Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Pats726, Jul 17, 2006.
LarryJohnson ex-CIA guy....
I don't agree with this, Pats726--and I think in a few days, Larry Johnson won't agree with it either. It's becoming quite obvious to the rest of the world what role Hezbollah and Hamas are playing, and what role Syria and Iran are playing in the present conflict. The first reaction--that Israel was responding disproportionately to terror--is already fading. Within a week or 10 days at most, there'll be a cease fire in Lebanon and UN troops will patrol south Lebanon.
Read the article and stopped here....
Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective.
Question: Does the dumb, Nascar hick american population "get it" yet?
Very opinionated, quite inaccurate, and essentially wrong, particularly in his insistence that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorists, just because they serve their communities in other ways. Just because Al Capone hires your nephew to run something over to a lieutenant and gives him a hundred bucks a day, doesn't mean he's not a gangster.
HOWEVER, I do personally question the wisdom of this protracted engagement, from a pro-Israeli point of view.
It's become a tired canard that "the poor little Israel myth is dead," etc. This country is outmanned and hated, and for the crime of its existence -- end of story. Israel's going out of its way to avoid targeting civilians, far more assiduously than America demands of its armed forces, and obviously far more assiduously than the Hamas and Hezbollah forces Israel is fighting against. Taking captives is also not a "military" way of doing things, as this guy suggests. Taking prisoners as a concommitant to war is pretty standard behavior, but kidnapping? Hey, it's war. But that ain't according to Hoyle. And while we're at it, the irregular -- as has been pointed out in the context of Iraq -- invokes the "rules of war" at his peril, given that he blends with the population specifically to circumvent the rules of war.
Does that mean you can hold a guy with no uniform indefinitely, with no trial, or try him with rules rigged to find him guilty? Not according to Geneva. But you don't gild the lilly and call him a model of honor either.
Hamas and Hezbollah bomb bus stops, weddings, and pizza joints, and do so on purpose. Don't kid yourself. They're exactly what they were before Israel took action: terrorist organizations that happen to engage in some actions beneficial to their own people, such as social services.
Israel doesn't target such venues, and leaflets areas they expect military actions to take place in. I am sure the next whine will involve how Israel doesn't give civilians enough advance notice.
This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and rat poison.
Quite inaccurate??? Like what????
Hmm really??? I don't think that is true...maybe for those who like what Israel is doing...
Cut and paste the rest of my post, read it, since it is now in your post, and you'll see that it went on to point out particular inaccuracies (for example, his characterization of Hamas and Hezbollah as "not terrorists.")
Pats726, I don't know that there are a lot of people who like what Israel is doing--although there are some. But I think a growing number understand Israel's motives and have a hard time arguing with them. As a result, we're seeing significantly less outrage from France, which is most subject to it, and fewer calls for an immediate cease-fire. I think Russia can't say a great deal, since it has its own terrorist problems, and I don't think China cares much as long as the fighting doesn't expand. There are protests in Germany, but the protesters are Arabs, not Germans.
What we're seeing here, in my view, is a self-limiting conflict. A week or two and it will be over. The Israeli soldiers will be returned, some Arabs in Israeli prisons will be released, the Lebanese Army (if those two words can be used together) will occupy Lebanon's southern border, and they may be reinforced by a UN contingent.
The long-term consequences for Israel will mostly be positive. No more rocket attacks from southern Lebanon, more caution from Hamas terrorists. Iran will have proved that it has a pretty good land-to-sea missile, but that its land-to-land missiles have the accuracy of a blind baseball pitcher. Syria will realize that if Hezballah had gone a single step further, Iraeli aircraft would have bombed Damascus. All in all, not a bad result for Israel.
As far as outage aganst Israel..time will tell how strong that is..and how the politics of it turn out. Very apparent that all the talk of the kidnapping was just a justification of a plan they have had for many years..nd have needed an excuse to use. I don't know how that plays out..
