Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

Bookee

Yea, just like "Dumb & Dumber" agreed, "Every Nation has a right to defend herself";
They're probably just waiting for Iran to get involved.
All the Arab countries should get together and boycott U.S. products, big time.Then see if "Dumb & Dumber" still support Israel.

Manic Moran

New_Departure06 wrote:

Hezbollah have a right to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

Wasn't it at least somewhat quiet in Lebanon before Hezbollah picked a fight? Israel had pulled out. Syria had pulled out. Even the Irish had pulled out. The Lebanese were finally starting to pick up the pieces, and Achmed Bloggs had to go and piss off the Israelis.

NTM

Hobbes

Lemming wrote:

What I find curiously intruiging through all of this is Bush's silence

He wasn't silent.. he was going on about how much he loved he was getting a roasted pig to eat (youtube for bush pig).

Although he recently has said he sides with Israel.

Manic Moran wrote:

I am intruigued by Hezbullah's weapons stores.

So was I in that they were very quickly trying to lay the blame on Syria/Iran. It was almost as if they were trying to provoke a response.

US can't hit Iran, just as Israel can't just hit Syria as both would light up the middle east, but if they had an excuse to hit either country then I am sure they will take it.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

The weapon that hit INS Hanit has been apparently identified as a C.802 anti-ship cruise missile.
...
Looking at pictures of INS Hanit returning to Israel, the missile impacted but did not detonate. Might be why they were able to identify the system.
...
The Lebanese military is armed by the US, Israel and Syria. C.802s have only been exported to one country: Iran.

The cynic in me wonders about the possibility of this being a frame-up.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

The cynic in me wonders about the possibility of this being a frame-up.

jc

Planting false evidence as a basis to justify a war? Naa nothing like that would ever happen.

New_Departure06

New_Departure06 wrote:

Hezbollah have a right to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

I assume you mean as a pre-emptive attack on Israel, rather than wait for them to actually attack? :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Israel are a disgrace to humanity. Terrorism pure and simple and dumb & dumber stay silent even though they massacred tens of thousands in the fight against terrorism.

Tens of thousands? Really? Such huge Massacres? Odd that. I can't recall seeing any mass graves being found. :rolleyes:


[edited. Realised in hindsight, it was insulting]

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Tens of thousands? Really? Such huge Massacres? Odd that. I can't recall seeing any mass graves being found. :rolleyes:


[edited. Realised in hindsight, it was insulting]

You may have realised in hindsight but you should have the foresight we provide to you via the charter.

FYI,I've seen the whole of your original post because it was reported and with that a copy of the post is automatically fowarded without your edit.

Do not do that again.There are many ways to get your view across here without it.

fair enough.

LostinBlanch

bonkey wrote:

The cynic in me wonders about the possibility of this being a frame-up. jc

I don't know, reading some of the Lebanese blogs last night, it was co ordinated to take place while a Hezbollah press conference was going on. The person giving it said something like "Israel look out and see your ships sinking" just before the ship was hit. Giving people time to look out their windows and see it live.

I think that the Israelis are taken aback by the extent to which Hizbollah are armed with sophisticated weapons. Robert Fisk on newstalk this morning described them as the 3rd most effective military force in the region.

Lets hope the international community gets it's act together and puts the squeeze on all sides to end it all though. Forlorn hope I know with Bush et al so firmly in the Israeli camp.

bonkey

LostinBlanch wrote:

I don't know, reading some of the Lebanese blogs last night, it was co ordinated to take place while a Hezbollah press conference was going on. The person giving it said something like "Israel look out and see your ships sinking" just before the ship was hit. Giving people time to look out their windows and see it live.

I wasn't aware of that.

Are any news source reporting this, or just bloggers?

Forlorn hope I know with Bush et al so firmly in the Israeli camp.

I'm not so sure thats where Bush is at all. He's made comments that while Israel uquestionably must have the right to defend herself, he urges restraint in the manner of that response. Comments have come as close to being critical as I think the US are willing to go.

However, I don't think the US will overtly back Israel at the moment. They've enough problems in the ME themselves without making it worse.

jc

LostinBlanch

bonkey wrote:

I wasn't aware of that.

Are any news source reporting this, or just bloggers?

I read that on a number of different blogs last night, some even gave transcripts of the press statement and then descriptions of people looking out their windows and cheering when the Israeli ship was hit.

bonkey wrote:

However, I don't think the US will overtly back Israel at the moment. They've enough problems in the ME themselves without making it worse.

Look this is Bush we're talking about here, don't forget that he's in bed with those crazies on the extreme religious right of the Republican party who actively want to see WW3 in order to bring about the second coming!

