Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza

[Alex]

What about a decision to kill thousands of civilians because military targets are too fortified and you don't want to put your own soldiers at risk in attempting to get at them? And therefore by killing civilians you hope to pressure the leadership of the other side into surrender?

[scaeagles]

That could be a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (because I'm a bit slow on the keyboard and of the mind today I'm taking about Alex's post, #44 of this thread). Probably the biggest example of that I can think of.

Another fine question, which again I will admit partially comes down to the side I'm on. I can cite all the arguments that everyone knows as justification of those two bombings, but it is still an issue that basically comes down to what Alex is alluding to.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That could be a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (because I'm a bit slow on the keyboard and of the mind today I'm taking about Alex's post, #44 of this thread). Probably the biggest example of that I can think of.

Another fine question, which again I will admit partially comes down to the side I'm on. I can cite all the arguments that everyone knows as justification of those two bombings, but it is still an issue that basically comes down to what Alex is alluding to.

Yes those fit, but they aren't what I was alluding to. I was alluding to the conventional weapon carpet bombing we had engaged in (both in Germany and Japan) well before the atom bomb came into the picture.

As root definitions this is the folly of fighting a war against a tactic. The firebombings of Tokyo were essentially terrorism carried out by uniformed military (the goal was terrorize civilian populations and therefore weaken military and political leadership). That's why we can never win against "terrorism." Once all ability to resist through conventional means are removed then terrorism is easily justified in the eyes of those doing it. And, sometimes they're right.

That's why I find it hard to universally condemn the PLO (most other groups it is easier since they are involving themselves in something that need not involve them). It is hard to dismiss out of hand the idea that they have a valid complaint and right to resist Israel's presence. If their resistance is just it is hard to argue that they should not use the only form of resistance that is available to them. History isn't always written by the victors but the vocabulary usally is.

That isn't to say I endorse the resistance either. If people would just get over the silly attchment to geography, and the idea of "birthright," and the superstition of religion, then it seems to me that both parties to the violence could find ways to peacefully coexist. So I don't really buy into the idea that violent resistance is justified but many people do and therefore the tactics are justified. But then we're not arguing about methods but axioms. And discordant axioms can never be brought into alignment through discussion.

Nephythys: You're the one who brought god into it. I'd happily leave it out of the equation but if you want it in the middle of things you have to admit it seems to have cocked things up pretty good.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Does it really matter?

Well, I think he fact I asked the question seems to indicate I was curious.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Well, I think he fact I asked the question seems to indicate I was curious.

ah, well, that's a cat I simply don't feel like dealing with. It can stay curious.

[Nephythys]

no- just sick of the crap you say about Him.

Hezbollah Chief Declares 'Open War' With Israel

Did not have a link yet-


On edit-
Link

In an audiotape aired on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television less than an hour after the Beirut attack on his house, Nasrallah addressed himself to Israelis, saying: "You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war."

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

no- just sick of the crap you say about Him.

And that is how wars are started.

Maybe some of us are sick of god being brought into everything. We have our own minds. We can think for ourselves. God does not make anyone do anything they don't want to do. SHE is not at the root of all evils. There is no hard, scientific proof that god exists. If you have some, please, provide it*.

God is something that some people believe in. Fine. But god is not something that everyone belives in. When the entire world realizes that everyones interperations of god are different, and accept that not everyone will believe in the same god, then maybe we can have peace. Until then, this you insulted my god, my god is the right way, I am the defender of god mentality will continue to result in violence. All in the name of something that may or may not exist.


*and no, the bible does not count. It was not written by the hand of god. It could have been written by someone on an acid trip for all we know.

This reminds me of a song. It's fitting here.

One Tin Solider

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

[scaeagles]

Yet another fine question for which I do not have an answer and will again say comes down in part to which side I fall on (again, begin slow, I am referring to an Alex post a few back).

I suppose it comes down to some sort of attempt, as the Geneva convention is, to bring some sort of limitation to barbarism associated with war.

