# Your tax $$$$$ at work in Lebanon (photos)



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

*graphic images ahead*




Meantime on this side of the pond your self-less elected officials continue to jump through AIPAC rings like circus poodles.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

jimmy,

if you want to deal in obsenety, I can match you picture for picture. sure, there are some unhappy lebanese, and I am sorry for it. but there are 1 million israelis not sleeping in their houses, either, and lebanese citizens, represented by lebanese elected ministers are firing thousands of rockets into israel. weeping over who has come up with the better pictures does nobody any good - come up with a rational argument - are you of the belief that israel should let arabs kill jews whenever they feel like it, or do you have some other belief system that you would like to share with us?


concerning US politicians - I find it fascinating that every time US politicians vote for israel, the assumption is that they are doing it to make 4% of the population of the US happy. voting for israel and against terror is like voting against pedophilia - yes, it isn't clear cut and universal, but if you aren't insane, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Guernica by Pablo Picasso is worth more than all the film developed in the ensuing 7 decades. A beloved Rabbi once said " everytime two people meet a third should benefit." I try, with little enough sucess to remember that when I post. Elsewhere in the world today Ethiopian troops are fighting Somalies, The brutal dictatorship of Burma remains in power, Zapatistas is Mexico are being killed, the 6 counties of Ireland are nervously struggling with a fragile ceasefire, Kashmir is a flashpoint betwen India and Pakistan, Tamil tigers blow up tourists on Sri lanka aka Ceylon, Greeks and Turks eye each other over Cyprus, ETA Basque and Corsican seperatists make bombs and full blood Lakota look upon Ward Churchill and his mixed blood faction with hostility and my next door nieghbor tried to steal yesterday's Sunday paper from my doorstep with the job ads. We wake up every morning to that scene in 2001 with the alpha ape smashing bones with his femur to THUS SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA instead of a work of love by Hildegaard Von Bingen. Maybe if we share newspapers in trade for the nieghbor retrieving my escaped cat real progress can be effected.Rightous anger demands rightous action.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Jimmy G said:


> *graphic images ahead*
> 
> Meantime on this side of the pond your self-less elected officials continue to jump through AIPAC rings like circus poodles.


Jimmy,

You need some education re the real world.

Here's a start: https://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072406D

Cheers


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> jimmy,
> 
> if you want to deal in obsenety, I can match you picture for picture. sure, there are some unhappy lebanese, and I am sorry for it. but there are 1 million israelis not sleeping in their houses, either, and lebanese citizens, represented by lebanese elected ministers are firing thousands of rockets into israel. weeping over who has come up with the better pictures does nobody any good - come up with a rational argument - are you of the belief that israel should let arabs kill jews whenever they feel like it, or do you have some other belief system that you would like to share with us?
> 
> concerning US politicians - I find it fascinating that every time US politicians vote for israel, the assumption is that they are doing it to make 4% of the population of the US happy. voting for israel and against terror is like voting against pedophilia - yes, it isn't clear cut and universal, but if you aren't insane, it makes perfect sense.


Globe,

Jimmy has some "issues"

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=240119#post240119

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=53970


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

jrr, thanks, I guess I can't keep track of every crackpot who posts here.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Or maybe the Lebanese gov't should be (and should have been) pressured to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, (passed in 2004) which called for disarming Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon.

Would that have prevented much or all of this beforehand? Where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth for that?

Are any of those pictures one of the innocent people in Israel who have been killed?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jimmy G said:


> *graphic images ahead*
> 
> Meantime on this side of the pond your self-less elected officials continue to jump through AIPAC rings like circus poodles.


Why don't you just say what you really want to say without hiding behind the veneer of objective analysis of U.S. mid-east policy!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Well said, Relayer.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Or maybe the Lebanese gov't should be (and should have been) pressured to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, (passed in 2004) which called for disarming Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon.
> 
> Would that have prevented much or all of this beforehand? Where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth for that?
> 
> Are any of those pictures one of the innocent people in Israel who have been killed?


What about how the UN divided up the middle east to begin with. Couldn't anyone see there was disaster when those border lines were created?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> What about how the UN divided up the middle east to begin with. Couldn't anyone see there was disaster when those border lines were created?


this is a common refrain, but it isn't nessasarily clear. the structure of the old middle east didn't really fit in with the idea of the modern state - you basically had a centrally governed but weak empire covering an area about the size of the US, consisting of mixed populations that lived near each other, but didn't really like each other or cooperate much, and where much of the population both immigrated on a regular basis and was more likly to keep solid relashionships with people of similar religious/cultural orientation who lived far away rather than people who lived near them. this was no good structure for a group of nation states.

in terms of the division of what is today israel, jordan, palestine, syria and lebanon, maybe the division wasn't done in the best way possible, maybe it was. the fault doesn't lie with the people who drew the lines, the fault lies with those that launched into murderous warfare when they didn't like the lines.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> if you want to deal in obsenety, I can match you picture for picture. sure, there are some unhappy lebanese, and I am sorry for it. but there are 1 million israelis not sleeping in their houses, either, and lebanese citizens, represented by lebanese elected ministers are firing thousands of rockets into israel.


This post and the one it is responding to has just summed up my entire view on this mideast crap. They did this - they did that. Lets show pictures to see how the other guy kills our children. I am so sick of both sides I could vomit. Even if this stops, its only a matter of time until one side will start it again. Of all of the research I have done about this issue, the thing I am most convinced of is each side is a mirror image of each other. They both act the same way and say the same EXACT things about each other. Even on a personal level. My next door neighbor in college was Palestinean - a great guy - until he started talking about Israel. My first boss was Jewish - also a great guy - until he started talking about Palestine. W/o the mideast crap, I could easily see these two being best of friends - they were so similar. They even said the SAME EXACT things about each other. Except the phrases were completely filled w venom.

My current view of the situation? It reminds me of how I felt when I was in college when the KKK came to town to hold a rally, and the Black Panthers showed up to resist them. There was hundreds of cops there trying to keep the peace. I recall thinking how normal taxpaying citizens were footing the bill for this crap. I know the wrong attitude, but something deep inside me said maybe a better solution was to fence off the area and drop a bunch of bats and knives inside and let them kill each other so the rest of us can go on in peace. Again, I know the wrong attitude, but I am so sick of this Middle East fighting and bickering am to the point sometimes where I hope they annihilate each other and do the rest of us a favor.

Ok - rant over.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm with you. Or maybe with Jonathan Swift. All this murder and mayhem is leading me to indulge my latent misanthropy.

At its worst, as it often is, the human animal is a pernicious speck of vermin best expelled from the planet.

The Middle East conflicts, including the one in Iraq sucking up so much blood and money, are execrable.

Everyday horror becomes an afterthought:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5573752



NewYorkBuck said:


> This post and the one it is responding to has just summed up my entire view on this mideast crap. They did this - they did that. Lets show pictures to see how the other guy kills our children. I am so sick of both sides I could vomit. Even if this stops, its only a matter of time until one side will start it again. Of all of the research I have done about this issue, the thing I am most convinced of is each side is a mirror image of each other. They both act the same way and say the same EXACT things about each other. Even on a personal level. My next door neighbor in college was Palestinean - a great guy - until he started talking about Israel. My first boss was Jewish - also a great guy - until he started talking about Palestine. W/o the mideast crap, I could easily see these two being best of friends - they were so similar. They even said the SAME EXACT things about each other. Except the phrases were completely filled w venom.
> 
> My current view of the situation? It reminds me of how I felt when I was in college when the KKK came to town to hold a rally, and the Black Panthers showed up to resist them. There was hundreds of cops there trying to keep the peace. I recall thinking how normal taxpaying citizens were footing the bill for this crap. I know the wrong attitude, but something deep inside me said maybe a better solution was to fence off the area and drop a bunch of bats and knives inside and let them kill each other so the rest of us can go on in peace. Again, I know the wrong attitude, but I am so sick of this Middle East fighting and bickering am to the point sometimes where I hope they annihilate each other and do the rest of us a favor.
> 
> Ok - rant over.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I believe that the Israelis yearn for peace and stability.


----------



## gsi (Nov 3, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Or maybe the Lebanese gov't should be (and should have been) pressured to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, (passed in 2004) which called for disarming Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon.
> 
> Would that have prevented much or all of this beforehand? Where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth for that?
> 
> Are any of those pictures one of the innocent people in Israel who have been killed?


Do you realize how many UN Security Council Resolutions Isreal is currently in violation of?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gsi said:


> Do you realize how many UN Security Council Resolutions Isreal is currently in violation of?


Does anyone actually follow any UN Security Council Resolutions unless it happens to align with their own aims?


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

Is it me or whenever the self-designated Light Unto the Nations committs a new set of war crimes ( with American arms, jet fuel and diplomatic cover ), the diaspora laptop bombardiers for Zion predictably don their psychiatrist hats ? 
Globe, so when your goverment makes my goverment an accomplice to said crimes that is good for America exactly how ? 
Already there are reports of Lebanese civilans, who had to scrape the charred bodies of their children off the ground, demanding to know who are the Americans among the foreign press corps so as to atack them. 
Over 400 Lebanese civilans dead, 800 thousand turned into refugees, south of the country a free-fire zone, South Beirut a pile of rubble....
Where is Abe Foxman and his diversity-is-our-strength, Kumbaya, we-are-the-children and I-wanna-hold-your-hand sermons when you need them ?
BTW, according to A. Sharon " AIPAC is in the education business " . So you might want to edit your talking points.


