We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[Tokorona]

Yes, it's hard to be 'self reliant' when another government cuts you off from your olive trees. Or plows under your oranges. Or blocks the road to your market.

Or conficates all tax income for your government and holds it hostage because it does not like the result of your democratic elections.

Actually, the tax income that Isreal collects at it's checkpoints don't go to Hamas. They go toi the PA.. which has no collection stations. oops!

And since every nation has adrutly cut funding to Hamas, you can hardly blame Israel. Well, you can... but...

As for hte first part? I suppose they couldn't build it in areas that Israel never goes near now? Since it's quite clear they're going back to a secure footing.

[Tokorona]

The fact is simple. Israel was attacked at a military target. That means Israel is at war. And in war, accidental civilian deaths aren't illegal. While deplorable, and heartbreaking... unavoidable.

And in response: How many Israel citizens have died due to suicide bombing and airstrikes, neh?

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1155240285[/unixtime]]Xander, try actually answering questions, instead of just tearing things apart. Then I might not just ignore you as a kook.

He has answered everything you've asked. The fact that his answers don't jive with your biased sources is irrelevant.

-Desan

[Xander77]

1155240285[/unixtime]]
Xander, try actually answering questions, instead of just tearing things apart. Then I might not just ignore you as a kook.

-Crissa

A) Umm...

Maybe we're using different definitions, but "ignoring me" actually means not talking to me. Asking me questions, repeating the same questions when I answer them, but ignoring the questions I ask you, isn't really ignoring me. It's certainly "kooky" behavior, I'll grant you that. Just not on my side.

B) Again. Try considering the way your words sound to someone else.

If your questions are so incorrectly worded, poorly phrased, ignorant about the facts of the situation and incoherently reptetetive that I keep "tearing them" apart, maybe the right thing to do isn't to boo-hoo about how meanly "kookily" I'm treating you, but to actually consider your questions before you ask them. Actually making something that vaguely resembles a point would be neat.

Oh, and you know, answering the questions you were asked. That would be plain awesome.

[Xander77]

1155241240[/unixtime]]
As for hte first part? I suppose they couldn't build it in areas that Israel never goes near now? Since it's quite clear they're going back to a secure footing.

Umm... no. We're stupid for doing it. Those territories are ours. No other "real" entity is laying claim to them. So the goverment can take land, give land, whatever. But it should do so proudly, in the daylight, while giving proper compensations, or not at all.

And in response: How many Israel citizens have died due to suicide bombing and airstrikes, neh?

No, no, no. We're not playing that game. We have a lot less people to trade. We're a lot less willing to die (seriously. Famous Arafat speech, about how the Palestinians are going to win because the Jews hold life sacred, while they consecrate Death.) And killing pawns and civilians doesn't actually accomplish anything. Destroying critical objects does. It's just that casualties are such a simple way to keep track of the score. And there are plenty of simple minds that don't realise it's the wrong score to keep.

[Crissa]

1155244003[/unixtime]]Umm... no. We're stupid for doing it. Those territories are ours. No other "real" entity is laying claim to them. So the goverment can take land, give land, whatever. But it should do so proudly, in the daylight, while giving proper compensations, or not at all.

Very true. And in truth, the fields pre-existed the walls and political footings - some of those trees are over a hundred years old - so it's kinda hard to 'build' these things around stuff that happens a century later.

See, what I'm doing is taking the opposing side in an argument. I'm pointing out facts and details not reported by the prior sources. My sources aren't biased, they're just reporting the news with details the Isreali sources lack.

The reason the PA doesn't get money right now is that Isreal has not delivered any since the last valid election. The fact that the US also isn't giving any money (owed, lent, or gift) shows a disrespect for democracy. The PA doesn't have toll booths because Isreali forces killed and destroyed all PA roadblocks for the last ten years. Who'd want that job?

If Isreal is willing to kill civillians willy-nilly, it's going to have to deal with fantatics who know that it doesn't matter if they're military or not; because Israel will kill them regardless.

If you held life sacred, you might not blow up apartment buildings hundreds of miles away from the fighting.

-Crissa

[Xander77]

..............................