Very interesting read about Europes response. And yes, it is an Israeli blog.

Europe?s Disproportionate Criticism
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=136373

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Very interesting read about Europes response. And yes, it is an Israeli blog.

Europe?s Disproportionate Criticism
http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article.php?aid=136373

Long on criticism of Europe - short on what European countries should or could actually do about Iran's nukes, or Hizbollah, or any of this apart from chant another little mantra - the policies of the Israeli govt. are always right!

Europe will always be in the hapenny place to the US when it comes to the Go-Israel-bomb-the-Eyrab-savages cheerleading. ('Cos Europeans persecuted and killed the jews and we can never trust them because of that doncha know!)
Anyway klaz, why don't you go read your sig., then think a bit about it and how it may apply here.

bonkey

LostinBlanch wrote:

I read that on a number of different blogs last night, some even gave transcripts of the press statement and then descriptions of people looking out their windows and cheering when the Israeli ship was hit.

I'm not questioning that you read it on blogs. (Don't suppose you have a link handy though?)

I'm questioning whether or not it was reported by the so-called "mainstream" media.

If we assume the attacks were not a frame-up, and that these bloggers are truthful, then one should wonder why this hasn't been reported more widely.

Look this is Bush we're talking about here, don't forget that he's in bed with those crazies on the extreme religious right of the Republican party who actively want to see WW3 in order to bring about the second coming!

If you want to believe that the US is, in reality, run by a bunch of people with low-double-digit IQs, who are subject to extreme religious concepts and all of the rest of it...thats entirely your right.

jc

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Long on criticism of Europe - short on what European countries should or could actually do about Iran's nukes, or Hizbollah, or any of this apart from chant another little mantra - the policies of the Israeli govt. are always right!

Didn't think he went overboard by any measure. No more so than the many posts I see on Boards about Israel being in the wrong.

Nor did I see anywhere that said that the Israeli' Government was always right. If its there then I misread the piece. But I don't think I did.

Anyway klaz, why don't you go read your sig., then think a bit about it and how it may apply here.

Lol. I know my sig quite well thanks. I've had it for quite some time.

LostinBlanch

Bonkey,

I'll see if I can dig out the links (It's on a different computer) and pm it to you. I won't put it up on here as there are some very graphic and disturbing pictures on it.

As for the US regime, I don't recall describing the US as run by a bunch of people with low double digit IQs. I have no doubt That there are intelligent people in the administration but I am referring to the fact that a faction who seem to have a huge influence on Bush do want to set up a conflagration in hte Middle East so they can bring about the second coming.

Not dodging the argument here but this has the chance of taking the thread off topic. I'm not really too bothered about being seen to be right or wrong on this. Different people have different opinions. You have a higher opinion of the current US administration (and their motives) than I have. I only hope your optomism is well founded.

bonkey

LostinBlanch wrote:

Bonkey,

I'll see if I can dig out the links (It's on a different computer) and pm it to you. I won't put it up on here as there are some very graphic and disturbing pictures on it.

Thanks. I'd appreciate it.

As for the US regime, I don't recall describing the US as run by a bunch of people with low double digit IQs.

Bad assumption on my part. I partly-misread what you wrote.

I am referring to the fact that a faction who seem to have a huge influence on Bush do want to set up a conflagration in hte Middle East so they can bring about the second coming.

Fair enough. I think you over-estimate the pull they have with the man.

You have a higher opinion of the current US administration (and their motives) than I have. I only hope your optomism is well founded.

I have a higher opinion in that I don't think they're actively working towards a goal of bringing about WW3 in order to bring about the Second Coming.

I don't think, however, that their policy and capabilities are devoid of either stupidity, indifference to suffering, and/or malice.

jc

soma

..a good article from Israeli Journalist Uri Avnery. A very rational (and IMHO) accurate analysis of what we're seeing:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10584

PS Anyone posting that the only "targets" being destroyed in Lebanon are military/hezbollah needs their heads examined. Everything from hospitals to residential houses, tourist landmarks to refugee convoys are being attacked.

Bookee

bonkey wrote:

I'm questioning whether or not it was reported by the so-called "mainstream" media.

"Al Jazeera"

cnbiznes

Israil Is'nt right:mad:

Manic Moran

soma wrote:

..a good article from Israeli Journalist Uri Avnery. A very rational (and IMHO) accurate analysis of what we're seeing:

He certainly makes some good points, but I'd be curious to see him support some of the claims:

As in 1982, the present operation, too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the US.