P.S. In case anybody's missed it, here's another gem from the Bush crew: Unique people suffer uniquely


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Jimmy G, are you determined to cause the greatest offence to the greatest number of people?

Aus


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

JimmyG, did you major in rhetoric in college? Try English. We running dog capitalist lackeys find it works well in communicating our reactionary thoughts.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jimmy G said:


> Is it me or whenever the self-designated Light Unto the Nations committs a new set of war crimes ( with American arms, jet fuel and diplomatic cover ), the diaspora laptop bombardiers for Zion predictably don their psychiatrist hats ?
> Globe, so when your goverment makes my goverment an accomplice to said crimes that is good for America exactly how ?
> Already there are reports of Lebanese civilans, who had to scrape the charred bodies of their children off the ground, demanding to know who are the Americans among the foreign press corps so as to atack them.
> Over 400 Lebanese civilans dead, 800 thousand turned into refugees, south of the country a free-fire zone, South Beirut a pile of rubble....
> ...


I count at least a dozen good bumper sticker phrases from this one!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

JimmyG,

From your thoughtful and well-reasoned post, I gather that you are the King of Absurdistan.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Relayer said:


> JimmyG,
> 
> From your thoughtful and well-reasoned post, I gather that you are the King of Absurdistan.


I think, after reading several of his posts, the title would not be "king" but probably rather "der Feuhrer".


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

It does harken one back to the scene in _Back to School_ when Rodney Dangerfield has Sam Kinison as a history prof.

"He really seems to care.... about what I have no idea"

hmm... funnier with Rodney's eye roll but you get the idea.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

NewYorkBuck said:


> Of all of the research I have done about this issue, the thing I am most convinced of is each side is a mirror image of each other. They both act the same way and say the same EXACT things about each other.


Really? The Israelis have taken Olympic athletes hostage and shot them? They've hijacked planes? They've been strapping children down with explosives and sending them on busses and into eateries to target civlians? They've hijacked a cruise ships and thrown a disabled American overboard? Sorry, just don't agree with you. I, too, think, if left alone - the Israelis would welcome peace.


----------



## gsi (Nov 3, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Really? The Israelis have taken Olympic athletes hostage and shot them? They've hijacked planes? They've been strapping children down with explosives and sending them on busses and into eateries to target civlians? They've hijacked a cruise ships and thrown a disabled American overboard? Sorry, just don't agree with you. I, too, think, if left alone - the Israelis would welcome peace.


Ever take a look at the number of civilian deaths, Israeli vs Palestinian? Although the Israeli methods may seem more 'civil', they are much better at killing innocent civilians. It's an ugly situation on both ends.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Really? The Israelis have taken Olympic athletes hostage and shot them? They've hijacked planes? They've been strapping children down with explosives and sending them on busses and into eateries to target civlians? They've hijacked a cruise ships and thrown a disabled American overboard? Sorry, just don't agree with you. I, too, think, if left alone - the Israelis would welcome peace.


Your catalog of atrocity is incomplete. You omitted Deir Yassin, the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Folke Bernadotte, the bombing of the King David Hotel, the kidnapping and murder of British soldiers, and any number of other "terrorist" acts committed by Zionist "terrorists" before the establishment of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. Since that date, Israel has been privileged to commit its atrocities the proper, civilized way: by uniformed soldiers implementing the policies of the elected government of an ostensibly democratic state. Or better yet, through the use of proxies (see: Sabra and Shatila, Massacre of). This, apparently, makes all the difference in the court of public opinion; I doubt that it makes much difference to the dead.

Of course, Israel "would welcome peace" - on its terms. Until such happy time, Israel is perfectly content to remain in a state of perpetual war with any and all real or perceived enemies. Jabotinsky made the case clearly in "The Iron Wall" and it remains the policy of Zionism to this day: "the only way to obtain such an agreement [peace with the indigenous Arab population], is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach such agreement in the future, is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement today." The only power that could change this calculus of misery is the United States; but for reasons of its own, it chooses not to (See: Iraq, Invasion of). So, we are now witness to another "escalation" of the endless conflict; one that will continue for weeks, months, perhaps years, and will eventually sputter to an inconclusive end; after which the combatants will retrench and regroup until another seemingly trivial "provocation" launches the cycle anew. A medieval Anglo-Saxon Bard said it best:

Good against evil; youth against age
Life against death; light against darkness
Army against army; foe against foe
Hostile with hostile shall always fight
Contending for land and avenging wrongs
A wise man must ponder this world's strife.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I may be wrong, but are the trolls coming out of the closet?

Lushington?!? Could our old friend Russell Street/Miles Away be back?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> . . . before the establishment of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948


....and hence not "Israeli" actions. My point remains.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

There is no better way to invite trolls than to utter thier names. 
Please do not feed them. If you think someone is a troll please report the post since calling someone a troll is generally considered trolling. The standard of acceptability on the Interchange is intentionally more forgiving than it is on the main forum but the rules apply. Thanks.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

gsi said:


> Ever take a look at the number of civilian deaths, Israeli vs Palestinian? Although the Israeli methods may seem more 'civil', they are much better at killing innocent civilians. It's an ugly situation on both ends.


Really - I'm kinda' indifferent. This whole concept of proportionality is asinine. In warfare, it's a recipe for stalemate and if you're outnumbered, defeat and results in more deaths over the long run. So they kill 10 of your people and you're only supposed to kill 10 of theirs? If they have more people than you, exactly what disincentive do they have not to attack again and wait for your "proportional" response and just fight a war of attrition? Well, since the Israelis are hugely outnumbered by muslims and a large number of muslims are, seemingly, willing to become martyrs, it would be pretty stupid of Israelis not to make the cost of attacking them extremely high, wouldn't it? I'll bet France and the UK wish they could've mustered some significantly disproportionate force against Germany in WWI - they couldn't until the U.S. entered and they got stalemate and high casualties as a result.

I'm generally unimpressed by the purported civilian casualties inflicted by the Israelis for a number of reasons. One is the apparent willingness of certain muslim "civilians" to strap themselves up with ball-bearing packed explosives and blow themselves up. Two is the apparent muslim tolerance of seeing other muslims die in large numbers so long as they're killed by other muslims. So Abu Grahib is some great horror, but a muslim government torturing, killing, etc. in vast numbers is met with muteness by the islamic world. I don't remember a great muslim outcry when the Kurds were gassed and the Iranians seemed perfectly OK with having their children clear mine fields during the war with Iraq. Muslims seem to watch their children die with equanimity so long as they're killed by muslims or they're martyrs. Third, it has been America's own experience that a not insignificant portion of muslim "fighters" are fond of using women and children as literal shields, i.e. physically hiding behind woman and children while firing on Americans. This has been commented on in both Somalia and Iraq. When "fighters" hide out in civilian areas and use civilians as shields, civilians will regrettably die. When one launches missiles from apartment buildings - civilians will likely die. Isn't it a bit naïve to think that these civilian deaths are not a result sought by the terrorists to spark international outrage? They hide and fight among civilians for this very purpose - that, and to avoid direct confrontation with the IDF because they would lose.

Could someone please cite me this Utopian war in which civilians did not get killed? Does the fact that civilians get killed nullify the rightness of a cause? Does anyone think that if Israel had a policy of targeting civilians or, at least, of not taking some care to avoid civilian deaths, that there wouldn't be thousand and thousands of civilian deaths by now?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

KenR said:


> I may be wrong, but are the trolls coming out of the closet?
> 
> Lushington?!? Could our old friend Russell Street/Miles Away be back?


I don't know a Mr. Street or Away, but I see by your edit that you are referring to my post. In what manner am I trolling? The entire thread is inflammatory, characterized by personal attacks and a general low level of discussion. I don't see that my post has raised the level of invective or lowered the level of analysis. What I _do _see, in this thread and in others that I have perused on the Interchange, is that to deviate from the forum consensus on controversial issues is to invite rather immoderate responses from many who seem to believe they are the custodians of truth and virtue. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this distasteful situation - isn't there?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

gsi said:


> Ever take a look at the number of civilian deaths, Israeli vs Palestinian? Although the Israeli methods may seem more 'civil', they are much better at killing innocent civilians. It's an ugly situation on both ends.


So if the Israeli body count were higher than it would better suit your sense of justice?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

pt4u67 said:


> So if the Israeli body count were higher than it would better suit your sense of justice?


Hard to tit for tat when the other side has 20 times the number of tats that you have.

Also, when measuring proportions it may be worth asking yourself how each side values life. One side believes that martyrdom is a good thing, the other side is willing to put every life on the line to save one captured soldier.

Math is nice and neat, add in the malleable and subjective notions of differing value systems and it gets murky.


----------



## gsi (Nov 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> So if the Israeli body count were higher than it would better suit your sense of justice?


I was responding to Rockers disagreement with with NewYork's observation that both sides act the same way and say the same things. That's why I quoted him in the reponse. Your question is completely out of context of what was being discussed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Hard to tit for tat when the other side has 20 times the number of tats that you have.


While I have a tat from my younger days, I am not so old as to not want to be on the side with 20 times more tits.


----------



## gsi (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Also, when measuring proportions it may be worth asking yourself how each side values life. One side believes that martyrdom is a good thing, the other side is willing to put every life on the line to save one captured soldier.
> .


What's the implication here? That an arab life is less valuable?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gsi said:


> What's the implication here? That an arab life is less valuable?


I cannot speak for Chuck (nor does he need help) but what I think he is trying to tell you that if one side has 1000 people and another side has 10 000 000 people, quite obviously it has different implications if the first side loses 500 people vs. the second side losing 500 people. It is not the value of an individual life rather it is the implication to the effectiveness of the opposing forces. This does make sense to you, right?


