|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 16, 2006 12:52:56 GMT -5
Yeah, well like the Jello Biafra shirt says, "Newt Hates Me".
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 16, 2006 20:02:20 GMT -5
On another note - as insane as it seems that America refuses to push Israel into a cease-fire, there is a certain logic at work here. America's response to 9/11 - in Afghanistan but especially and above all in Iraq - has a structural similarity to Israel's response to Lebanon. All the rhetoric about making no distinction between "terrorists" and "the regimes that support them" - that is Israel's defense here. It's not a very good defense, insofar as the Lebanese government can't possibly be held responsible for the actions of Hezbollah - but Israel can, does, and will argue that because Hezbollah holds seats in the Lebanese government (once again - democracy vs. Islamist extremism - which is it gonna be?) that it is entitled to strike back against Hezbollah by holding Lebanon itself responsible for Hezbollah's actions. If America rejects this logic, our own post-war on terror rhetoric about pre-emption, defense, enemy regimes, the whole shebang - it all starts to look pretty hypocritical and unstable. Have to note the G-8 statement here, which is perhaps a tentative start in the right direction... On this, yeah, Israel will argue that Lebanon can be held collectively responsible for the actions of Hezbollah because the party holds seats in the Lebanese government, but it seems to me that this rationale is not really open to the United States, irrespective of the impact on its war on terror rhetoric or the doctrine of pre-emption. I’d argue that Iraq – and moreover, North Korea – has blasted pre-emption full of holes anyway but specifically in the case of Lebanon, the Bush administration fully embraced the government of Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora from the start. Partly for political reasons, of course, so that it could claim its share of the credit for the "Cedar Revolution" but nonetheless it does put the White House in a position of having effectively signed off on its two Hezbollah cabinet posts and the Lebanese government’s political strategy in having allowed them into cabinet in the first place. Contrast this with its stance on Hamas where it very quickly downgraded ties once it was clear after the January elections that they would form the new Palestinian government, even going so far as to demand the return of American aid money that had already been delivered to the previous Fatah government. Seven Canadians now killed in Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon. Up to 40,000 more in the country. Fucking insanity. www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 16, 2006 20:12:07 GMT -5
Laugh all you want Phil ... Neither side is anywhere near angelic in this mess. But if you look at their actions to determine who will accept actual change, and who wants nothing short of obliteration, it's rather obvious. Given the events of the past few days, the irony of this is almost too much to bear. --- This is contemptible. myopr.com/articles/2006/07/15/ap-update/d8isqfuo0.txtIn my book Drum, seeking to obliterate an organization that has as the stated goal in it's mission statement to wipe your nation off the earth, and seeking to obliterate an entire nation because it exsists are two quite different things. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 16, 2006 21:36:05 GMT -5
Let me ask you something, Chrisfan, do you want to die for Allah or Zion?
I don't. I don't think the rest of the world should die for those ignorant fuckheads either.
Also, killing innocent civillians and bombing refugee camps doesn't help your cause either, no matter how you want to dress it up.
Again I also ask you, how would you feel if a body that wasn't elected came and stole your fucking land and when you wanted it back, the world calls you a chump and shoots rockets at your children. Mmmm..........
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 17, 2006 6:07:25 GMT -5
In my book Drum, seeking to obliterate an organization that has as the stated goal in it's mission statement to wipe your nation off the earth, and seeking to obliterate an entire nation because it exsists are two quite different things. If obliterating said organization was in fact all they were doing, that would be one thing but I doubt the little 5-year old I saw on the news last evening with a face full of shrapnel had anything to do with it. So assuming that Israel is, at some point, facing an existential threat. Does this for you make anything and everything permissible? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 17, 2006 7:16:05 GMT -5
Israeli air strike kills 7 Canadians in Lebanon
Last Updated Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:00:15 EDT
CBC News
Seven Canadians — including four children — were killed in an Israeli air raid that hit a Lebanese town on the border with Israel on Sunday. Three Canadians were seriously injured.
Israel has acknowledged carrying out the attack and has apologized to Ottawa, CBC's Nahlah Ayed reported from Beirut.
Most of the dead were members of one extended Montreal family, on vacation in the village of Aitaroun at the time of the Israeli attack. Among those killed was Ali El-Akhras who came to Montreal from Lebanon 15 years ago. His wife, Saada El-Akhras, was among the injured.
