http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13823680/
Isn't one of our fellow GWers in the Israeli army? I hope he's safe, you know?
Anyways, I feel like there hasn't been much discussion in here about current events lately. Thoughts on this so-called war? Did Israel act too rashly? What was Lebanon thinking when they captured those two soldiers anyway? Come in and share, rant, whatever ^^ Just remember to keep it civil
OHNOES, WW3!!!!
I'm just not sure what to say about this, other than that war and killing is pretty stupid.
i haven't looked too far into it yet. US domestic politics is pretty hairy these days (Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are facing lawsuits for leaking a CIA agent's identity...)
but i would say from what I heard that the counter by Israel is probably a bit too heavy handed. I'm not saying it's not justified, but i do think it's a poor course of action. Yes you should be able to go kill the people who captured your soldiers, but over 50 Lebanese civilians, who probably had absolutely nothing to do with the event, are dead because Israel decided to fire off their guns.
Hezbollah is a mess, any factions within Lebanon are going to use the chaos as opportunity and Israel could be facing a much more dangerous neighbor in the near future.
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
For those against war is has given us great things. Not those ideals or concepts that most people say but its taken countries out of depression, started maggot therapy, many advances in technology that save lives and make them easier. I am not saying its all good but you can't cast the entire concept of war in a black light. It has many positives.
I believe it's Death BOO Z who recently had his birthday who is in the Israeli army. Back when we had the community pages he wrote some interesting blogs about life in the army (made me feel so much less secure about armed forces in general after hearing his stories). I hope he's alright. His unit didn't sound like one they would sent to the front lines, at least, I hope they wouldn't.
The whole Israel thing is just rotten. Both sides have a claim to the land, the Arabs for being denied representation in the Israeli government when it was formed and Israel because it was formed and is now a soverign nation. The Israeli's aren't going anywhere and I don't think sharing power is ever going to work as well, in someways it might have been better if a religiously neutral 3rd party still controlled the entire area, as the two sides would ideally be equally under the controlling body.
Unfortunately now we have a situation where many muslims (I doubt a majority however) see the existance of Isreal as an insult and an outrage and seek to destroy it as a nation and reclaim it as muslim controlled territory. These same muslims generally espouse a desire for a unified Islamic State controlling all the lands predominantly held by muslims, if not the whole world.
The best outcome of the current situation is for Isreal to get its people back and cease it's attacks against Lebannon. The worst case scenario is far beyond my knowledge of the current climate in the Middle East but It would probably involve declarations of war by/on Syria and/or Iran by/on Isreal. If Iran got involved militarily it would have to send its forces through either Iraq or Turkey.
We all know that Iraq is full of US troops, who would not look kindly on what would amount to an Iranian invasion of Iraq. US troops would likely stop the Iranians at the boarder, which could easily turn into shooting. Alternatively only an complete idiot would drive through Turkey without permission or a very good reason. Thus Turkey and the US could get dragged into the conflict. Once the US gets involved militarily who know's what will happen. Publicly I support the getting the people back and returning to the status quo stance, but I imagine Israel is becoming tired of pulling its punches with respect to the numerous groups constantly picking on it, this hostage situation could be the straw that launched Isreal onto the muslim world with enough fury and technological advantage to send several middle easten countries back to the Dark Ages, unfortunately this wouldn't stop the zealots and would just cause worthless destruction on a massive scale.
Well, the capture of the 2 Israeli soldiers was done by Lebonese terrorists, no? And in ref to your last paragraph, Yuki, yes, Israel's just tired of people coming into their borders from wherever and blowing up places. So the capture that sparked this whole mess is like the last straw. My personal concern is that Lebanon is a weak country with a weak government. Destroying a country like that will only make Israel look like a bully. Plus, how can a weak government in the first place have the military to even take care of Hezbollah themselves?
And then you have the whole Iran connection. Israel's accusing Iran of knowing that the captive Israelis are being moved to that country, which, of course Iran totally denies. But that's the reasoning behind bombing the airport over and over again. Supposed intelligence claims that Iran uses that airport to ship its terrorists into. I personally feel that this is all way too overboard. And Hezbollah is a group of retards that were playing with fire. (Well, not an intelligent thing to say, but let's face it, they could have not captured the soldiers, right?)
Israel doesn't exist.
I never said it didn't have positives. The fact that you have to kill hundreds or thousands of people to "accomplish" something is ridiculous and stupid, though, and there is probably a better way.Originally Posted by woofcat
The only war I can honestly think of being justified is WWII.
Of course at the end of a war there will be positives, and during (such as a more prosperous economy), but usually the road to get there isn't worth the outcome. Vietnam, Korea... the list goes on.