Terrorism does not equal war, though it can be and is a part of it. I suppose I would define terrorism (in the current world environment) as groups without an official tie to a government with an agenda attempting to use fear or death to move closer to the agenda. Not a perfect definition, so examples -

I do not regard the Hamas capture of the Israeli soldier as terrorism. I consider it an act of war, as the soldier was uniformed, certainly a legitimate military target, and Hamas is the government of Palestine (though there are certainly factions within it). I would not regard car bombings staged by Islamic Jihad as an act of war, but as an act of terrorism. They have an agenda to create war in the region for the elimination of Israel.

So....I'm writing as I'm thinking, so I do not consider my position to be well defined as of yet....I suppose I would then say I do not think states are capable in and of themselves of terrorism. They commit acts of war. They can support terrorism by getting groups such as Hezbollah to do their dirty work, as is the case presumably with Iran.

One part of terrorism is that we don't necessarily know who is responsible or where they may be. This is not the case with acts of war. We knew the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and where they were and where to strike them.

Kind of rambling in an unorganized way there and I hope it is somewhat sensible.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Just leave. Come to California if you must. Get out.

Let's explore this scenario. Let's say the entire Israeli government/population decides it's time to move on.

First and foremost, they're going to need a place to move to. What country is willing to give up a chunk of their land and freely hand it over to another nation? Other than Antarctica (as I understand, there is an international treaty stipulating nobody can settle there—correct me if I'm wrong), is there any land on Earth that is not claimed by (at least) one nation? Sure, Israel is a strong ally of the US, but do you think we're going to let them move into the spare bedroom for eternity? I don't see that happening.

But for the sake of this topic, let's say they find a country willing to donate to the cause, as it were. (Or maybe they create new land in the middle of the Atlantic using alien crystalline technology.) There's no way in hell that the exodus of an entire country could be kept secret, let alone invisible. During this emigration they'd be shooting gallery ducks, just waiting to be knocked down by their enemies.

But let's assume some or most of the population was able to make it out and settle in their new land. Do you think their old neighbors are going to calm down and live in peace? I sure don't. The Muslims (no, I'm not saying every Muslim in the world feels this way, but enough do to warrant generalization) don't just want Israel out of the Middle East—they want them annihilated off of the face of the Earth! All this move will do is make them have to shoot longer distances to hit Israel. The Muslim countries in that area need Israel the same way 1950s America needed Communism the same way Fundies need "The Gays" today. They need a common enemy to distract their populace away from the real problems they are experiencing. In spite of the wealth enjoyed by the oil-producing nations, very few of their population gets to enjoy it. Their "leaders" are a just a bunch of glorified thugs. (pretty much always have been) They will do everything in their power to shift attention away from themselves.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

First and foremost, they're going to need a place to move to. What country is willing to give up a chunk of their land and freely hand it over to another nation?

That's kind of how the people who lived there when the British gave it to the Jews felt about it. "If you want them to have a homeland, give them Wales."

I'm guessing that iSm doesn't feel it is a requirement that they move to another place that is their own country. In 1919 when the whole process began there were maybe 50,000 Jews on the Arabian peninsula. Everybody else came from different countries and presumbably they could once again disperse to different countries. Heck, I believe it is still the case that a majoirty of Israelis hold dual citizenship (but I could easily be wrong).

Do you think their old neighbors are going to calm down and live in peace? I sure don't. The Muslims (no, I'm not saying every Muslim in the world feels this way, but enough do to warrant generalization) don't just want Israel out of the Middle East—they want them annihilated off of the face of the Earth! All this move will do is make them have to shoot longer distances to hit Israel.

I see no reason to believe this. Muslims and Jews on the Arabian peninsula cohabitated pretty much peacefully prior to the re-existence of Israel. Also, while we have seen international terrorism resulting from this conflict over the last many decades it has either targeted Israel or Israelis allies and rarely non-Israeli Jews.

Of course, I don't think there'll be another diaspora unless they are driven from the area by force, but if there was a global Economic Redevelopment Council capable of tearing down and realigning neighborhoods along more rational lines, rectifying the error of recreating Israel would probably be near the top of the list.