I also agree that it seems limiting and NOT spreading which is good news..it's not getting to Syria or involving Iran and there will be prisoner exchanges..which Hezbullah wanted from the start and what Israel said would never happen. I am sure they will either the Lebonese Army and or a UN contingent in Southern Lebanon..saving Israel from a highly dangerous occupation there.
Once again to remind everyone, these people flew planes into buildings to kill as many Americans (yes even you libearls too) as they could! Do you honestly feel that you can sit down and rational discuss anything with them? It is just not going to happen! Israel was hammered by CLinton to hand over land, and they did, and every concession got them more terrorists attacks. To think that diplomacy with these lunatics is going to work is sheer madness. What has proven to work everytime????
Fanatical MUSLIM Terrorists:
If we "Neo Cons" don't like them and consider them SAVAGES then that means the American Sore Losing Bush Hating Liberals LOVE THEM.
They love them because we hate them.
essentially wrong???----I think that is a matter of viewpoint..and your disagreement is your point of view..which is all good...
very opinionated??---Yes..as is most on this board..like yours is NOT opinionated??? LOL....
quite inaccurate----ACTUALLY this is totally WRONg..disagree..yes, but quite inaccurate??? far far short of even inaccurate...just because you disagree doesn't mean it's inaccurate..
To spare you further embarassment, I'll stick with the first paragraph:
Fabrications (AKA, Lies)
Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through.Ă˘â‚¬
He was an officer in the Israeli infantry. This is especially ridiculous, as every Israeli is expected to serve in the armed forces, and Olmert was born and raised in Israel. Having even read the intro paragraph, it became clear to me that this Larry Johnson character has accuracy issues. http://judaism.about.com/od/politics/p/bio_olmert.htm
Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“Ă˘â‚¬Â¦Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“
At the time Johnson wrote, Israel had not invaded Lebanon. The operation was purely aerial. The "invasion" thus far is a matter of cross-border raiding that began yesterday.
Basic flawed and opinionated thesis:
Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective.Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“
He knows this how? The same way he Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“knowsĂ˘â‚¬ about mandatory IDF service? I wonder about objective as well but do not take it as a foregone conclusion that it does not exist. But then again, I am more careful about my facts than Johnson.
You also have my earlier post regarding Johnson's bold, but wrong, assertion that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. Johnson is not stating opinion, he is lying. Ask the REAL CIA, and you'll get a little more accuracy on the matter. For that matter, ask the relatives of those non-combatants who have been murdered over the years in the course of Hamas and Hezbollah operations -- who were the intentional targets of those operations. Both groups attack any available target which is not in a fighting military posture, preferably (of course) non-military targets. (although they have shown themselves capable of the more military objective of driving a truck into a barracks.)
I don't know what Johnson's credentials on the subject of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah are, but from the looks of his work he's stretching familiarity with Langley into a blogging career.
That's why this rubbish is inaccurate, not "just because I disagree."
Apparently he has some analysis issues as well.
From a July 10th 2001 NYTIMES editorial.
That whole article just gets funnier and funnier... he also notes how the country where most "terrorism" occurs is Colombia. He also notes that Colombian terrorists "shy away" from causing any casualties, and mainly target oil and gas pipelines.
Okay, do I say my car was "terrorized" or "vandalized" now?
Thanks for turning me on to this guy, whoever started the thread. I'm beginning to understand the "other side" of this issue.
This point of his is quite accurate, though it's been made by others as well:
"In the past, the United States had enough credibility on both sides and kept enough of a distance during these blood fueds so that we could intervene and prevent the fighting from escalating into a gigantic war. It appears that there is no one in the Bush Administration who can step up and intervene to calm the situation. Hell, with John Bolton and Elliot Abrams leading the charge, we are Israel's enablers."
I remember that a month or two prior to 9/11, the NYT ran an article where various Middle East experts expressed concern that Bush had broken the American policy of engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts that was started by Carter. The policy had worked quite well, and Bush's disregard for the Middle East in my opinion may have abetted Al Qaeda. Now we're seeing that our disregard has made us into a largely uninfluential player in the war between Israel and Hezbelloh. We are a little weaker country now, then we were prior to Bush taking office. Israel ignores us; terrorists kill our troops; there are repeated homegrown efforts to launch terror attacks; we don't have the troop strength to take on another war. The right-wing is being emasculated by its own policies.