----------



## gsi (Nov 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I cannot speak for Chuck (nor does he need help) but what I think he is trying to tell you that if one side has 1000 people and another side has 10 000 000 people, quite obviously it has different implications if the first side loses 500 people vs. the second side losing 500 people. It is not the value of an individual life rather it is the implication to the effectiveness of the opposing forces. This does make sense to you, right?


Edit- sorry, yes it makes sense, I misread it.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Your catalog of atrocity is incomplete. You omitted Deir Yassin, the assassinations of Lord Moyne and Folke Bernadotte, the bombing of the King David Hotel, the kidnapping and murder of British soldiers, and any number of other "terrorist" acts committed by Zionist "terrorists" before the establishment of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. Since that date, Israel has been privileged to commit its atrocities the proper, civilized way: by uniformed soldiers implementing the policies of the elected government of an ostensibly democratic state. Or better yet, through the use of proxies (see: Sabra and Shatila, Massacre of). This, apparently, makes all the difference in the court of public opinion; I doubt that it makes much difference to the dead.
> 
> Of course, Israel "would welcome peace" - on its terms. Until such happy time, Israel is perfectly content to remain in a state of perpetual war with any and all real or perceived enemies. Jabotinsky made the case clearly in "The Iron Wall" and it remains the policy of Zionism to this day: "the only way to obtain such an agreement [peace with the indigenous Arab population], is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach such agreement in the future, is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement today." The only power that could change this calculus of misery is the United States; but for reasons of its own, it chooses not to (See: Iraq, Invasion of). So, we are now witness to another "escalation" of the endless conflict; one that will continue for weeks, months, perhaps years, and will eventually sputter to an inconclusive end; after which the combatants will retrench and regroup until another seemingly trivial "provocation" launches the cycle anew.


I have only one response to these nonsensical arguments. If the balance of power were reversed, Israel would have been wiped off the map a long time ago. Israel's enemies currently use their fighting power to their fullest extent while Israel, believe it or not, exercises restraint in how she uses her military power (admittedly not as much restraint as you would like but restraint nonetheless). Israel is capable of wiping them all away in one fell swoop, something the other side would not hesitate one nanosecond to do with her.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

EL72 said:


> I have only one response to these nonsensical arguments. If the balance of power were reversed, Israel would have been wiped off the map a long time ago. Israel's enemies currently use their fighting power to their fullest extent while Israel, believe it or not, exercises restraint in how she uses her military power (admittedly not as much restraint as you would like but restraint nonetheless). Israel is capable of wiping them all away in one fell swoop, something the other side would not hesitate one nanosecond to do with her.


Your response to the nonsensical arguments is nonsensical. By that same logic:

You are in an argument with an unarmed man in a wheelchair. You, however, have a knife and a gun. Both of you are furious and he wants to kill you. However he does all he is capable of and punches you. You pull out the knife and stab him. Now, you exercised restraint, you didn't shoot him. And if he had the gun you're sure he would have shot you. So by the logic of your response, your actions are justified and in proportion.

Now, that is far from the situation in the middle east. Israel and her enemies have each done a whole lot of horrible things to each other as the previous posters have documented at length. (Though, believe it or not, each has still left some out.) Neither comes to the table with clean hands and must move beyond the "it is I who has been wronged, all this is your fault" mentality if any progress is going to be made.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

gsi said:


> I was responding to Rockers disagreement with with NewYork's observation that both sides act the same way and say the same things. That's why I quoted him in the reponse. Your question is completely out of context of what was being discussed.


I don't think its out of context at all. Both sides don't act the same way, say the same things nor do the same things. Your implication was that the Israeli's were more efficient killers of civilians than the Palestinians. Think for a moment however if Hamas or Hezbollah had the ability to push a button and neutralize Israel, as in there is no more Israel. Do you doubt for a moment they would capitalize on this opportunity? Israelis do end up killing civilians but attempts are made to minimize this. Yes the situation is ugly but defending one's country can sometimes be an ugly business. I'm sure in defense of our country during WWI and WWII we killed many civilians.

In the end using body count as a measure of the conflict neglects the issue of justice. It is usually the knee jerk reaction of many terrorist apologists (and I'm not implying that you are) regarding the "conflict."


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sure in defense of our country during WWI and WWII we killed many civilians."


Straw man, axis deaths were 3/4 military 1/4 civilian. Allied were 2/3 civilian and 1/3 military (mainly due to the atrocities committed by the Nazis.)

No, its better to try and counter the proportionality argument with the provocation argument as you started your post with. That yeah, Israel could show more care to prevent civlian death, but come on cut them some slack it is a difficult enemy to find and fight and Israel was the one who was attacked. America would willingly have done the same if it meant the death of Osama Bin Laden. But still it will probably end up with arguing about the atrocities over the last few generations on either side.

Oh, and "terrorist apologist," is a nice touch. The rhyming really makes it pop.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

gsi said:


> What's the implication here? That an arab life is less valuable?


I can speak for Chuck 

The implication is not that I value the life of one side more or less than the other.

Part of it is the massive difference in size of Israel and her enemies but there is more to it.

The implication is that Hezbollah does not value life at all. Ok, that might not be completely true since their sponsors pay families 20-30 grand for a 'martyr' to strap themselves into semtex undergarments and take out a bus filled with civillians. Israeli's don't generally dress teens in plastique. Either they haven't thought of it, or else they value life a tad differently than do their opponents.

The implication is that the idea of losing 1 million jihadists to destroy Israel is perfectly acceptable to Hezbollah's sponsors.

The implication is that Hezbollah is quite willing to intentionally put offensive weapons atop apartment buildings, hospitals and other civillian centers to ensure maximum civillian fatalities.

The implication is that Hezbollah's puppet masters in Iran and Syria are DELIGHTED to see dead Lebanese civillians whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. GREAT PR payoff when that happens.

The implication is that trading blows of equal weight is only proportional when both sides value life the same way.

The implication is that the threat of death doesn't much impact someone who is planning on a few dozen virgins in paradise if they are lucky enough to get blown up.

So if my intent is still unclear one final thought - Hezbollah is taking the most destructive weapons they have and pointing them at Israel civilian population centers. Israel is taking their least lethal mortar rounds and aiming them at Hezbollah's launchers and leadership - granted they are often placed in the midst of civillians.

When you are outnumbered with your back to the sea in a country of 6 million fighting an enemy of 80 million in Iran and Syria who have publicly said that the world will be better when your nation is erased from the map - well... it could make one paranoid and prone not to pull punches.

I'm no fan of war, I am not a fan of asking Israel to roll over and play dead either.

Israel has a real problem - every civillian casualty in Lebanon will be decried, every Hezbollah attack on Israel for the past decade has been ignored and the other guy WANTS maximum civillian casualties on both sides.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

What a mess.

What concerns me right now is I don't see a good way out of this one for Israel.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

It is a mess. But lets remember who made it such a mess; Islamic fascits. I think the only road out is for total annihilation of the terrorist threat. Not that every terrorist will be killed, but that the effectiveness of the terrorists be degraded to the point where they can be managed and eventually starved. The answer of course is the concept of Total War. Unfortunately it appears as though the west has lost its appetite for this. Its understandable: WWI & WWII robbed Europe, and to a much lesser extent the U.S., of two entire generations and the threat of nuclear war completely changed the strategic framework of national defense and the concept of raison d'etat. 

Without a total war against islamic terrorists/fascits I'm afraid it will be like taking a limited dose of anti-biotics; the bacterial count will be suppressed, the patient will feel better for a while but the count will again re-emerge and adapt to form a resistant strain.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

MER said:


> Your response to the nonsensical arguments is nonsensical. By that same logic:
> 
> You are in an argument with an unarmed man in a wheelchair. You, however, have a knife and a gun. Both of you are furious and he wants to kill you. However he does all he is capable of and punches you. You pull out the knife and stab him. Now, you exercised restraint, you didn't shoot him. And if he had the gun you're sure he would have shot you. So by the logic of your response, your actions are justified and in proportion.


Come on! That's a false analogy and I'm sure you know it. Israel isn't faced with the equivalent of some unarmed man in a wheelchair. It's not being punched. It's repeatedly attacked and Israelis are murdered/killed - on buses, at eateries, all over the place. This last incident was started becasue terrorists invaded Israel, killed eight soldiers and kidnapped one. Days later they also kidnapped civilians - now they're launching thousands of missiles indiscriminately. You're analogy implies that no real harm can be done by their "punching" - but, in fact, Israelis have been killed and it's ongoing. The U.S. would be knee-deep in the blood of it enemies if someone were doing this to us (I hope). I'm always amazed at how complacent the world is about Israeli deaths - it's as if world opinion expects Israel to be content to lose a certain number of its population to random terrorist attacks.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Come on! That's a false analogy and I'm sure you know it. Israel isn't faced with the equivalent of some unarmed man in a wheelchair. It's not being punched. It's repeatedly attacked and Israelis are murdered/killed - on buses, at eateries, all over the place. This last incident was started becasue terrorists invaded Israel, killed eight soldiers and kidnapped one. Days later they also kidnapped civilians - now they're launching thousands of missiles indiscriminately. You're analogy implies that no real harm can be done by their "punching" - but, in fact, Israelis have been killed and it's ongoing. The U.S. would be knee-deep in the blood of it enemies if someone were doing this to us (I hope). I'm always amazed at how complacent the world is about Israeli deaths - it's as if world opinion expects Israel to be content to lose a certain number of its population to random terrorist attacks.