You fell for my clever plan. 9^9^9 posts blasting your arguments to pieces - no response. Something that actually constitutes critisism of Israel - you're not longer ignoring me.

So... yeah, I don't think I'm going to invest any more effort into actually trying to communicate with you, since it's obvious that you have no desire to do so.

Edit - allow me to clarify.

Generally/Theoretically speaking, a discussion/argument goes somewhat like this:

Side A presents points, arguments, and facts.

Side B reacts to what side A side - confirming, denying, providing alternate explanations, and bringing up it's own points, arguments, etc.

Side A then reacts to what side B said.

This may be somewhat pointless, or leave both sides enlightened, depending on how the arguments goes, but... it's all good, and within parametres.

OTOH.

If side A presents it's arguments.

And side B reacts, and presents it's own points.

Following which, side A in no way reacts to side B's points, but proceeds to reiterate it's argument yet again, using somewhat different words.

And the whole thing repeats over and over and over.

Then, side A is obviously deficient in some manner. And there's no real way to establish communications.

[power_word_wedgie]

1155246061[/unixtime]]See, what I'm doing is taking the opposing side in an argument. I'm pointing out facts and details not reported by the prior sources. My sources aren't biased, they're just reporting the news with details the Isreali sources lack.

The only problem is that from my last post the thing that came up was:

a) "Well, Hezbollah didn't claim to launch the rockets that attacked a military base back on May 28th of this year." Well true enough, Hizbollah didn't take claim that they conducted the rocketing, but I'm doubting that the kaytushka roocket attacks on May 28th was conducted by the Lebanese Ladies Auxiliary Club. If so, they probably should take up bridge like the rest of the world. Jus because someone isn't taking claim doesn't mean that they didn't do it.

b) "Well, those sources are biased for Israel. Besides, they didn't get the Hezbollah's response." Ok, show me an article for the May 28th attack that shows that it was conducted by someone else. I'll be more than happy to review it and change my opinion if information in the article warrant it.

c) "You're not hearing the liberal's response to these attacks." Well, in some degree, you are certainly right. Why is that the case. Because the main liberals in the US political parties (mainly in the Democratic party) are saying nothing on the subject. If anything, they're supporting Israel. Let me put it this way: are the liberal Democrats putting in near as much energy against the Israeli aggression as they are the Iraqi conflict? The answer is no.

Now on the stuff you did quote, highways have always been military targets. They're supply lines. You know how we got the concept of the interstate system? Eisenhower saw what Hitler (I know, I know ... Godwin's law) had done with the Autobahn system, and that was so that he could move his army and supply lines effectively.

The reason the PA doesn't get money right now is that Isreal has not delivered any since the last valid election. The fact that the US also isn't giving any money (owed, lent, or gift) shows a disrespect for democracy.

The problem is that it wasn't only the US that was withholding funds, it was the EU as well. Why? What could have freed up the funds? All the Palestinian PM had to do is say, "We recognize the existance of Israel" and the money would have been pouring in. You see, you're right when you say that there are wounds on Hamas and Hezbollah - the only thing is that many of them are self-inflicted.

[Crissa]

Umm... What argument shot to pieces?

Where's the interviews of Hizbollah, or Lebonese civillians in your reports? Where's the numbers killed by Isreal in the wiki? Where's the lists of Isreali bombing targets, since there's a list of places hit by rocket attacks? Do you even understand the word biased?

You haven't refuted squat. Oh, yes, two months ago there was some fighting, so that perfectly excuses bombing some apartment buildings hundreds of miles away.

The problem wasn't...

...Wasn't what, exactly? It's 'okay' for Isreal to withhold funds that belong to the people of Palestine because of the US (excuse me, dig up an EU withhold, please?).

And it's perfectly okay for Isreal to continue shooting when only the US says it is okay?

They ELECTED the guy. Who are you to hold a democratic country hostage, and then blame the country for being upset? There were two candidates, one who supported Isreal, one who didn't. One candidate won, another lost.

*punch* Stop hitting yourself. *punch* Stop hitting yourself.

You guys are pathetic. You can't even manage a basic dialog, an argument, without going into insults.