As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the Lebanese elite.

and

But the huge military campaign that has been ready to go for months

The first one seems unlikely, but I'm not a political expert. I can't personally see any reason why the US government or military will be particularly interested in mucking around in Lebanon again, it's got some pretty poor memories from the last time they sent troops in militarily, and Lebanon is now something of a US ally in the area, but anyway.

As for the second one, again, I'd like to see some support for that assertation, unless he's talking about the contingency plans which the Israeli military would have drawn up. One would hope that the Israeli military had come up with several different campaign plans on several different levels. That's what they're paid for, after all. I'd lay money that in a file cabinet in Tel Aviv there's a folder with a campaign plan all ready to go to launch a surprise attack on Syria in the same manner as 1967, which is constantly updated. That doesn't imply any malicious intentions, it's just them being prepared for a possible task asked of them by the political leadership.

NTM

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Nor did I see anywhere that said that the Israeli' Government was always right. If its there then I misread the piece. But I don't think I did.

Well, Europe was wrong in its conclusions about Israel about pulling out of Lebanon originally, wrong to criticise Israel for air-policing and shelling Gaza, and for attacking Lebanon, and should be alot more forceful than it has been with Syria and Iran over state-sponsorship of terrorism, and with Iran over the nuclear issue (how isn't specified in detail in either case).

[In the latter case AFAIR, Israel has said that if the US/EU/others don't sort it out - they will not stand for a nuclear Iran, i.e. the clock is potentially ticking on a war.].

So European peace-nik dreamers* and Israel-Haters** are always wrong in their policies; Israeli govt. always correct!:) Except for when they've been pushed into the folly of not using their military advantage at every opportunity by the unjust criticism of said peace-niks and Israel-Haters.

Deleted User wrote:

Lol. I know my sig quite well thanks. I've had it for quite some time.

Maybe you should replace it with "Peace through superior firepower!" or something?

*But many idealistic European policy makers cannot see that a small war stopped prematurely now may only pave the way for a much larger war later.

**It may have escaped the minister that the initial act of war originated from Lebanon and that the target of this unprovoked aggression is supposedly also a “sovereign country” and “friend of France.”-

oscarBravo

cnbiznes wrote:

Israil Is'nt right:mad:

You might want to pad out your arguments just a little.

Sand

ah yeah Sand...same old same old....The delivery method is very important. Kill Innocent civilians with "women and children" or with F1-11s. The result is still the same except as you know the Israelis always get the bigger body count.

Pffft. And the small matter of jets hitting military targets, rather than pizza parlours like suicide bombers do. I guess the suicide bomber took a wrong turn somewhere. Maybe they were completely blind and missed that they were standing in a resteraunt and not a military target...

Lets face it, if Israel ever used children like Palestinian "freedom fighters" do, people would be doing handstands. But because the Israelis have jets its okay to trick kids into carrying bombs. Those kids in the Israeli jails are safer there than they would be in the hands of Palestinians who would send them to their deaths.

This is the mentality of those attacking Israel. Is sending a child to die in a suicide bombing valid, even if the target is a military checkpoint?

Diesel is now 1:14 at the Pump...Tomorrow it will be your Job...Thanks Israel!

Thank Hamas and Hizbollah, and their backers. Give credit where it is due.

If it is so completely hopeless, why doesn't Israel just get it's retaliation in first against the evil Arab Hordes threatening it rather than wait for the likely future increases in their numbers, power, and wealth to cause it even more problems in future?

It would be wrong and no right thinking human being could support it? But directing policy on the basis of appeasing an Arab opinion which devours books like Mein Kampf and sends its kids to blow you up? Youve heard of Chamberlain and all that havent you? You cant reason with evil hatred like that which underlies radical extremist Islam. You cant make them like you when theyre claiming you drink the blood of babies. Give peace a chance, yeah, but have a fallback plan.

Why is Israel trying to send Lebanon back to the 80's by undoing any progress made over the past few years?

AFAIK because Hizbollah operates in South Lebanon unchallenged and has been launching attacks on Israel from there, including killing 8 of its soldiers and kidnapping another two?

If anything, the targeting of Hizbollah may hopefully weaken it to the point where the Lebanese Army and Government can disarm it and take over responsibility for the entire territory.

We've already agreed on the fact that Hizbollah is alot more powerful, popular, and influential in Lebanon than the IRA ever was here - right?

The Lebanese govt. is alot weaker relatively than the Irish state.

Taking on Hizbollah vigourously in the way you suggest they should have done would be alot more risky for them than taking on the IRA was for the Irish govt.

Youre just making excuses for why the analogy was rubbish, not supporting the analogy itself. UK attacks on Provo targets in the Republic would have been crazy because the Republic was an ally in the fight against terrorist groups. Israeli attacks on Hizbollah targets in Lebanon? Well, weve already established Lebanon is not an Israeli ally in the fight against terrorist groups like Hizbollah.