Please read the whole post before you respond. The very next line was "Now, that is far from the situation in the middle east." That was not an analogy to the situation at hand, instead it was a way of demonstrating the flaw in the response the previous poster had made. If you still were unsure you could have read the next few posts I made where I suggested the poster argue that the US would have done the same thing without a moments thought if it meant the death of Osama Bin Laden.

But since you made the post and I'm in a contrarian mode at the moment I'll disagree: what makes you think a punch can't do any damage? Have you ever taken a shot to the temple? A punch can hurt a lot and do a lot of damage, but it is probably not going to kill the other guy. Whereas the knife and gun are more likely to do so. The analogy would be to completely destroying the enemy. Hezzbollah does not have the capacity to destroy israel. Israel has the capacity to destroy all of lebanon and palestine(the gun) but has instead chosen to destroy only the parts of lebanon that they think has Hezzbollah in it (the knife). Now had Israel gone across the border and kidnapped 100 members of Hezzbollah, then killed them and hung their bodies in the village square, that would be disproportionate and cruel, but you would find far fewer people complaining about it. The issue is that so many innocent lebanese have died, especially when compared to the number of members of hezzbollah killed.

I find the last part of your post very interesting. You said "it's as if world opinion expects Israel to be content to lose a cerrtain number of its population to random terrorist attacks." Now wait a second, you don't seem to be too bothered about the civilians killed in Lebanon. It's as if you expect Lebanon to be content to lose 400 innocent citizens so that a handful of hezzbollah could be killed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ironically the early Israeli freedom fighters/ terrorists ( we all know the threadbare definition of the first appelation going to the winners) studied and used tactics by the I.R. A. against The U.K. My sole point in mentioning this sad piece of trivia is that we are very good and creative as a species figuring out and refining how to inflict harm on our own kind, and ultimately ourselves. Another shopworn adage would say " Insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result." Maybe that hot desert sun is responsible for the three great faiths born there being cursed with such violent histories against each other and themselves. Maybe it's time somebody comes up with a different way to achieve that elusive result. I'm not talking people holding hands and singing the theme song to Dizney's Small World amusement ride either. We are a talented species, to talented to suffer the loss and stupidity by allowing such conflicts to continue.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> While I have a tat from my younger days, I am not so old as to not want to be on the side with 20 times more tits.


Trying to find some common ground with liberals, are you?


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

MER said:


> Your response to the nonsensical arguments is nonsensical. By that same logic:
> 
> You are in an argument with an unarmed man in a wheelchair. You, however, have a knife and a gun. Both of you are furious and he wants to kill you. However he does all he is capable of and punches you. You pull out the knife and stab him. Now, you exercised restraint, you didn't shoot him. And if he had the gun you're sure he would have shot you. So by the logic of your response, your actions are justified and in proportion.
> 
> Now, that is far from the situation in the middle east. Israel and her enemies have each done a whole lot of horrible things to each other as the previous posters have documented at length. (Though, believe it or not, each has still left some out.) Neither comes to the table with clean hands and must move beyond the "it is I who has been wronged, all this is your fault" mentality if any progress is going to be made.


Whatever. I won't even address your sorry excuse for a rebuttal.

I will nonetheless say this: most of the Arab world is still not willing to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the middle east. They are incensed that Jews somehow took some of this land they now call Palestine and built a flourishing, western-style democracy in the middle of their neighborhood. They started a war in 1948, they lost, we took some land, people left their homes never to return - wars invariably create large population shifts - that's life - get over it! My father's family left an arab country when it gained it's independence in 1956 (Morocco). They never whined about returning to their homeland. They worked hard at building a new life for themselves in another country (Canada). I know plenty of Jewish families who left arab countries like Iraq, Yemen, Iran... under far worse circumstances. They went on with their lives and never looked back.

The point is that we took a small (and I mean ) sliver of land to build a country for ourselves so that we would never have to live through events like the holocaust again. The indigineous people who lived there (and now call themselves palestinians) lived under foreign rule for hundreds of years and never wanted a state for themselves. Most of them still don't really want one - all they want is for us to be gone from there, whatever the cost. The problem is that we're not going anywhere. We have nowhere else to go. You should understand that, while I am Canadian by birth and have lived here all my life, I know that the State of Israel is the only thing that stands between me and a gas chamber.

Perhaps by the time my grandchildren are old, the Arab world will be closer to accepting a Jewish state in the middle east, though I wouldn't bet on it. Until such a time, we have no choice but to act with strength, swiftness and unfortunately sometimes, ruthlessness, because we face enemies who will fight us to the death. As Golda Meir once said: Peace will not come until the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours.

You may not believe anything I say or find me insensitive and arrogant. Frankly, I don't care. What matters to me is that Israel remain a strong and vibrant country. When the neighbors are willing to play nice, there will be peace. In the meantime, innocents will invariably suffer.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and your post is a perfect example of what another poster called the mirror image. Israel is yours and you will (protect it/take it back) at any cost. Which is fine, you are perfectly entitled to believe that. Just be honest about it and don't pretend that either side is an innocent victim in the conflict. You have to recognize that in her zeal to maintain her land and protect herself Israel has had a tendency to do horrible things and destabilize the region. Just as you already know that in their zeal to reclaim land and punish the Israelis, Palestinians have a tendency to do horrible things and destabilize the region.

And of course the United States has a tendency to do stupid things and destabilizes the region (I mean come on, forcing Hamas onto the ballot? Did they not see that would mean the end of Fatah and the rise of Hamas?)


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

MER said:


> I understand exactly where you are coming from, and your post is a perfect example of what another poster called the mirror image. Israel is yours and you will (protect it/take it back) at any cost. Which is fine, you are perfectly entitled to believe that. Just be honest about it and don't pretend that either side is an innocent victim in the conflict.


I was as honest and forthright as I possibly can. I have absolutely nothing to hide.



MER said:


> You have to recognize that in her zeal to *maintain her land and protect herself* Israel has had a tendency to do horrible things and destabilize the region.


*"maintain her land and protect herself"*

Those are the keywords. As far as horrible and destabilizing things are concerned, war is hell. We didn't win 5+ wars by being boy scouts.


----------



## mrchapel (Jun 21, 2006)

MER said:


> <snip>
> And of course the United States has a tendency to do stupid things and destabilizes the region (I mean come on, forcing Hamas onto the ballot? Did they not see that would mean the end of Fatah and the rise of Hamas?)


The US certainly didn't force Hamas into anything. Where do you get your information? Hamas takes orders from no one.


----------



## TE Hesketh (Nov 19, 2003)

EL72 said:


> You should understand that, while I am Canadian by birth and have lived here all my life, I know that the State of Israel is the only thing that stands between me and a gas chamber.


Well, I've met and worked with a lot of Canadians and always found them pretty civilised people, but I didn't realise that only the State of Israel was preventing them gasing jews. I'm shocked!


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

MER said:


> I understand exactly where you are coming from, and your post is a perfect example of what another poster called the mirror image. Israel is yours and you will (protect it/take it back) at any cost. Which is fine, you are perfectly entitled to believe that. Just be honest about it and don't pretend that either side is an innocent victim in the conflict. You have to recognize that in her zeal to maintain her land and protect herself Israel has had a tendency to do horrible things and destabilize the region. Just as you already know that in their zeal to reclaim land and punish the Israelis, Palestinians have a tendency to do horrible things and destabilize the region.


Nail on the head. I just returned to this thread, and as usual when I see discussions on this topic, most rants only further confirm what I already know to be the truth - both sides are the same. I truly believe that taking sides in this fight is almost always driven by some force not dictated by logic or thought - be it religion, national origin, racism, incomplete information, or whatever. This may be the single issue where I have seen the most otherwise smart people behave irrationally. And yes, shockingly, that includes both sides.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> Nail on the head. I just returned to this thread, and as usual when I see discussions on this topic, most rants only further confirm what I already know to be the truth - both sides are the same. I truly believe that taking sides in this fight is almost always driven by some force not dictated by logic or thought - be it religion, national origin, racism, incomplete information, or whatever. This may be the single issue where I have seen the most otherwise smart people behave irrationally. And yes, shockingly, that includes both sides.


I'm afraid I must challenge you to explain how taking the side of the Israelis is driven by anything but logic. I suppose it is an easy thing to say however please list specifics to your argument. Otherwise it is merely a bumper sticker.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

TE Hesketh said:


> Well, I've met and worked with a lot of Canadians and always found them pretty civilised people, but I didn't realise that only the State of Israel was preventing them gasing jews. I'm shocked!


I never implied Canada would be gassing Jews. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Nevertheless, as you may be well aware, boatloads of Jews fleeing Europe during the holocaust sought refuge in many countries - including Canada - and were turned away. Most refugees were forced to return to Europe and eventually perished. Canada had a specific policy of limiting the immigration of Jews, even after the war, while being a notorious haven for nazi war criminals. According to official statistics, only 5,000 Jewish refugees entered Canada during the period of 1933-1948, the lowest record of any Western country. When asked how many Jews would be allowed into Canada after the war, an immigration official famously replied: "None is too many".