-Crissa

[User3]

1155278712[/unixtime]]...Wasn't what, exactly? It's 'okay' for Isreal to withhold funds that belong to the people of Palestine because of the US (excuse me, dig up an EU withhold, please?).

BAAM!

aljarezza.net (since all other media outlets must apparently be owned by Israel ...)

I'll get to the rest tonight after work.

[Crissa]

1155313291[/unixtime]](since all other media outlets must apparently be owned by Israel ...)

Thank you for the link; I don't usually catch the BBC news.

And thank you for showing yourself unable to refrain from insults.

'Haha'

-Crissa

[Crissa]

So... What did the Lebonese civillians do to be attacked by Isreali forces?

Coming down the wire is news about a convoy of 1500 civillian cars guarded by the Lebonese military moving out of the Isreali occupied zone have been hit and destroyed for evacuating the fighting. (Dunno exact numbers, the live CNN person was just ordered to take cover by the Lebonese, though apparently they'd managed to evacuate the ambulatory civillians and wounded)
Reuters link

Please explain why this was needed when perhaps Isreal could have asked the UN to intervene - like every other nation is doing?

-Crissa

[Tokorona]

BEcause the UN is useless. Seriously.

400 posts
Knight

Reply
Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough
Umm... What argument shot to pieces?

Where's the interviews of Hizbollah, or Lebonese civillians in your reports? Where's the numbers killed by Isreal in the wiki? Where's the lists of Isreali bombing targets, since there's a list of places hit by rocket attacks? Do you even understand the word biased?

There's the reason for "since all other news outlets must be owned by Israel"

Note: It's also spelled : Israel.

Reading that gets this small gem -

They said the convoy that had left the town of Marjayoun earlier in the day was targeted by at least one drone near the village of Kefraya in eastern Lebanon

Um, yeah. As for the UN, Israel has no reason to trust a body hostile to it.

[Incarnadine]

K, folks. I've gotten multiple complaints. Please play nice with each other while the Fence Builder is away. If y'all won't play nice, either keep the personal attacks to the gaming topics or take them to e-mail.

*sigh* Thanks in advance, and I apologize for having to step in.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Gaming Den.

[Crissa]

Yes, a convoy started by Israeli forces, and then shot up by them.

Yes, the UN, the WHOLE WORLD is just against Israel, not because of any actions they have taken.

Where was the request to the EU to intervene, then? Where's the EU on the Israeli use of force today? Oh, with the UN?

You can't say that they're supported by the world (against Palestine) and then also say that they world is against them. [Sentence removed by Mod.]

-Crissa

I don't have spellcheck in my browser, sorry to offend your sensabilities.

[power_word_wedgie]

1155278712[/unixtime]]Umm... What argument shot to pieces?

Fair statement. Here is the portion of a previous quote that I was disputing with these articles:

PS - Did the rockets start falling before Israeli forces were romping around the Lebonese contryside? The answer is no.

Well, the answer is yes, and that's all I was trying to say. I'm not saying that Israel has a moral upground on this - I think that both Hizbollah and Israel have pretty shaky morals on this one.

Now it sounds like from a previous quote that the BBC would be acceptable as a source without being too biased. Fair enough.

BBC dated 2002 on Hizbollah rocket firing

Hizbollah have been firing rockets into Israel for several days. Israel has responded with artillery fire - and there are fears the conflict could escalate.

BBC 2005 Article

A fourth rocket hit the town of Shlomi.

Lebanese police said at least seven rockets had been launched from Lebanese territory.

Two were fired from the western sector, 20km (12 miles) south-east of Tyre, and five others from the eastern sector on Adaisa hill, they added.

The above actually has Lebanese saying, "Yeah, the rockets came from Lebanon."

Where's the interviews of Hizbollah, or Lebonese civillians in your reports? Where's the numbers killed by Isreal in the wiki? Where's the lists of Isreali bombing targets, since there's a list of places hit by rocket attacks? Do you even understand the word biased?

Ok, I think that we can agree that not all media is biased towards Israel. Thus, can you show an article about this May 28th attack that is from the opposite biased side? As I said previously, I'd be more than willing to read it. And actually, the article did list the Israeli bombing targets:

The air force raided two bases of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), while Israel angrily announced it would lodge a complaint with the United Nations.