Imagine the reaction if God forbid the Israelis were the recipients of such actions?

You wouldnt even hear about it. Unless its Palestinian suffering its not newsworthy...

Long on criticism of Europe - short on what European countries should or could actually do about Iran's nukes, or Hizbollah, or any of this apart from chant another little mantra - the policies of the Israeli govt. are always right!

That is so ironic. Did you even read the article? He highlighted that Europe failed to send peacekeepers to secure the border, ignored the Hizbollah buildup and attacks on Israel, and only offered kneejerk condemnation of Israel exercising its right to defend itself, with no suggestions on what a proportionate response would have been. Oh apart from another little mantra - the policies of the Israel govt. are always wrong!

A fairly concise summary of the views of many posters it would seem.

Europe will always be in the hapenny place to the US when it comes to the Go-Israel-bomb-the-Eyrab-savages cheerleading. ('Cos Europeans persecuted and killed the jews and we can never trust them because of that doncha know!)

Can you blame the Israelis for not being overly concerned about European opinion when its so blatantly and completely biased against them? To the point where Israels right to exist is questioned whilst shooting schoolkids is justified ....wooops sorry, understood.... by the quest for Palestinian nationhood...

So European peace-nik dreamers* and Israel-Haters** are always wrong in their policies; Israeli govt. always correct! Except for when they've been pushed into the folly of not using their military advantage at every opportunity by the unjust criticism of said peace-niks and Israel-Haters.

*But many idealistic European policy makers cannot see that a small war stopped prematurely now may only pave the way for a much larger war later.

Whats wrong with that statement? Wouldnt a French-UK military response to the occupation of the Rhineland or the Sudetenland, disproportionate to the provocation as it would be, have been a better option than WW2? An Israeli response to Hizbollah rocket attacks now is better than waiting for Iran to give them nukes...

Frederico

Anyone see the pictures on the news of Beirut south.. the Shia district? (main hizbollah support).. residential area very badly shot up. Israel doesn't seem overly concerned about innocent civilians, neither do Hizbollah of course, its becoming harder not to compare the two.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Well, Europe was wrong in its conclusions about Israel about pulling out of Lebanon originally, wrong to criticise Israel for air-policing and shelling Gaza, and for attacking Lebanon, and should be alot more forceful than it has been with Syria and Iran over state-sponsorship of terrorism, and with Iran over the nuclear issue (how isn't specified in detail in either case).

Can't say I disagree with too much of the above. Europe has been wrong to enforce its will over these issues when its failed so many times in the past to with-hold even partial support for regimes/governments that encourage terrorism. What happened in the last 6 years in Lebannon? Wasn't europe the one that encouraged a cease-fire, and "monitored" the rebuilding of Lebannon both through the infrastructure and the movement on power? Doesn't Europe bear some responsibility for the decisions it makes? Didn't European Military forces not recognise the build-up of the forces in Lebannon over the last 6 years?

"Europe" has a tendacy to criticise Israel about its actions but fails to recognise the resistance that they face from the majority of the nations on its borders. Has Israel been wrong in the past? Definetly. However Europe generally seems blindsighted to the actions of those other nations that help these conflicts to continue.

In the latter case AFAIR, Israel has said that if the US/EU/others don't sort it out - they will not stand for a nuclear Iran, i.e. the clock is potentially ticking on a war

can't say I blame them, since Iran has made no attempt to disguise their desire for the destruction of Israel. Whether it be rhethoric by top politicians, or weapons supplied to terrorist factions attacking Israel, Iran has made its position quite clear. A Nuclear Iran would be a definite threat to their existance.

So European peace-nik dreamers* and Israel-Haters** are always wrong in their policies; Israeli govt. always correct!:) Except for when they've been pushed into the folly of not using their military advantage at every opportunity by the unjust criticism of said peace-niks and Israel-Haters.

I think thats a bit harsh. The Article doesn't suggest that Europe is always wrong. Nor does it suggest that Europe is always right either. It points out that Europe has been lacking in its actions in the Middle east, and its not far from the truth.

I find it interesting that people here jump to point out that Israel is very quick to use their military (which they are), but fail to acknowledge the use of force by just about every player in the game. Palestinians rarely seek other means than violence. Lebannon just attacked Israel, and we hear cries against Israeli actions, instead of debate about whether lebannon is in the wrong for creating a conflict where there was none before. 6 years of peace thrown out the window, and people still jump to criticise Israel first. :rolleyes:

Is it any wonder that many Israeli's feel that Europe is a bit biased on the matter?