The nephew of Ali El-Akhras, also named Ali, had accompanied his uncle and aunt on their annual summer vacation. His wife, Amira, and their four children, ages one, four, six and eight, were killed in the attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 8:29:22 GMT -5
Let me ask you something, Chrisfan, do you want to die for Allah or Zion? I don't. I don't think the rest of the world should die for those ignorant fuckheads either. Also, killing innocent civillians and bombing refugee camps doesn't help your cause either, no matter how you want to dress it up. Again I also ask you, how would you feel if a body that wasn't elected came and stole your fucking land and when you wanted it back, the world calls you a chump and shoots rockets at your children. Mmmm.......... Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Either side here can work from the assumption that relevant history begins at X date, claim the land belongs to one group or the other, and make it a nice, simple fight. But if you go ALL the way back in history, recognizing that it's all relevant, it's not so simple and pretty. The land started out belonging to both groups. They both have legitimate claims to it. The problem is, that used to be true with A LOT fewer people than it is now. Not that they lived in harmony back then either, but at least you could fit all of them back then. Regarding the shrapnel, dead families, etc ... (here you go, fresh meat to try to pretend that conservatives are heartless monsters). War is fucking ugly. There is just no other way to describe it. Many would love to romanticize it into a neat clean operation where bad guys are killed, and everyone else lives happily ever after. But it's not like that, and has never been like that. The reasons for a war, or for objecting to a war (well, unless you're just against all war under any circumstances, but that's a different story) cannot be the death of innocents. No matter how you do it, innocents will die, and it's going to remain fucking ugly. The reason for war is when conflicts become so great that no other means of change will work. Destroying the opposition is never desirable per se, but the plain truth is that there are times when there is no other choice. It'd be lovely to live in a world where reason always pervailed ... but we don't. I do believe that the Isrealis (and some on the Palestinian side) have come to the table willing to negotiate and be rational. But that attempt, once again, has failed. Despite Israel's concessions, they continue to be attacked, and the attacks were escalating. Proportional response is utter BS. War isn't about proporiton - war is about winning. If you're not in it to win it, you shouldn't enter to begin with. If Israel's response were proportional, all it would do is continue the violence. They're goal is to end it (and their method of ending it here is to end Hezbollah) not to let it continue on and on indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 9:47:32 GMT -5
Let me ask you something, Chrisfan, do you want to die for Allah or Zion? I don't. I don't think the rest of the world should die for those ignorant fuckheads either. Also, killing innocent civillians and bombing refugee camps doesn't help your cause either, no matter how you want to dress it up. Again I also ask you, how would you feel if a body that wasn't elected came and stole your fucking land and when you wanted it back, the world calls you a chump and shoots rockets at your children. Mmmm.......... Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Either side here can work from the assumption that relevant history begins at X date, claim the land belongs to one group or the other, and make it a nice, simple fight. But if you go ALL the way back in history, recognizing that it's all relevant, it's not so simple and pretty. The land started out belonging to both groups. They both have legitimate claims to it. The problem is, that used to be true with A LOT fewer people than it is now. Not that they lived in harmony back then either, but at least you could fit all of them back then. Regarding the shrapnel, dead families, etc ... (here you go, fresh meat to try to pretend that conservatives are heartless monsters). War is fucking ugly. There is just no other way to describe it. Many would love to romanticize it into a neat clean operation where bad guys are killed, and everyone else lives happily ever after. But it's not like that, and has never been like that. The reasons for a war, or for objecting to a war (well, unless you're just against all war under any circumstances, but that's a different story) cannot be the death of innocents. No matter how you do it, innocents will die, and it's going to remain fucking ugly. The reason for war is when conflicts become so great that no other means of change will work. Destroying the opposition is never desirable per se, but the plain truth is that there are times when there is no other choice. It'd be lovely to live in a world where reason always pervailed ... but we don't. I do believe that the Isrealis (and some on the Palestinian side) have come to the table willing to negotiate and be rational. But that attempt, once again, has failed. Despite Israel's concessions, they continue to be attacked, and the attacks were escalating. Proportional response is utter BS. War isn't about proporiton - war is about winning. If you're not in it to win it, you shouldn't enter to begin with. If Israel's response were proportional, all it would do is continue the violence. They're goal is to end it (and their method of ending it here is to end Hezbollah) not to let it continue on and on indefinitely. But is it not more important to work from date of current ownership, and not from a previously and arbitrarily decided date in the past? Should not the Palestinian current claim to the land at the time of the formation of the Israeli state take precedence over either side's historical claim to the land? Think about it: what if some governing world body decided to create a nation of Native Americans right in the middle of the US right now, citing as their reason the current and past persecution of these same Indians. Would that negate the current American claims to our land? I don't disagree with your take on the nastiness of war, or the killing of civilians, or your take on proportionate response. I do challenge the notion that there is a clear right or wrong in this case with Israel playing the role of peacemaker. I can see how someone would come to those conclusions working within the paradigm of western influence. At the same time, I cannot pretend to know what goes on in the mind of the so-called "Islamic fundamentalist", and I am loathe to consign that way of thinking to irrational hatred. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 10:09:05 GMT -5
Why work from the date of current ownership? Because it paints the Palestinian story in a more sympathetic light? Before that, the claims were the same - only reversed. That's been true forever. To ignore that reality is in many ways the same as ignoring the realities that is necessary for those who say "Oh just move all the Isrealis to some island off the coast of Georgia, let them live there and everything will be fine." The issues here for both sides aren't about having a place to live. It's about both sides having very legitimate claims to THAT land.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 10:10:40 GMT -5
Because it seems to me to be the fairest way of determining said ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 10:36:54 GMT -5
So the wars that Israel has fought (and won decisively) to defend its ownership of that land mean nothing to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 17, 2006 11:21:56 GMT -5
Israel made no concession with the Gaza withdrawal.
only a calculated strategic move designed to keep as many Palestinians
within a tightly controled area with the israelian army controling the points of entries.
They fully intend to keep the West Bank and East Jerusalem ...
At what point will the Israeli government/military decides that they have won the war ?
When Hezbollah runs out of missiles and Hamas has no more suicide bombers ??
Good luck !!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 11:33:43 GMT -5
Call me crazy Phil, but I"m thinking the Isrealis who had to abandon their homes in Gaza would beg to differ with you on what is and is not a concession.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 17, 2006 11:44:24 GMT -5
They probably have been relocated
in one of the settlements in the West Bank !!
And what do you say to the palestinian villagers
who saw the access to their fields cut out
by the Security wall erected by the Israelis ??
Or those East-Jerusalem Palestinians
who've been evicted from their homes ?
You're not crazy ... You only see what you want to see !!
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 11:53:53 GMT -5
No, the wars Israel has fought to defend land that only pseudo righteously belongs to them does not entirely negate Palestinian claims to that land. What if Israel loses the war now? Does that legitimize the Palestinian state in your eyes?
|
|
