find any place from which to order food - military food gets boring after a short while. Luckily the Arab villages are unaffected so I eat their sweets a lot. Artillery and helicopters are heard constantly outside.
The attack on Qana was apparently a terrible misjudgement of the plane and bomb's approach vector. The plane flew in a straight line over the center of Qana in the direction of the rocket launcher (don't know if you've seen the video, it was presented that same day - the rockets were launched a few dozen meters from the building with the civilians). Apparently the bomb fell a little short, a few dozen meters doesn't give much room for error, and the launcher was already heading back into the village (visible in the video). I'm not sure whether the bomb actually hit the building or that it collapsed because it fell so close, the construction in these regions can be very poor (see the results of that Turkey earthquake). We were very unhappy when we heard the news, the bombing came up in most discussions throughout the day. A junior officer who likes to talk nonsense told a joke about something else, another officer thought he was joking about the bombing and got told him off rather loudly. So I'm glad to say there's not much tolerance for unethical behaviour in my unit. Unethical is just another sub-category of unprofessional IMO. I don't mind people getting emotional, and I joke about everything (I'm not as serious in real life), but people should keep emotions and jokes out of the work we do, misjudgements can mean a disaster.
I'd like to tell you more but I can't for obvious reasons. I can only say that Hizbullah are playing very dirty. For example, when the UN coordinate a safety zone for a convoy, they use it to launch rockets before the UN gives the all-clear, then it's quiet again. We have many such safety precautions that leave very little room for dealing with the rockets, making a ground campaign necessary. I estimate we don't fire back around 90% of the time because of safety limits. It's a shame they don't let a news crew report the way we work, I think it would clear up quite a bit for people abroad.
I'll catch some sleep now, see you soon.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Have to go back through this trainwreck of a thread and check --- reasonably certain I made the distinction clear that looneys are looneys, and that Islam needed either to control the "small" (not as "small" as one might wish) sect or expect serious consequences; that is, lack of action, praising violence with faint damnation, and other current approaches, condones rather than condemns the current activities, and places Islam in the same position the Lebanese currently occupy regarding Hezbollah --- you got rats and cockroaches in your house and they're creating problems for the neighborhood, you clean them up, ask for help cleaning them up, or figure on being evicted and billed for the fumigation.

When you were writing this and feeling somewhat self righteous at the same time, did you stop to consider the causes of fundamentalism, or that without western influence these nutcase would not have the influence they command in the Middle East, were once it was the English(who wisely left when the UN stepped in probably fed up of being terrorist targets) It is now some other "colonialist" powers that are dealing with the hate game. The US and currently Israel seem to have lost reason and now believe the best way to control the fundementalists(war on terror) Is to keep on kicking the beehive until all the bees are dead, however it's constantly getting stung by this activity but fails to acknowledge this until it's too late. Israel have now turned against the axis of evil militarily . Iran, Syria and anyone else who happens to be in Americas line of fire and have to my mind climbed on board with the Great Satan I love propababble don't you?

To my mind the US and Israel and Palestine, Iran, Syria are evil but for different reasons, most of them selfish however. I really don't understand why this issue is just so black and white for those outside of the Middle East, I mean we're reasonable people right? We know there are two sides to every story, why do many people insist on advocating there own pointlessly biased side, be they Israeli or Lebanese, they might have an excuse, but for civilised learned people from oustide of this area it is puzzling?

 

[clj4]

I would be interested for examples of this pandering, I would also be interested to understand why your perception is what it is, why don't you attempt to explain? I doubt considering your Geography knowledge of the area you have never been here, am I correct?

Incorrect.

The French and Dutch indeed did invite Moroccans to do the manual labour in their countries around the 60's/70's. The French where colonialist, and actually had administrative control of most of North Africa, thus many of them spoke French, and hence people migrated there.

How about the indonesians that the belgians "invited" over? How about the terrorist cells that were uncovered recently?

However the USA has FAR more Muslims than France and Belgium and the Netherlands combined! There are over 10 Million (AFAIK) in the States, so using your "invited them in" Logic it would seem *you* are also appolgists.

Nope. US has 2.3 according to census. France has 5 (according to census). US doesn't pander to islamists, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Sweden , do.

Edit, it seems actually that it is closer to 7 Million, even so its still more than NL FR and BE Combined

Do you read your own newspapers? Do you watch your own TV programs? Do you follow your country's pattern of voting at UN?
If you did some of the above , you would understand what "sucking up big" to the islamists means.