Israeli fighter bombers swooped several times to fire 15 missiles at a base in Sultan Yaacub in eastern Lebanon, less than 10 kilometres (six miles) from the border with Syria, causing the casualties, police said.

They then targeted a base in Naameh, some 10 kilometres south of the Lebanese capital, that comprises a network of underground tunnels and has been the target of several past Israeli air strikes.

The bombing of the base, located near the busy highway linking Beirut to southern Lebanon, triggered traffic jams and panic among motorists, police said.

You haven't refuted squat. Oh, yes, two months ago there was some fighting, so that perfectly excuses bombing some apartment buildings hundreds of miles away.

I refuting the notion that there weren't rocket firings into Israel prior to their latest incursion. That was the point.

...Wasn't what, exactly? It's 'okay' for Isreal to withhold funds that belong to the people of Palestine because of the US (excuse me, dig up an EU withhold, please?).

Ok, I've already refuted this one.

And it's perfectly okay for Isreal to continue shooting when only the US says it is okay?

Well, NOW there is a resolution put forward to cease the hostilities. It looks like Israel and Lebanon will abide ... now it's up to Hizbollah.

They ELECTED the guy. Who are you to hold a democratic country hostage, and then blame the country for being upset? There were two candidates, one who supported Isreal, one who didn't. One candidate won, another lost.

Yes, policies may be made by the party in power, but that doesn't mean that:

1) If there is something that the minority party doesn't agree to, then they should just keep their mouths quiet. Heck, as the opposition, this is the time when you should be most vocal about policies that you don't agree with. However, it been pretty quiet from the Democratic party. And as I quoted previously in articles, most liberal Democrats (Schumer and Kerry to name a few) have made comments supportive of Israel. (And the comment "If an article noting a quote from a someone in senior Democrat leadership position criticizing Israel can be found, I'd be more than happy to read it" still stands ...)

2) You vote for supporting Israel in this conflict. That's what many Democrats did by voting 410-8 on a resolution to support Israel in this conflict.

After all, you don't vote for somebody that says, "I'll fight for you in Congress - unless we're the minority party in which I'll vote for the majority all the time and keep my mouth quiet, even if it is something that I think is morally wrong."

[Xander77]

1155356814[/unixtime]]
After all, you don't vote for somebody that says, "I'll fight for you in Congress - unless we're the minority party in which I'll vote for the majority all the time and keep my mouth quiet, even if it is something that I think is morally wrong."

Actually, we have people arguing that that's exactly the right thing to do. Can't divide a nation during a time of war and all.

[power_word_wedgie]

I'd agree to that, but in our war (Iraq), the same people are doing the exact opposite. The Democrats are complaining about the actions taken by the Bush administration in Iraq and that we need to get out immediately. You can't have it both ways: you can't argue against a war that you country is actively in and then on the other side of your mouth say that you can't criticise a war that you're not actively in due to the concern of dividing a nation in a time of war.

[Xander77]

It appears to be over.

Anyone care to volunteer their opinion on who won and what's the score?

[Falgund]

Grim Reaper 1 - 0 Humanity

[Crissa]

PWW, while you quote rockets falling on settlements... Those weren't Israeli territory. Also, you don't answer the question on whether there were Israeli incursions into Lebanon/Palestine at the time, or prior.

'You can't have it both ways'

you can't argue against a war that you country is actively in and then on the other side of your mouth say that you can't criticise a war that you're not actively in

Actually... Could you find that quote? That sounds like Liberman.

Or maybe once again you're picking and choosing, as the opposition party isn't going to be well represented by the controlling party media (Fox, etc)

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1155415687[/unixtime]]PWW, while you quote rockets falling on settlements... Those weren't Israeli territory. Also, you don't answer the question on whether there were Israeli incursions into Lebanon/Palestine at the time, or prior.

'You can't have it both ways'

I'm not trying to state that it was in Israeli territory or whether there were any incursions in Lebanon; I'm not stating that Israel was on some sort of moral high ground. What I was refuting was the statement:

PS - Did the rockets start falling before Israeli forces were romping around the Lebonese contryside? The answer is no.