Canada is fine country and my family has built a good life here. For that I am grateful, but I have no illusions whatsoever that when push comes to shove (and it likely will again someday - history virtually guarantees it), there is only one country that has the will and the duty (and must therefore always have the necessary means) to speak for me and protect me, and that is obviously Israel. I don't expect, nor do I particularly care, for you to appreciate any of this. Cynical as it may sound, it is what it is and I cannot afford to live in a dream world where everybody is nice and no harm will ever come to me or my people.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

E,

excellent post. while a lot of people scoff, Israel, and the IDf, sees itself as providing a haven for jews from around the world. not 20 years ago, IDF and mossad personnel brought tens of thousands of ethiopian jews out, under horrific conditions where the majoirty christians were causing huge suffuring to the jews and large numbers were dieing from tribal warfare. in the past generation, israel has worked to provide a haven for jews from russia and from arab countries.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

mrchapel said:


> The US certainly didn't force Hamas into anything. Where do you get your information? Hamas takes orders from no one.


No, no. The US forced Israel to allow Hamas on the ballot. By the treaty terms no group which advocated violence was allowed on the ballot. However the US's view of total democracy solving all the world's problems led them to force Israel to put Hamas on the ballot. Which meant that Fatah (the secular group) was voted out and Hamas took over.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm afraid I must challenge you to explain how taking the side of the Israelis is driven by anything but logic. I suppose it is an easy thing to say however please list specifics to your argument. Otherwise it is merely a bumper sticker.


No - I am not going to waste my time trying to "argue" with you about this - been down that road before. Your very assertion that logic forces one to takes Israels side indicates to me that you are already irrational about this, and nothing I say will sway you, so I will not even try. (Again, seen this a million times before, from both sides.) FWIW - I would say the same thing to someone who says logic forces one to take Palestines side.

If you want to go ahead thinking that there are two groups of people in close proximity to each other, whereas one is completly good and the other is completely evil, you go ahead. Just know that there is some other zealot/idiot who is out there (who is just like you) who thinks exactly the same, yet opposite.

Again, why cant these two just finally destroy each other and do the world a favor. So tired of this I could puke.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> E,
> 
> excellent post. while a lot of people scoff, Israel, and the IDf, sees itself as providing a haven for jews from around the world. not 20 years ago, IDF and mossad personnel brought tens of thousands of ethiopian jews out, under horrific conditions where the majoirty christians were causing huge suffuring to the jews and large numbers were dieing from tribal warfare. in the past generation, israel has worked to provide a haven for jews from russia and from arab countries.


Thanks GT. People sometimes forget that this is the whole basis for the State of Israel. Our memory is unfortunately too short.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

NewYorkBuck said:


> Again, why cant these two just finally destroy each other and do the world a favor. So tired of this I could puke.


What a generous soul you are. Have the nightly news broadcasts inconvenienced your idyllic life? Oh silly me, I forgot that all the world's problems are due to this conflict. The world would be so much better and peaceful if it were rid of those noisy Jews and their scruffy Arab neighbours.

No one is forcing you to read this thread. Go share your bigoted views somewhere else.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

EL72 said:


> No one is forcing you to read this thread. Go share your bigoted views somewhere else.


Bigoted - that is funny - I think both sides are wrong, and I am bigoted. I think you need to buy a dictionary junior. In this case, maybe I am bigoted - bigoted against bickering biased hot-tempered zealots who bring the rest of world into their problems.

And FWIW - Ill post wherever I like. If you dont like it, TS.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

NewYorkBuck said:


> Bigoted - that is funny - I think both sides are wrong, and I am bigoted. I think you need to buy a dictionary junior. In this case, maybe I am bigoted - bigoted against bickering biased hot-tempered zealots who bring the rest of world into their problems.
> 
> And FWIW - Ill post wherever I like. If you dont like it, TS.


NYB - there is a difference between thinking both sides are wrong and declaring that favoring one side over another is irrational.

as much as I believe in one side, I would be the frist to admit that israel isn't perfect and has made mistakes.

but, I think both my support of israel, and the support of many people, is very rational. I would agree that there are many people who support both sides for irrational reasons.

but, if you are going to make such an agressive and difficult to defend statement, you should try to explain yourself. otehrwise it is less of a discussion, and more an affirmation of faith.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Keep it on the issue, please take a breath and remember that though the Interchange was made in part to provide a place to argue contentious topics the ad-hominem rule remains in effect.

PLEASE stick to the topic, not each other. 

Thanks


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> NYB - there is a difference between thinking both sides are wrong and declaring that favoring one side over another is irrational.
> 
> as much as I believe in one side, I would be the frist to admit that israel isn't perfect and has made mistakes.
> 
> ...


Globe - I can see you are on one side, so it is refreshing to me to see you take such a reasonble view about this.

This is just a topic I have thought about so much and have concluded little over what I have said above. I have friends on both sides, so of course on a personal level I feel torn. Of course, my statement about all of these people doing away with each other is rhetorical, but it is symbolic in how much I wish this issue would go away, knowing fully that it never will.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> No - I am not going to waste my time trying to "argue" with you about this - been down that road before. Your very assertion that logic forces one to takes Israels side indicates to me that you are already irrational about this, and nothing I say will sway you, so I will not even try. (Again, seen this a million times before, from both sides.) FWIW - I would say the same thing to someone who says logic forces one to take Palestines side.
> 
> If you want to go ahead thinking that there are two groups of people in close proximity to each other, whereas one is completly good and the other is completely evil, you go ahead. Just know that there is some other zealot/idiot who is out there (who is just like you) who thinks exactly the same, yet opposite.
> 
> Again, why cant these two just finally destroy each other and do the world a favor. So tired of this I could puke.


Not looking for an argument. I'm just wondering how you can make the assertion and not back it up with at least what you see are the facts. I'm not contending that Israel is perfect. If the perfection were the pre-requisite to national self defense than it would certainly be an interesting world. I would argue who was the aggressor. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, a sort of mafia if you will. Israel is a legitimate government. You may not agree with their foreign policy but there is no denying that they are a legitimate government with the power of sovereignty. Terrorist organizations do not have the same privilages. Think for a moment if street gangs in this country began to terrorize in the name of driving out police from certain neighborhoods under the guise of "self determination" and boundry conflicts.

Here is my solution. Let the Arabs, at least those wishing the destruction of Israel, stop funding terrorists. Begin to build up their armed forces. Equip them, war game and make a formal declaration of war. Let them cross the border with armed and uniformed soldiers. Let them adhere to at least some modicum of the rules of warfare. Then let Israel unleash upon them. The problem is that the Arabs have tried this numerous times and have had there clocks cleaned each time. Lets not forget how the "occupied territories" ended up occupied in the first place. Now they hide behind terrorist organizations. Fund them and when something terrible occurs they sit back and say we didn't have anything to do with it, how convenient. Its like having the best of both worlds is it not?

Perfection is not the standard. The legitimate right of self defense is. I'm afraid that there are times in history when right and wrong are clearly defined. I firmly believe this is one of those times.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

NewYorkBuck said:


> Bigoted - that is funny - I think both sides are wrong, and I am bigoted. I think you need to buy a dictionary junior.


I believe you are the one needing the dictionary. But I guess you found it because you realized your error and retracted your statement in the next sentence.

And don't call me junior. I am neither your friend, nor certainly your junior, I have remained civil and polite until now.



NewYorkBuck said:


> In this case, maybe I am bigoted - bigoted against bickering biased hot-tempered zealots who bring the rest of world into their problems.


Precisely my point. One can certainly be bigoted against both sides. Not taking sides does not absolve you of this.



NewYorkBuck said:


> And FWIW - Ill post wherever I like. If you dont like it, TS.


Post freely, that's fine with me but then don't whine about how you're



NewYorkBuck said:


> So tired of this I could puke.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

EL72 said:


> I never implied Canada would be gassing Jews. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Nevertheless, as you may be well aware, boatloads of Jews fleeing Europe during the holocaust sought refuge in many countries - including Canada - and were turned away. Most refugees were forced to return to Europe and eventually perished. Canada had a specific policy of limiting the immigration of Jews, even after the war, while being a notorious haven for nazi war criminals. According to official statistics, only 5,000 Jewish refugees entered Canada during the period of 1933-1948, the lowest record of any Western country. When asked how many Jews would be allowed into Canada after the war, an immigration official famously replied: "None is too many".
> 
> Canada is fine country and my family has built a good life here. For that I am grateful, but I have no illusions whatsoever that when push comes to shove (and it likely will again someday - history virtually guarantees it), there is only one country that has the will and the duty (and must therefore always have the necessary means) to speak for me and protect me, and that is obviously Israel. I don't expect, nor do I particularly care, for you to appreciate any of this. Cynical as it may sound, it is what it is and I cannot afford to live in a dream world where everybody is nice and no harm will ever come to me or my people.


El72, I would get the hell out now then if I was you. I mean, if Canada starts to gas Jews or otherwise persecute them, I can guarantee you the world is so messed up Israel is not going to save you. So my advice is get to Israel now and put your money where your paranoia is. Please keep in mind, in any reply, that I have staunchly backed Israel.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Please keep in mind, in any reply, that I have staunchly backed Israel.


I know.



Wayfarer said:


> El72, I would get the hell out now then if I was you. I mean, if Canada starts to gas Jews or otherwise persecute them, I can guarantee you the world is so messed up Israel is not going to save you. So my advice is get to Israel now and put your money where your paranoia is.


Thank for your thoughtful concern Wayfarer but I sincerely don't understand what part of my writing is unclear. Let me say this again: I have NO expectation that Canada will gas or otherwise persecute Jews. That said, I have no idea who will eventually want to (though there are some good candidates right now) and given that most of the world refused to take in Jews who were threatened by nazis, I have no expectation that Canada or any country would help them the next time.