 

[clj4]

Hi,
I have a few moments with internet access so I thought I should let you know what I can tell about my experience so far.
The way up north was a little surreal, I've never seen it so empty. It's not completely dead, though we can't find any place from which to order food - military food gets boring after a short while. Luckily the Arab villages are unaffected so I eat their sweets a lot. Artillery and helicopters are heard constantly outside.
The attack on Qana was apparently a terrible misjudgement of the plane and bomb's approach vector. The plane flew in a straight line over the center of Qana in the direction of the rocket launcher (don't know if you've seen the video, it was presented that same day - the rockets were launched a few dozen meters from the building with the civilians). Apparently the bomb fell a little short, a few dozen meters doesn't give much room for error, and the launcher was already heading back into the village (visible in the video). I'm not sure whether the bomb actually hit the building or that it collapsed because it fell so close, the construction in these regions can be very poor (see the results of that Turkey earthquake). We were very unhappy when we heard the news, the bombing came up in most discussions throughout the day. A junior officer who likes to talk nonsense told a joke about something else, another officer thought he was joking about the bombing and got told him off rather loudly. So I'm glad to say there's not much tolerance for unethical behaviour in my unit. Unethical is just another sub-category of unprofessional IMO. I don't mind people getting emotional, and I joke about everything (I'm not as serious in real life), but people should keep emotions and jokes out of the work we do, misjudgements can mean a disaster.
I'd like to tell you more but I can't for obvious reasons. I can only say that Hizbullah are playing very dirty. For example, when the UN coordinate a safety zone for a convoy, they use it to launch rockets before the UN gives the all-clear, then it's quiet again. We have many such safety precautions that leave very little room for dealing with the rockets, making a ground campaign necessary. I estimate we don't fire back around 90% of the time because of safety limits. It's a shame they don't let a news crew report the way we work, I think it would clear up quite a bit for people abroad.
I'll catch some sleep now, see you soon.

Well, keep reporting the truth, first hand off the war lines. This should be good enough. Stay well.

 

[sid_galt]

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!

Human rights apply to those who respect them, not to those who violate the rights of others (in this case Arab dictatorships violating the rights of Israel by murdering its civilians).

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

I never said I hate all Muslims. What I do think is that Israel has full rights to defend itself against its enemies regardless of the number of enemy civilian casualties whether the civilians are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, whatever. Any other policy is immoral and suicidal. (I singled out Arab Muslims for two reasons. 1 - The majority of the Middle East is Muslim. 2 - The terrorists are fighting for the ideology of Islamofascism, that Islam should dominate the world, an ideology which has its roots in the religion - Islam).

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war. And if one is really concerned about the net number of civilian casualties, then the further one postporns full scale action against the thugs perpetuating terror, the bloodier any future conflict will get. What would you prefer - that a few thousand die now when the Arab dictatorships are much less powerful than Israel or millions die later when those dictatorships acquire nuclear weapons and provoke a thermonuclear war?
In this situation, asking Israel to proclaim ceasefire is literally asking Israel to give into evil.

 

[Anttech]

How about the indonesians that the belgians "invited" over? How about the terrorist cells that were uncovered recently?

Well for someone who has been here, you have zero knowledge. Again it was the DUTCH!

 

[sid_galt]

US doesn't pander to islamists, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Sweden , do.

The US doesn't?

Is that why the US is not willing to even attack Iran's nuclear facilities when they are a mortal threat to the US and the entire free world?
In appeasing the Islamists, the US may not be as bad as the Europeans but its not much better either.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Human rights apply to those who respect them, not to those who violate the rights of others (in this case Arab dictatorships violating the rights of Israel by murdering its civilians).



I never said I hate all Muslims. What I do think is that Israel has full rights to defend itself against its enemies regardless of the number of enemy civilian casualties whether the civilians are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, whatever. Any other policy is immoral and suicidal. (I singled out Arab Muslims for two reasons. 1 - The majority of the Middle East is Muslim. 2 - The terrorists are fighting for the ideology of Islamofascism, that Islam should dominate the world, an ideology which has its roots in the religion - Islam).

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war. And if one is really concerned about the net number of civilian casualties, then the further one postporns full scale action against the thugs perpetuating terror, the bloodier any future conflict will get. What would you prefer - that a few thousand die now when the Arab dictatorships are much less powerful than Israel or millions die later when those dictatorships acquire nuclear weapons and provoke a thermonuclear war?
In this situation, asking Israel to proclaim ceasefire is literally asking Israel to give into evil.

Evil is an easy word to use for the other side, in fact I just did it in my last post, it's what we tend to do,vilify those we consider enemies, but don't forget Israel is not a country without sin, to me in this situation evil is indicated merely by which side of the fence you sit on, clearly Palestinians are evil, or Hezbollah or Lebanese arent they and Israel are good, and the US always are smelling of roses in everything they do, the UK have never done anything wrong or anyone else you happen to be allied with. I'd say as I said before The Great Satan and the Axis of Evil are quite apropriate names for either side, depending on where you sit It may sound like a philosophical argument to try and determine who's right but let's cut the BS, neither side is right, right?