The above statement is clearly wrong.

you can't argue against a war that you country is actively in and then on the other side of your mouth say that you can't criticise a war that you're not actively in

Actually... Could you find that quote? That sounds like Liberman.

Or maybe once again you're picking and choosing, as the opposition party isn't going to be well represented by the controlling party media (Fox, etc)

Ok, let's review what I said in my quote. What I am saying is that since the Democratic party is willing to criticize the current government's decision the Iraq conflict, then they should be able to criticize Israeli actions.

I'm hoping that there isn't a need to quote the Democrat's criticism of the current government's policies in the Iraq conflict. If so, >HERE< is an article from CNN noting top Democrats doing just that. So, if they're able to do that, where is the Democrat negative reaction to the Israeli conflict. After all, FOX news isn't the only news outlet. Is the supposition that CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC all owned by the Republican party?

And as noted before, it isn't like just those news networks are noting Democrat positions that support Israel. I hope we're not saying that NPR is run by the Republicans.NPR Story

Many congressional leaders -- particularly Democrats -- had criticized the Iraqi leader for failing to condemn the Hezbollah militants currently battling Israeli forces.

Here's a CNN article going into a letter sent by Reid, Schumer, and Durbin to the Iraqi PM asking him about his Isreali remarks.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

Sounds pretty supportive of Israel. But I'll agree that the real test is not what they say but how they vote. A 410-8 approval of a resolution support Israel in the House of Representatives speaks volumes for how Democratic leadership feels on the subject.

[Crissa]

PWW, do you understand a false dichotomy?

That's the choice between condemning Isreali aggression and supporting its right to defend itself.

It's a false choice - so that they voted to support Israel's right to defend itself has nothing to do with supporting how it defends itself.

-Crissa

[Tokorona]

... Well, Crissa. What would you do? I'm now really curious. How do you expect Isreali to defend itself?

[clef]

Neither full scale invasion nor a “shock and awe” air campaign were even close to the most rational and moral choices for Israel to make in their recent predicament. Negotiations seem to most people to be the reasonable first step in dealing with a conflict of this nature. It’s not as if Israel has no leverage in the region. It’s not as if the missile fire was an imminent threat likely to lead to the destruction of Israel in the near future.

It is quite possible that working with the surrounding nations and the UN could have resulted in troops in Lebanon forcefully disarming Hisbollah and arresting and prosecuting those militants directly responsible for the kidnappings and attacks without nearly as many civilizians killed or displaced. It is even possible that an agreement could have been brokered whereby Hezbollah itself agreed to disarm in exchange for the return of prisoners and/or certain economic concessions. Then, had any final agreement been broken or further action been taken by Hezbollah, perhaps there would have been universal condemnation by the nations of the world of Hezbollah and a multi-national response could have been mustered that involves defensive military action by a multinational force as well as extreme economic sanctions until Lebanon, with international aid, can actually enforce the treaties that were signed.

Unfortunately, Israel generally believes that neither the United Nations, nor the Lebanese government, nor anyone else could have been trusted even a little with assisting in this matter. No doubt convinced by the rhetoric that the United Nations is useless and that the Lebanese government was completely powerless, their actions only work to ensure that these things continue to be the case. They no doubt decided that if they can force a crisis then the Lebanese and the UN and many other forces in the world would have to take the situation more seriously and ultimately take steps to diffuse it. War as a gambit to force other nations to act in a manner that you want them to is not uncommon in history but it has questionable moral underpinnings when we consider the extent of death and destruction that can result from such a heavy handed approach to politics.

So it seems Israeli leadership made the political calculation that they probably couldn’t get everything they wanted in the timeframe they wanted if they went the long slow approach of actually talking to people but that they probably could get most of what they wanted by directly invading. At the very least they would destroy most of the rockets in Lebanon and capture or kill many active members of Hezbollah. At best, they would also get their captured soldiers back, decimate Hezbollah’s ability to make war, turn public opinion against Hezbollah for getting Lebanon into such a mess, and get the United Nations to put a powerful effective anti-Hezbollah force right between them and the threat thus shoring up their borders.