You may believe me paranoid, that's entirely your right but no, I don't believe everyone is an anti-semite and out to get Jews. The holocaust happened 60 years ago - not so long in the grand scheme of things. You think that German and Austrian Jews, who were at least as integrated, as assimilated, and as successful in Germany as American Jews are in the US today thought in the 1930s that such a thing could happen.

The bottom line is that 6 million Jews would not have died if Israel had existed then. Israel is thus every Jew's insurance policy against such events. You may find this concept absurd or far-fetched but that's all I said. In the meantime, I can support Israel in many ways while still living in Canada.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Let's see 6-7 million by Hitler, another 20 million by Stalin, Iran's leader calling for map companies to redraw Israel as a smoking hole in the ground...

Yeah.... I think a slight degree of paranoia is called for.

Meanwhile EL, if Canada goes to hell you are welcome in Texas... but it's about 6 degrees warmer than Hell here and the humidity is higher.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Meanwhile EL, if Canada goes to hell you are welcome in Texas... but it's about 6 degrees warmer than Hell here and the humidity is higher.


Thanks Chuck. Texas BBQ... Mmmmmm....:drunken_smilie:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

EL72 said:


> The bottom line is that 6 million Jews would not have died if Israel had existed then. Israel is thus every Jew's insurance policy against such events. You may find this concept absurd or far-fetched but that's all I said. In the meantime, I can support Israel in many ways while still living in Canada.


Okay, I see what you're saying now. I admit I was scratching my head at the thought of the RCMP rounding up Jews. As we all know, the only group under persecution in Canada are hetero Anglo males.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> . As we all know, the only group under persecution in Canada are hetero Anglo males.


Whine whine whine  You white guys are so darned touchy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Whine whine whine  You white guys are so darned touchy.


Heh, I can actually prove this is true Chuck. Just do not ask me to pull the caselaw up, I lost it when my then current notebook blew up last year. However, the SC of Canada ruled on a case where a hetero Anglo male was claiming discrimination and the ruling was straight Anglo guys just plain can not be discriminated against, i.e. I chose the other guy 'cause he was French is okay.

Possibly one of our Canadian barristers can find the case law for us. I believe the decision was worded something to the effect that only groups suffering historical stigma can be discriminated against, ergo, there is only one group not covered, namely the one I belong to


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL... last year I officially became a minority in Tejas.

It's not so bad I guess but I'm tired of being hassled by the man.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, a sort of mafia if you will. Israel is a legitimate government. You may not agree with their foreign policy but there is no denying that they are a legitimate government with the power of sovereignty. Terrorist organizations do not have the same privilages.


Amazing how many people seem to forget that Israel was formed to a large extent on the efforts of terrorist groups like the Stern Gang.

_Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Please keep in mind, in any reply, that I have staunchly backed Israel.


And no doubt continue to do so despite their deliberate targeting and killing of UN peacekeepers, including a Canadian officer, despite repeated warnings to the IDF that they were shelling UN positions.

And our glorious PM seems to think that this is the fault of the dead men for still being there. Bravo Mr Harper.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> And no doubt continue to do so despite their deliberate targeting and killing of UN peacekeepers, including a Canadian officer, despite repeated warnings to the IDF that they were shelling UN positions.
> 
> And our glorious PM seems to think that this is the fault of the dead men for still being there. Bravo Mr Harper.


Gmac, when a good friend of yours makes a mistake, does he/she stop being your friend? Further, I shall wait for all the data on this incident before I declare I know what happened. What a novel concept.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

gmac said:


> And no doubt continue to do so despite their deliberate targeting and killing of UN peacekeepers.


Wow - so you talked to the Israeli military and they confirmed that they intentionally went after the UN guys? You're sure there was no rocket fire coming FROM that area, right?

Which news channel - I missed this one?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

gmac said:


> Amazing how many people seem to forget that Israel was formed to a large extent on the efforts of terrorist groups like the Stern Gang.
> 
> _Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle._
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_gang


And Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys wore no uniforms and sniped from behind trees and for that matter lets not forget "Washington and the Potomac Boys Gang." The French Resistance bombed railyards and other strategic Nazi targets. I don't recall when Israel was struggling for its independence it sent suicide bombers to London. The difference is that once Israel was declared a sovereign state it was attacked and has been continuously attacked. The Palestinians chose to leave thinking the Arabs would come out on top and when they realized they backed the wrong horse up went the "Palestinian" flag and the liberation movement began. When the Palestinians were offered their piece of land they turned it down and began bombing. When Israel pulled out of Gaza did the Palestinians try to make it a better place for themselves. No, they used it as an opportunity to move their rockets closer.

I refer you back to your link on the Stern Gang. I don't recall reading anywhere in their charter a call for the destruction of Britain or the West. Contrast this to Hamas' and Hezbollah's charter.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

_The Israel Defence Forces received repeated and increasingly urgent warnings, both in the field and from New York, that they were targeting a United Nations monitoring post before they delivered a bomb that killed four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, UN officials said yesterday._

Read the article. No Hezbollah activity nearby. IDF provided with precise coordinates for the observation post. Increasingly urgent pleas to end the bombardment.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Gmac, when a good friend of yours makes a mistake, does he/she stop being your friend?


If that friend consistently makes "mistakes" that lead to the deaths of other friends, then I would certainly reconsider my relationship with that person.

If it turned out that these were not mistakes then absolutely, I would stop being friends with them.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

gmac said:


> _The Israel Defence Forces received repeated and increasingly urgent warnings, both in the field and from New York, that they were targeting a United Nations monitoring post before they delivered a bomb that killed four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, UN officials said yesterday._
> 
> Read the article. No Hezbollah activity nearby. IDF provided with precise coordinates for the observation post. Increasingly urgent pleas to end the bombardment.


Wonder what percentage of the nearly 1500 missiles and rockets fired in the general direction of Israel were shot at military targets and how many were shot at civillian targets.

But of course none of this would have happened if only Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon, then Hezbollah would have given up thier arms and ... oh wait.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I don't recall when Israel was struggling for its independence it sent suicide bombers to London.


No, they did their murdering and bombing closer to home.

I'm not going to get into an argument about the rights and wrongs of the foundation of Israel and its immediate aftermath.

Answer me one question. Do you accept that the actions of the Stern Gang prior to the formation of Israel, including murder and bombings, were acts of terrorism?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Wonder what percentage of the nearly 1500 missiles and rockets fired in the general direction of Israel were shot at military targets and how many were shot at civillian targets.


But Hezbollah are terrorists, right?

Aren't the IDF supposed to better than that?

And lets not talk about rockets fired in the general direction of, this UN position was deliberately targeted judging by the evidence available so far.



Chuck Franke said:


> But of course none of this would have happened if only Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon, then Hezbollah would have given up thier arms and ... oh wait.


Why would Hezbollah disarm?

I'm no supporter of theirs but, really, why would they possibly do that when they have the Israeli army right next door with a record of invading Lebanon and occupying territory in every direction?


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

*More to the story*



gmac said:


> _The Israel Defence Forces received repeated and increasingly urgent warnings, both in the field and from New York, that they were targeting a United Nations monitoring post before they delivered a bomb that killed four peacekeepers, including a Canadian, UN officials said yesterday._
> 
> Read the article. No Hezbollah activity nearby. IDF provided with precise coordinates for the observation post. Increasingly urgent pleas to end the bombardment.


This Article offers a more complete version of the incident.

Since it may disappear for non-subscribers (including me), I have copied the part that is inconsistent with GMAC's conclusion, though the complete article also repeats the UN's claims supporting GMAC's desired explanation.



> UNITED NATIONS - An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan's initial accusation that Israel "deliberately" targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
> 
> A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.
> 
> ...


I have yet to find a credible, or even non-credible, explanation of why the Israelis would have deliberately targeted a UN position if it was not near Hezbollah activity. It is one thing to think they are congenitally evil, but I don't think anyone has accused them of being stupid. Deliberately hitting the U.N. for no military purpose is pretty stupid. Hitting the U.N. position because it is near or harboring genuine military targets may still be pretty stupid, but it is less certainly so.

I do recall reading two things that may bear on this question, though I can't recall where and am too lazy to look. The first is that the position was not hit by a laser guided missile or any other guided weapon, but rather was hit by artillery fire or some other non-precision munition. That would explain the strike as an accident.

The other "fact", and which is more interesting than explanatory, is that among the U.N. peacekeepers were Chinese observers, who were there monitoring the effectiveness of their own and Israel's weapons for their own purposes. As I said, that is just interesting. I don't think it explains anything and it is unlikely that Israel was aware of this in advance. In any event, I am always a bit cycnical about this "cloak and dagger" stuff. It is almost always true, but it also rarely means what i think it means.

EDIT: I deleted my incorrect reference to the presence of Russians and added the source. Since it does not name its own sources, rely on it as you will.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Dopey - simple, for those who would desperately like to find some moral justification for looking the other way at what Hezbollah does it is convenient to conclude that Israel would intentionally do something incredibly stupid that would turn public perception against them because well, they were bored and mean and figured they'd plunk peacekeepers... are you new to this or what?

There is no rational reason why they'd intentionally target the UN observers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Dopey, be prepared. You will now be called a "right wing nutjob" and your source is a "right wing hate speech rag". 

I want to go on record as still waiting for more data however.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Me too...

But if one of the deceased sent an email saying that there were Hezbollah militants all around his position I'm leaning toward accident.

What precisely are those troops doing there? Putting soldiers into a warzone without any purpose but to observe is foolish. Either send them to enforce the UNSC resolutions regarding Hezbollah or keep them out of there.