 

[Anttech]

Human rights apply to those who respect them, not to those who violate the rights of others (in this case Arab dictatorships violating the rights of Israel by murdering its civilians).

This is rubbish, they apply to everyone, whether you like it or not!

 

[Anttech]

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war.

Again this is utter rubbish. Whether or not you start the war, you are still within the eyes of the international community and Courts still obliged to follow the Geneva convention and International Human Rights acts. Thus Israel, know it has just broke some (deliberately or not) has called a 48 Hour cease fire to investigate. Please stop asserting your opinion as if it was fact.

 

[sid_galt]

Evil is an easy word to use for the other side, in fact I just did it in my last post, it's what we tend to do,vilify those we consider enemies, but don't forget Israel is not a country without sin, to me in this situation evil is indicated merely by which side of the fence you sit on, clearly Palestinians are evil, or Hezbollah or Lebanese arent they and Israel are good, and the US always are smelling of roses in everythinbg they do, the UK have never done anything wrong or anyone else you happen to be allied with. I'd say as I said before The Great Satan and the Axis of Evil are quite apropriate names for either side, depending on where you sit It may sound like a philosophical argument to try and determine who's right but let's cut the BS, neither side is right, right?

You're a moral relativist?

Anyway, you claim that neither the West nor the Middle East can claim moral high ground in this war.

I have a few questions:
1) How would you define morality?

2) What is your standard of morality and what are the reasons you hold that standard of morality.

 

[Anttech]

Do you read your own newspapers? Do you watch your own TV programs? Do you follow your country's pattern of voting at UN?
If you did some of the above , you would understand what "sucking up big" to the islamists means.

Europe doesn't 'pander' to the will of George Bush. This doesn't mean we pander to Terrorists. 'Old Europe' has its own political agenda and demographics to please. In pleasing ,and bending to the wishes, of your current administration a European politician is committing his own political suicide, just like Blair is doing right now. This is just fact. The reason is nothing to do with being apologetic towards terrorists, it is because our values and political wishes are not in-line with what the Bush admin is offering. Its simple as that.

 

[kyleb]

You're a moral relativist?

Nah, moral relativists clam that one side doing more wrong than the other makes that other side right.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You're a moral relativist?

Anyway, you claim that neither the West nor the Middle East can claim moral high ground in this war.

I have a few questions:
1) How would you define morality?

2) What is your standard of morality and what are the reasons you hold that standard of morality.

That's a bit of a lable and for some odd reason many people don't like to assosciate themselves with the ideas behind relativism, but I think it's fairly close to what I believe, in this situation I'm unbiased so yes I guess you could draw a parallel between me and the moral relativist movement, because I have weighed both sides in terms of cultural,historical, and political outlook. And I refuse to make value judgements on what I've learned. But in reality it's hard to be a moral relativist in the true sense, we all have our biases.

1) I can't define morality in a forum, I suggest if you want a definition you read up on it, it's not something you can cover in anything but a book or series of books, and even if you read them it's a grey area frankly, I'll have to make do with just answering your question in terms of this situation and you can assume away

2) My standard, another book in the making? I have never really thought about it like that, in this situation though I'd say to look at all the causes of the situation we find ourselves or see them in and make a decision as to how much of this can be attributed to which side or event and what is the causal relationship; by learning the history either from neutral or biased sources, the politics the ideology, the death tolls, anything in a holistic sense, it's all good, you can get some sort of clearer picture as to who you think you could side with.

In my case it's such a mire of convoluted pseudo-peace and war in the Middle East with atrocities coming from both sides, that I wouldn't in good conscience be able to make up my mind either way, I'm hardly unique in feeling this way though, it's too complicated and has gone on for too long to really understand the sheer breadth of the situation IMHO.

 

[clj4]

Well for someone who has been here, you have zero knowledge. Again it was the DUTCH!

You have them too. And a lot more different ones. Try to get the notion of "apologist"
I don't see your answer to my correcting your fudged up census numbers.

 

[clj4]

Europe doesn't 'pander' to the will of George Bush. This doesn't mean we pander to Terrorists. 'Old Europe' has its own political agenda and demographics to please. In pleasing ,and bending to the wishes, of your current administration a European politician is committing his own political suicide, just like Blair is doing right now. This is just fact. The reason is nothing to do with being apologetic towards terrorists, it is because our values and political wishes are not in-line with what the Bush admin is offering. Its simple as that.

Right... You imported them because of cheap labor and low demographics. Now they are running you out of your own country, out of your (former) values. Wait another generation. Your children will be muslims.You will be a muslim (if you aren't one already). Keep on apologising, it might save your head when it comes to conversion.

Oh, by the way, your states pander to the arabs.
And Blair is doing very well for a person that is "committing political suicide" he has been one of GB's longest running PM's. One of the longest running "suicides", n'est pas?