How did it turn out? Well they did come pretty close to getting the things they wanted. Many rockets were destroyed, enemies have been captured or killed, a multinational force is on the move, and at least initially there was some anti-Hezbollah back lash as a result of the war.

But in the long term, the things they failed to achieve together with the unintended consequences of the war have made the invasion seem closer to a disaster than a success. The war has not at all hurt Hezbollah’s reputation in the Arab world; in fact it has improved it greatly. On top of that it has made Iraq and Syria’s political positions stronger in the region. They’ve certainly given the Arab world plenty of reasons to continue to hate them for hundreds of years to come.

On top of that, the international reaction has not been nearly as positive and supportive as Israel might have hoped for. Those nations strong enough and wanted to protect their right to invade any nation that happens have a militant group messing with them across the border tended to side with them readily enough. The United States certainly has no problem with the proposition that if some group in Canada or Mexico or Cuba were to suddenly start lobbing missiles at us across our borders or even out one of our external military bases, or even just threatening to do so, then we can go in there and beat the crap out of them if we can’t trust their own governments to do something about it. But many many other nations are a little more leery of such an idea. To those many nations who are all too aware that they can’t necessarily fully control the actions of every group that arises in their country whether or not they have political power within the nation, this sets a very bad precedent. The idea that any transgressions such a group might make that involve other countries interests might well result in the full scale destruction of their infrastructure and the slaughtering of many hundreds of their people by an invading force is not something most countries are happy to accept. So of course the condemnation of Israel ran very thick in the United Nations as much of the rest of the world is appalled to think that this is the new rule of law.

So we know the war has also alienated Israel in the eyes of many of the world’s nations, not just Arab nations. Theo only nations still in agreement with Israel are likely to be the ones that were already on its side to begin with. That’s going to make negotiations difficult in the future. The entire world becoming even more polarized around the Israel issue can’t be a good thing for anyone but it’s particularly bad for Israel whose very existence depends on there being a critical mass of independent third parties who support it.

And all of this doesn’t even begin to touch on the numerous people who are likely to be driven to a life of terror when they have their homes and livelihoods taken away and their friends and families killed. Ultimately the number of enemy combatants killed might end up being a drop in the bucket compared to then umber of enemy combatants created by this conflict. Nor does it begin to examine how further emboldened Israel's enemies will be now that they are able to see how very "not invincible" Israel actually is given how much trouble a relatively small force wielding rockets can cause the nation. In the end it may well be that the only good thing for Israel to come of this war is that the rocket fire will be halted temporarily. That’s not exactly a success story.

It’s still too soon to tell for sure whether more good and stability will come of this conflict in the long run. With the United Nations now footing the military bill, perhaps the region will ultimately find itself in a more stable peace than it had before. I’m willing to entertain the possibility, though I have severe doubts of this. But even if it does come to pass, I for one would not praise Israel for manipulating this situation into being. Not when actions less prone to cause suffering and death could have been undertaken to result in the same ends.

Even if you accept Israel’s right to invade a foreign nation in order to protect itself, the act of doing so, in retrospect, seems like it was a questionable decision at best. We won’t know for sure until more time has passed and we see clearly what Iran and Syria do with their new found leverage and what happens in Lebanon now that there is an international force in place. It will be interesting also to observe what happens the next time there are elections in Lebanon. How big of a role will anti-Israeli sentiment play in the choosing of political appointee’s?

At this time, I believe things have turned out pretty badly and are likely not to get much better. Could Israel have known the consequences of their actions? Perhaps not. But they need only have looked at other wars to see that these things rarely work out as well as either side would have liked. We can’t turn back time and see what would have happened had Israel behaved differently, but we can certainly say that perhaps next time Israel might at least consider a different approach. If nothing else, if Israel feels they have to do the same thing again, I’d like to see them make sure that their attacks are as minimally destructive to the opposing nation’s infrastructure as possible next time and of course to avoid stupidly attacking UN outposts. Even better they could be forthright and direct about ensuring international aid is available to all refugees and giving international guests early warning so that they can more easily evacuate. Better yet they can ask for assistance from the United Nations first and avoid unilateral actions without consultation with the rest of the world.

[edit: fixed a couple of spelling errors]