There is not a purple pill large enough to cure the UN's impotence. When have UN Peacekeepers ever effectively kept, created or enforced the peace?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WayfarerI want to go on record as still waiting for more data however.[/QUOTE said:


> Me, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Me, too.
> 
> I do not read the New York Sun often enough to have noticed "hate speech." However, it is a virtual nonentity in the Greater NYC media scene, with a news-staff size befitting a little farm-town daily in Nebraska and hardly any advertisements. Stacking a resources-challenged, barely read little journalism boutique against Canada's national daily does not seem a fair fight. And, indeed, the Sun does view the world from the right, which does seem to be the sole reason for its existence -- certainly not to make money like a normal newspaper. So, yes, I would not place a whole lot of credence in what the Sun writes. Which is not to say they are wrong without a doubt, just saying the Toronto Globe & Mail, a good newspaper, devotes many more resources to the story than the New York Sun could.


Sorry, yes, I was trying to be pithy but knew someone would raise the issue it is a rather small, little known outlet. It is hard to cover all the basis when one is trying to employ brevity in a comedic way to forestall the reasons why a conflicting source should be marginalized.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

crs said:


> Me, too.
> 
> I do not read the New York Sun often enough to have noticed "hate speech." However, it is a virtual nonentity in the Greater NYC media scene, with a news-staff size befitting a little farm-town daily in Nebraska and hardly any advertisements. Stacking a resources-challenged, barely read little journalism boutique against Canada's national daily does not seem a fair fight. And, indeed, the Sun does view the world from the right, which does seem to be the sole reason for its existence -- certainly not to make money like a normal newspaper. So, yes, I would not place a whole lot of credence in what the Sun writes. Which is not to say they are wrong without a doubt, just saying the Toronto Globe & Mail, a good newspaper, devotes many more resources to the story than the New York Sun could.


All I can say about the Sun is that I read it because it comes free with my New York Times, presumably to make for a more balanced load for the delivery boy.

You did made me curious, CRS, so I took a few minutes to Google Mssrs. MacKenzie and Hess-von Kruedener to see if anyone else was paying attention. I have no idea why the Toronto Globe and Mail didn't report what the Sun did. Perhaps they did in a different article that I didn't come across. In any event, a CTV report did provide the full text of Hess-von Kruedner's e-mail report written July 18th, including this penultimate paragraph:


> What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.


Note also that he reports that much of the close fire, all of which he calls tactical and not deliberate, is artillery bombardment.

Lewis MacKenzie was interviewed by CBC Radio, and it appears the Sun lifted their story from that interview. I can't figure out how to link to the interview.

Apart from those two reference and the Sun report, it would appear that this version of the events is of no interest.

O.K. Here is the kicker. I was stunned when I found this. FROM A UNIFIL PRESS RELEASE, July 26th:


> Another UN position of the Ghanian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night [weird how no one reports Hezbollah shelling of UN positions]. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Brashit and At Tiri.. All UNIFIL positions remain occupied and maintained by the troops.


Don't believe me? download it from the UN's site .


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

So, on the one hand we have the argument that Israel did nor deliberately target this UN post because, what, why would they?

On the other hand we have 4 dead peacekeepers, killed by Israeli weapons of one kind or another, and a record of escalating demands/pleas to the IDF and Israeli diplomats to stop firing on the UN post, including precise coordinates of that post, those pleas being ignored.

We have conflicting reports on Hezbollah activity in the area. On the one hand we have "veiled speech" in undated emails about Hezbollah activity, as reported by a zero circulation right wing rag. On the other hand, we have the UN saying there was no Hezbollah activity in the area on the day of the attack.

It seems clear to me that there is a prima facie case against Israel for targeting these men. Please overlook your kneejerk hatred of all things UN and kneejerk support of all things Israeli and look at the facts.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

_Oh come on Dopey, you know the UN is just a shill for Israel and that they were bought off to say this rather than stick up for.... oh wait._


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

dopey said:


> You made me curious, CRS, so I took a few minutes to Google Mssrs. MacKenzi and Hess-von Kruedener. I have no idea why the Toronto Globe and Mail didn't report what the Sun did. Perhaps they did in a different article.


They did. I happen to subscribe to the Globe and Mail (not Toronto by the way, it is a national paper).

These emails are interesting but over a week old.

How many peacekeepers died in the Hezbolah attack? How many hours did the bombardment last? How many pleas were made to Hezbollah to stop the atack?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Well... 

I think Gmac's theory can be tested.

Send Gmac to Lebanon with a GPS, let us call the IDF and we'll tell them exactly where you are and I am willing to bet you a million dollars they don't kill you.

If I am wrong, I will promptly write you a check, it will be right here waiting.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

gmac said:


> Answer me one question. Do you accept that the actions of the Stern Gang prior to the formation of Israel, including murder and bombings, were acts of terrorism?


No response to this pt4u67?


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

crs said:


> Me, too.
> 
> I do not read the New York Sun often enough to have noticed "hate speech." However, it is a virtual nonentity in the Greater NYC media scene, with a news-staff size befitting a little farm-town daily in Nebraska and hardly any advertisements. Stacking a resources-challenged, barely read little journalism boutique against Canada's national daily does not seem a fair fight. And, indeed, the Sun does view the world from the right, which does seem to be the sole reason for its existence -- certainly not to make money like a normal newspaper. So, yes, I would not place a whole lot of credence in what the Sun writes. Which is not to say they are wrong without a doubt, just saying the Toronto Globe & Mail, a good newspaper, devotes many more resources to the story than the New York Sun could.


I am daily Globe subscriber and let's just say that, while it has gotten better recently, their middle east reporting is, at best, not what wins them journalistic awards, and at worst, full of inaccuracies and sloppy journalism. 

For example: Middle East correspondent Mark MacKinnon filed a story yesterday entitled "*,*" filled with unproven charges against Israel by people who have no credibility.

Reporting from the of Tyre in south Lebanon, MacKinnon quoted* a mortician, a medical student and a motorcyclist* who *collectively implied that Israel intentionally targets civilians, *killing many more civilians than reported by the Lebanese government

Some of the claims MacKinnon printed include:
_"'Israel has failed on the ground, so they're hitting civilians.'"_

_"Of the dead he's seen, Mr. Shadi says, 'maybe 3 per cent' were men. The rest were women and children. 'They're not targeting fighters.'"_

_"They're just hitting civilians. I don't think there's a reason for it."_
​MacKinnon paraphrased Israel as saying "its aim is only to uproot the Islamic militia's infrastructure in south Lebanon." But he immediately cast doubt on Israel's claim by presenting *unnamed "medical staff" *who speculated that "most of those killed and wounded to date have no apparent link to Hezbollah." ​
But exactly who were these individuals whose claims MacKinnon published? Were they random people he encountered? Did his Lebanese translator take him to them? Or did a "Hezbollah press officer" make the introductions? Considering that Tyre is home to Hezbollah loyalists and rocket crews, MacKinnon's (and the Globe's ) reporting needs to be taken with a grain of salt imo.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Heh, I can actually prove this is true Chuck. Just do not ask me to pull the caselaw up, I lost it when my then current notebook blew up last year. However, the SC of Canada ruled on a case where a hetero Anglo male was claiming discrimination and the ruling was straight Anglo guys just plain can not be discriminated against, i.e. I chose the other guy 'cause he was French is okay.
> 
> Possibly one of our Canadian barristers can find the case law for us. I believe the decision was worded something to the effect that only groups suffering historical stigma can be discriminated against, ergo, there is only one group not covered, namely the one I belong to


 Perhaps you are thinking of the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision, _Law v. Canada_ (1999 1 S.C.R. 497), in which the Court established the eponymous "_Law _test" for analyzing claims brought under Section 15 of the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_. In that case the Court, _inter alia_, identified four, nonexclusive "contextual factors" that should be considered when determining whether the challenged state action violated the Charter's equality guarantee. The Court held that the "most compelling" of these four factors was the presence of a "pre-existing disadvantage, vulnerability, stereotyping, or prejudice experienced by the individual or group." However, the Court further noted that while the finding of such a pre-existing disadvantage was "helpful" in establishing a Section 15 violation, it was not determinative, and "[a] member of any of the more advantaged groups in society is clearly entitled to bring a s. 15(1) claim which, in appropriate cases, will be successful." The Court reiterated this principle in _Trociuk v. British Columbia_ (2003) 1 S.C.R 835, where the Court rejected the contention that "fathers" had only weak Section 15 claims because they did not belong to a historically disadvantaged class. Noting that"[t]his argument is ill-founded as a matter of law and logic" the Court concluded: "Although the Court in _Law_ held that historical disadvantage is 'probably the most compelling factor favouring a conclusion that differential treatment imposed by legislation is truly discriminatory," it does not follow that the absence of historical disadvantage is a compelling factor against a finding of discrimination. Moreover, it is settled law that neither the presence nor absence of any of the contextual factors set out in _Law_ is dispositive of a s. 15(1) claim."

This more or less exhausts my knowledge of Canadian anti-discrimination law. However, in light of these statements it would be extraordinary if the Supreme Court of Canada has held that white, heterosexual men are excluded, as a matter of law, from the protections of Section 15 of the Charter. Indeed, in _Trociuk_ the Court held that certain sections of _The Vital Statistics Act_ violated Section 15 because they significantly impaired the equality rights of fathers - who are undeniably male, presumably heterosexual, and frequently white. Perhaps _Law _and _Trociuk_ have been overruled? (Are cases "overruled" in Canada?) Or perhaps the case that you are thinking of involved private action unrelated to Section 15?


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

gmac said:



> So, on the one hand we have the argument that Israel did nor deliberately target this UN post because, what, why would they?