Maybe you should replace it with "Peace through superior firepower!" or something?

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Perhaps you should read it again, and apply it to the groups that you seem to wholeheartedly support. What matters to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless if the destruction that is caused because of a desire to destroy another nation? i.e. Israel. It amounts to the same thing with any country or people seeking the destruction of another nation.

I haven't said that I approve wholeheartedly of Israel. I don't. Nor have I said that I approve of overwhelming military force in response. However i do believe that a country has the right to defend its people from rocket attacks or an enemy that won't cease their endless war. (Hamas refuses to cease their oath for the destruction of Israel, as do Hizbollah)

Whether Israel is using too much force in response is another matter. The force applied seems similiar (I've read this in a number of articles) to the Coalitions lead up to the invasion of Iraq. This might be the new standard for invading another country. Not that it makes things easier for all the people involved. (israeli's, and all the people in Lebannon, whether citizens, or visitors). I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that Israel didn't want this war, both for the wear & tear on its people, and its economy. They were pushed too much.

Manic Moran

^^^ That was quite a good post.

Look this is Bush we're talking about here, don't forget that he's in bed with those crazies on the extreme religious right of the Republican party who actively want to see WW3 in order to bring about the second coming!

Truth from the mouths of babes... (Clip from Sky News, I think)
http://www.break.com/index/president_bush_swears.html

NTM

billy the squid

President Bush was caught on an open microphone talking with other leaders at the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg as they ate lunch before adjourning on Monday. At times the television camera was on Bush, at times it was panning the room. Some of the exchange was hard to hear over the clinking of plates and pouring of drinks. Here's a transcript by The Washington Post:

Someone, probably an aide, asks Bush something, evidently whether he wants prepared closing remarks for the end of the summit:

Bush: No. Just gonna make it up. I'm not going to talk too damn long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long.

The camera is focused elsewhere and it is not clear whom Bush is talking to, but possibly Chinese President Hu Jintao, a guest at the summit.

Bush : Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?

Bush : This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?

Reply is inaudible.

Bush : "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."

At this point, the president seems to bring someone else into the conversation.

Bush : It takes him eight hours to fly home.

He turns his attention to a server.

Bush : No, Diet Coke, Diet Coke.

He turns back to whomever he was talking with.

Bush : It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair approaches.

Bush : Blair, what are you doing? You leaving?

Blair : No, no, no, not yet.

Blair, standing over Bush as the president eats, tries to engage on the stalled global trade negotiations.

Blair : On this trade thing . . .

Some of the ensuing conversation is inaudible. Blair evidently wants Bush to make a statement on the talks.

Bush : If you want me to. I just want some movement. Yesterday, I didn't see much movement. The desire's to move.

Blair : No, no there's not. It may be that it's impossible.

Bush : I'll be glad to say it. Who's introducing me?

Blair : Angela. [German Chancellor Angela Merkel ]

Bush : Tell her to call on me. Tell her to put me on the spot.

Bush then changes the subject, presumably to a gift Blair must have given him for his recent 60th birthday.

Bush : Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you. I know you picked it out yourself.

Blair : Oh, absolutely.

Both of them laugh. Then Bush turns serious, asking Blair about comments apparently made about the Middle East crisis by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, another guest at the summit.

Bush : What about Kofi? That seems odd. I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically ceasefire and [then] everything else happens. You know what I'm saying?

Blair : Yeah. No, I think -- the thing that's really difficult is we can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed. Now, I know what you guys have talked about but it's the same thing.

The next remarks are i naudible, but the conversation turns to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

Blair : . . . see how reliable that is. But you need that done quickly.

Bush : Yeah, she's going. I think Condi's going to go pretty soon.

Blair : Right. Well, that's, that's, that's all that matters. If you -- see, it'll take some time to get out there. But at least it gives people a --

Bush : A process, I agree. I told her your offer too.

It's unclear what offer he means, but apparently Blair offered to make some sort of public statement.

Blair : Well, it's only if it's -- I mean, you know, if she's gotta -- or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Obviously, if she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can just go out and talk.

Bush : See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this ****, and it's over.

Blair : Who, Syria?

Bush : Right.

Blair : I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's [inaudible ] . That's what this whole thing's about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush : I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel. We're not blaming the Lebanese government."

At this point, Blair notices the microphone and turns it off.

Anyone else hear this conversation picked up during the G8 conference on the subject of Israel and Lebanon. What do people make of it.

the_syco

billy the squid wrote:

Anyone else hear this conversation picked up during the G8 conference on the subject of Israel and Lebanon. What do people make of it.

Its nice. You get what theyre saying, minus the spin-doctors, and meaningless woffel.