I'm not an avid anti-war activist by any means, I just don't think it's a great thing. Especially if you throw the lives of thousands of civilians in danger simply because another country kidnapped two of your soldiers... well, that's just plain stupid.
Justified as in, the US being dragged into it? Please elaborate before misunderstandings occur
How was WWII more justified than all of the other wars?
- I don't know, people say that all the time, and never really understood the differences between that war and all of the other wars.
Last edited by Xollence; Fri, 07-14-2006 at 10:52 AM.
The West Bank is one of the hottist zones and has been for some time there is alot more then this that is going on and if you look and the countries involved with this all it gets confusing to say the least.
The West Bank is a landlocked territory on the west bank of the Jordan River in the Middle East. It is considered by the United Nations and most countries to be under Israeli occupation. Some Israelis and various other groups prefer to refer to it as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. It is not currently considered under international law to be a de jure part of any state.
The borders of the West Bank were defined by the 1948 Arab-Israeli War armistice lines after the dissolution of the British mandate of Palestine, when it was captured and annexed by Jordan. From 1948 until 1967 the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not give up its claim to the area until 1988. The area was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, although with the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed by Israel due to the concern of the overwhelming amount of Palestinian people it would control. Prior to 1948 the area was part of the British Mandate created after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Located west and south-west of the Jordan River in the eastern part of the Palestine region in the Middle East, it is bordered by Israel to the west, north, and south, and by Jordan to the east. 40% of the area (including most of the population) is under the limited civilian jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, while Israel maintains overall control (including over Israeli settlements, rural areas, and border regions). The population of the West Bank is predominantly Palestinian (84%) with a significant minority of Jewish settlers.
The Palestinian people believe that the West Bank ought to be a part of their sovereign nation, and that the presence of Israeli military control is a violation of their right to self-determination. The United Nations calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli-occupied (see Israeli-occupied territories). The United States generally agrees with this definition. Many Israelis and their supporters prefer the term disputed territories, claiming it comes closer to a neutral point of view; this viewpoint is not accepted by most other countries, which consider "occupied" to be the neutral description of status.
Israel argues that its presence is justified because:
Israel's eastern border has never been defined by anyone;
The disputed territories have not been part of any state (Jordanian annexation was never officially recognized) since the time of the Ottoman Empire;
According to the Camp David Accords (1978) with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Now I remember the Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War or October War between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations led by Egypt and Syria. The war began on the day of Yom Kippur with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria. They invaded the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six-Day War.The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor. By the second week of the war, the Syrians had been pushed entirely out of the Golan Heights. In the Sinai to the south, the Israelis had struck at the "seam" between two invading Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal (where the old ceasefire line had been), and cut off an entire Egyptian army just as a United Nations cease-fire came into effect.
The war had far-reaching implications for many nations. The Arab world, which had been humiliated by the lopsided defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian alliance during the Six-Day War, felt psychologically vindicated by its string of victories early in the conflict. This vindication paved the way for the peace process that followed, as well as liberalizations such as Egypt's infitah policy. The Camp David Accords, which came soon after, led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel—the first time any Arab country had recognized the Israeli state.
As such if you take down 3 or more different Armies at one time many people have alot to fear. This is why Israel may be pushing their luck, but I fear they be pushing it to far recently
image fail!
In lebanon they don't see hezbollah as terrorists. They are more like freedom fighters to them. And how hard do you think it is to capture 2 soldiers?
I myself don't think that terrorists have anything to do with this.
Could someone plz give me the definition of a terrorist?
The formal definition of terrorist is 'One who employs terrorism as a political tool' and terrorism is defined as 'the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion'.
Essentially people who try to accomplish their political goals by attacking another countries assets in the hope of frightening them into agreement, usually the term is reserved for attacking civillian citizens of a country to get leverage over their government. I don't know what these Hezbollah have done in the past but I know that kidnapping soldiers is more an act of war than terrorism. I've read that they have attacked civillians intentionally though, and that is generally considered terrorism by the West. (Israel also bombed a TV station, which they probably justify by saying it was run by Hezbollah and hence terrorists, but that seems a little extreme to me)
Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese governement, apparently a large part with enough seats for veto power, but also has a military aspect which acts out it's will. I've read that their goal is the removal of Israel as a state, but I've also read that their goal is simply the removal of Israel from Lebanese territory so I don't know which to believe. I do know that the group is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States and some other countries. This hinders their access to diplomatic solutions to their problems, if they were to seek them.
the problem with defining terrorism is this: you do not need to be a terrorist organization to use terrorism! The classic case in point is Germany and Japan during WWII, but also see Indonesia 1965-69. Sri Lanka is also an excellent example of the blurring of "terrorism".