The only inference from the various sources I reported is that Israel was targeting Hezbollah locations without regard to the presence of UN personnel and that prior to the hit that killed the UN peacekeepers, according to the UN man on the ground, Israel had been shelling and bombing the area for tactical purposes (meaning firing at Hezbollah positions) but was not targeting the UN post. It also makes credible the claim that it was artillary fire, not a guided missile, that hit the UN post (after all, an artillery shell had come within 2 meters only days before). All that adds up to a very plausible explanation - Israel was shelling known Hezbollah launch sites without regard to the presence of UN peacekeepers, even though the UN made its location known to Israel. Whether or not Israel should or shouldn't permit the presence of a UN post to create a safe zone for Hezbollah launch sites is a different question. The answer strikes me as largely political, but not knowing how much use Hezbollah was making of the area, I cannot judge. The UNIFIL's own report, dated yesterday, indicates that Hezbollah is continuing to launch strikes against Israel from the vicinity of UN posts. Thus, Israel will continue to be faced with the question. And the UN brass will have to consider whether they should continue to allow their personnel to be used as shields for Hezbollah or order them the hell out of there. I am not sure what use they are serving there now, if they ever served any use, but we all know how loathe a bureaucrat is to surrender his territory. No matter what blame you ascribe to Israel, the blood of the next dead peacekeeper will be on Annan's hands.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

gmac said:


> No response to this pt4u67?


You can call it terrorism. However the Stern Gang was not an existential enemy of Britain. I would rather call them freedom fighters because that is what they were fighting for. Did they continue bombing England after Israel was declared a nation? What were their targets? Military installations and logistic/strategic targets such as arms and fuel depots, railroads or were they innocent civilians. Even political/military figures are fair game in a struggle for liberation. The same can be said of the Algerian struggle against France. The difference is between a war of liberation and acts of indiscriminate violence meant to erradicate an entire race. Were the Jews who rose up against the Nazis in Poland terrorists? When Indians rose up against British occupation were they terrorists? Were American colonists terrorists when they declared independence and went to war?

By the way you mention the Stern Gang as though they were the only group involved in the struggle. But let us assume that they encompassed all the elements of the struggle for independence. They had a limited set of objectives, namely a country of their own. Hamas does not. It was offered such a concession and rejected it. They were even elected by their people and still chose to fight. Against what? The Israelis evacuated Gaza and were drawing up plans of evacuating the majority of the West Bank. Hezbollah? Are the an occupied peoples? No. They are nihilists. Beyond terrorists in that they have no rational agenda, unless you count the destruction of Israel and agenda. It is easy to pluck some group out of the past and try to equivicate their actions to the present day situation. I feel if you carefully examine the actions and agendas of the two groups you will see a major difference.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

So, at least we can agree that the basis for the formation of the state of Israel was terrorism which you seem quite comfortable with.

You seem less comfortable with Palestinian terrorism whose goal is to win an independent Palestinian state (we can go back and forth about what Israel has previously offered, the point is that it was unacceptable to the Palestinians so they keep fighting).

I'm amused that you use the term freedom fighter to describe the murderers of the Stern Gang but you use the term terrorist to describe those who murder in the name of Palestine. I am sure they would probably argue with your description of them as nihilists - I'm not familiar with Hezbollah charter, perhaps you can refresh our memories?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm just not that comfortable with people who want my death and are actively working towards it (I'm not just talking Hezbollah). I don't think the Israeli's are all about that. Do they make mistakes or even commit some bad deeds in the middle of a war? Looks that way. But do they want to wage a holy war against the Western world? Nope. I just think they want some secure borders.

_Oh no, gmac's suspended again?_


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

gmac said:


> So, at least we can agree that the basis for the formation of the state of Israel was terrorism which you seem quite comfortable with.
> 
> You seem less comfortable with Palestinian terrorism whose goal is to win an independent Palestinian state (we can go back and forth about what Israel has previously offered, the point is that it was unacceptable to the Palestinians so they keep fighting).
> 
> I'm amused that you use the term freedom fighter to describe the murderers of the Stern Gang but you use the term terrorist to describe those who murder in the name of Palestine. I am sure they would probably argue with your description of them as nihilists - I'm not familiar with Hezbollah charter, perhaps you can refresh our memories?


GMAC, I suggest you read your own link regarding the Stern Gang. Allow me to point out a few things:
1) Their targets were primarily infrastructure and strategic targets
2) They were small and for the most part were a fringe group in the overall struggle for independence 
3) They had a few high profile assassinations and the targets were government officials. Compare this to blowing up school children on a bus
4) They disbanded and joined the IDF when Israel was declared

Their intent was to make it so uncomfortable for the British that they would leave. Hamas/Hezbollah on the other hand has as its mission the destruction of the state of Israel and the killing of as many Jews as possible (provided they can get away with it). Hamas and Hezbollah's targets are not infrastructure. They prefer civilian targets as the shock value is greater. They are not fringe rather constitute the mainstream of Arab sentiment toward Jews and Israel. When given the opportunity, they did not disband. They instead remained terrorists. As for being nihilists I must admit I have not bookmarked Hamas/Hezbollah's website however that does not matter. They are as they do. They do not value anything external to themselves. Their recent actions are evidence ad infinitum. They have no morality external to themselves and sometimes I wonder about that. They do not value life, their own, their childrens' or their enemies. You can only point to the Stern Gang in your remarks whereas the terrorists have a long litany of terrorist groups that have murdered hundreds in the name of their "cause." I honestly cannot see how a comparison, qualitative or quantitative, can be made.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

gmac said:


> They did. I happen to subscribe to the Globe and Mail (not Toronto by the way, it is a national paper).


It is national in distribution but Toronto-based:

The Globe and Mail
444 Front Street West, 
Toronto, Ontario, 
M5V 2S9


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

A discussion of the Stern gang and pre-state Israeli militias cannot be complete without mentioning the Altalena

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair

As has been said by many already, the palestinians need to have "their Altalena" before they can make peace with Israel.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

GMAC

first lets talk about the bombing of the UN position in lebanon. any look at this type of incedent needs to include looking into friendly fire issues since the invention of modern artilary - when you are fireing a shell 40 kilometers, way over the line of site, there will be accidents. I think that anybody who would bother to read any wwii history, and espectially about frendly fire in wwii, would never bother again with any fantasies about isreal targeting friendly parties - tens of thousands of allied troops were killed by their own artilary in wwii, in incedents very similar to what happened here. in the first gult war, there were a number of high profile friendly fire killings, and I am sure when the history of gulf war ii comes out, it will include incedents. probrably 100 barrels of artilary were firing at various parts of lebanon that day. one of them was firing too close to the UN position. in all probrability what happened was that the UN observer called the person he normally interacted with on the israeli side, to complain. that guy probrably spent the rest of the day trying to track down who was shelling near that position, and trying to get them to shift the fire. you can also imagine that, due to a million israelis being under rocket fire, and about 100 thousand israelis soldiers called up and ready around the lebanese border, and a battle raging where 9 israeli infantry were killed and 25 or so wounded and pinned down, the army probrably had other things on its mind, unfortunate as that may have been. 



about the stern gang - 

1. first and foremost, the stern gang was a tiny and relativly insignificant part of the independence movement. remember that the leadership and members were effectivly shut out of public life for 25 years after the foundaton of the state. so considering this a major part of the independence movement, or saying that israel was founded on terrorism, is simply innacurate. 

2. while, yes, some people call hizballah terrorists, and some people called the stern gang terrorists, there the similarity ends. in almost every inncedent involving the stern gang, the targets were military or governmental. the most famous "terror" act of the period, the king david hotel, was serving as the military headquarters of the british army in palestine. just as importantly, warning was given, well in enough time to evacuate. the aim was not to kill people, it was to destroy the hq and disrupt opperations. just as much to the point, at the time the stern gang was operating, 6 million jews were being killed in gas chambers, many of whom would have been saved if the british were not limiting access to israel. a large part of the motivation was to try to save these lives. hizballah and hamas are large, popular groups that are mainstream in their socieiies and cultures. they have rejected plans that would have achieved peace and a state, and only wish to kill. and, frankly, they have no real reason, aside from a desire to kill. so, while it may be a fun intelectual excersize to call both groups terrorists, it is like calling an elephant and a wood tick animals, yes, they may be, but that doesn't make anything in common between them.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Forget it globetrotter, gmac got suspended again.

Regards,

Ken


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

gmac said:


> So, at least we can agree that the basis for the formation of the state of Israel was terrorism which you seem quite comfortable with.


Please allow me to remark the following:
1) The Stern gang were active in the 40s, in different times and under very different circumstances. 
2) The two terror groups were in the fringes of Jewish society, never in main stream. Their impact on the birth of Israel was marginal. The "Haganah" were the main Jewish force (90%), but for some reason you (and many others in our generation) prefer sensation over fact. David Ben Gurion, the leader of the Jewish population, took care of building the future state, simulataniously with fighting Israel's bitter enemies. Establishing institutions, new schools, infrastracture and places to employ the new emigrants were his highest priorities. Ben Gurion was flexible, ready to compromise on lands and teritorries, just to get anything possible, including a minuscule state. 
Palestinians never enjoyed such leadership. 
3) The most important thing to remember is that people change with time. Great people grow from low starting points. Such an example was the late Egyptian president, Anwar Saddat. 
On the Palestinian side, when Yassir Arafat was persented with a golden opportunity to be something more then a terorrist, he could not stand to the task. That is both the essence and symbol of the Palestinian tragedy.


----------