Terrorism, as we see it portrayed in the news, is quite often insurgency/rebellion poorly defined. With Israel and the surrounding region, where multiple parties are all claiming a legitimate right to the land and authority, it is almost worthless to say that any one group has "the right" to monopolize violence in any given territory.
"unlawful violence" is another ill-defined term. Al-Qaeda, the US Revolutionaries, and Nazi resistance movements all used violence "illegaly", since the law was written by the government they were fighting against.
As if it's not enough, here's a second example.
A) An Iraqi insurgent shooting at a group of armed US soldiers.
B) An Iraqi terrorist shooting at unarmed US soldiers.
C) An Iraqi terrorist bombing a US medical facility.
Technically, B and C are defined as illegal by international law if the terrorist knows his targets are undefended. If a person is unarmed, they must be captured. Many US soldiers have been court martialed for violating this.
And what if the unarmed soldiers were walking to a cache to get in a tank that they would then use to attack a target, say the one that Iraqi is based at?
Doesn't that seem like watching and waiting while your enemy reloads, right in front of your eyes, with the intention of killing you when he finishes reloading? Consider too the hospital. Sleeping can be thought of as "reloading" the human body in a way, preparing it to attack that person the next day.
Now consider: D) US troops bombing a weapons producing factory.
Who do you think works in these factories? Armed men? Hah, doubtful. In this case killing defenseless civilians is justified because they are in the process of mounting an attack against the soldiers, hence the soldiers are simply defending themselves.
The problem is then this: How is bombing a hospital different from bombing the factory?
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
If you read my post correctly, I asked, "they could have not captured the soldiers" implying that whatever their reason for attacking Israel at that moment did not have to culminate with a capture, did it? I never questioned the ease of how one goes about doing it =P
And I never knew about Hezbollah being considered "freedom fighters" in Lebanon. My bad. No need to get so indignant, especially when you're not even reading my posts correctly. I even admitted that the statement wasn't intelligent.
As for the term "terrorism"-- I think it's an overused word these days. I get nauseated whenever I hear that word come out of our brilliant president's mouth. But in any case, any one who goes around trying to convince people to believe in one's ideology by the use of violence is one of the most selfish people out there and qualifies him/herself as a grade A asshole. Probably not a good definition of a terrorist but I think it's broad enough to apply to almost anyone who supports suicide bombers.
Israel Preparing for Ground War?
So far there's 330 Lebonese dead, compared to approx 31 Israelis who've died since this conflict started. Both sides appear to be stubborn and a bunch of civilians are suffering as a result. It appears that besides the UN, the Vatican is the only "state" that is publicly denouncing these attacks. I, for one, am disappointed with the US in their usual slow reactions to anything. Apparently they're just now planning to send Condi Rice over, nine friggin' days after the violence have started.
No, they had already planned to send her over. She has delayed her trip on purpose so that Israel will have more time to pound Lebanon. This was made public days ago.
^ Ah, I misread a paragraph in the article. It's still a shitty thing to do. "Gotta wait til the death toll's over 300 before we make a move." Repetitive disappointment for one's country can be frustrating.
Since it looks like Israel is calling up their reserves, giving them potentially 5000+ more war personnel, I would say that several ground strikes into Lebanon will occur before we know it. The one thing holding Israel back is the fear that Hezbollah will offer surprisingly solid resistance, a potential humiliation for Zion. Remember, Hezbollah does not need to win a ground war for them to 'win' the conflict in the eyes of many. Offerring a solid resistance against the more technologically advanced Israel would make Hezbollah heroes in many nations...
But I think Israel will only go with military strikes, maybe brief captures of Lebanese territory. I don't think they have what it takes to take over that entire country. They've been fighting since the moment the nation of Israel was founded and adding a hostile territory to their own would be a bad move. Look for them to quickly withdraw if they do advance ground troops.
Oh, and the UN has proposed a token initiative for both sides to call a ceasefire. But two of the Security Council (can you guess who? Come on, just take a guess) are opposed to the ceasefire. That's right, Bush and Tony Lapdog Blair don't want to call for a ceasefire until "Hezbollah is disarmed" and "Lebanese political control is extended into the south of the country" .... To me this seems like they're just saying 'Let Israel win and whichever new faction picks up the pieces in Lebanon we'll hope is better". Hezbollah will never give up its arms, and many Lebanese see them as the real representatives of the people (obviously not all, maybe not even most of them though, as is the case in America now...) The worst part of this is that with the US and UK holding the Security Council back from making any real decision on the matter the UN is not going to have a role in diplomacy, and possibly weaken humanitarian aid efforts, which is the real tragedy.
An excellent editorial on the US's role in the Middle East from the recent Time magazine
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