Who are these people, these "them" of whom you speak?? Please enlighten us.
Muslim Terrorist Savage Bastards the kind that slaughtered 3000 innocent men women and children in two hours right here in your country, they roasted alive, they smothered, they choked to death and some when there was no other way jumped from a hundred stories up and flapped their arms trying to fly while their children watched them die on TV, thats who them are, "The Filthy Vermin Greasy Smelly Scum that want all Infedels DEAD DEAD DEAD.
Uncle Teddy once said "Saddam Has To Go", well, he's gone, Bush took care of that.
I'm going to split hairs on this one.
First item, Johnson is horrible about accuracy, and evidently thinks he has a stronger case the closer it gets to absurdity. More likely he thinks people will debate absurdity more vigorously than a "centrist" position, so he just lets fly, and pats himself on the back when people argue the points.
Second item, I agree that engagement was a stronger policy than ignoring the middle east.
Now, thirdly - I disagree that Israel is "ignoring" the United States. The U.S. has said very little to ignore on the matter. I also think it likely -- especially with the timing of the Iran discussion in front of the Security Council -- that Israeli and American officials discussed Israel's action before the fact. I would not be surprised if the Bush Administration saw these actions as a "win-win" for Israel and the U.S.
No, I don't think either country had anything to do with the kidnappings, but I could easily see a "On the next provocation, let fly" scenario.
And the reason I still think Israel is in the right? The same reason the above worked: There is always a provocation.
There shouldn't always be a provocation.
So yes, Johnson has a good point; no, Johnson does not have credibility, so his good points are lost among the garbage; yes, the U.S. is stronger when her diplomacy is an earnest endeavor, rather than a PR mop-up as an adjunct to war.
PatsFanInVa, I have no idea who Larry Johnson is, but I saw his commentary as being a reasonable point of view. What do you find so objectionable. I will say his writing does not live up to the editorial standards of a newspaper, but for a blog column, it's pretty darn good.
I do think Israel is largely ignoring the United States because they know that the U.S. has little choice but to back the Israeli position. If the U.S. did not do that and Israel continued to attack, it would create a lot of complications for our foreign policy. Now, don't get me wrong. Bush could exert a lot more influence on Israel, but Israel knows that the U.S. is not about to go over to the other side.
Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but war empowers hawks, not doves. The doves are all silenced (they don't want to be accused of being soft, against the troops, and so on). Now we have a situation like in Iraq where peace is being left to people who believe in violence as a solution. It makes for a volatile situation. This is especially sad when there was evidence of splits in Hamas and a softening of position by Syria.
Israel can't wipe out the radicals except by making peace with the Palestinians. War might buy them a little time, but at what expense?
Patters, I for one see his commentary as off-the-spectrum, lefter-than-thou tripe that makes for this sort of debate. Read both of them, the first one that kicked off the thread, and the second one where he insists that pipeline bombers who avoid casualties are the bulk of the terrorism issue.
The blatant lie regarding Olmert either bespeaks total ignorance of your supposed subject, or simple smear tactics. He wants his position to be right, so the truth may just be "collateral damage"? Or did he just want Olmert not to have served enough that he didn't bother to check? Either way, I don't know what "pretty good for a blog" means. If it means of course he's wrong and he's a liar, all bloggers are, but I like how he lies, okay fine. I can't argue with that, because it makes no sense. But if it means you feel he's got a good bead on the issue -- your followup position -- I just cannot agree with you on that opinion.
I certainly can agree that peace is the better alternative for Israel than large-scale actions, and that Israel could have ignored the kidnappings once more. I certainly don't think Israel should have gone for another 300-1 prisoner exchange however. And look at the Hamas complaints: "we did this before, and there was an exchange of prisoners... how could Israel do this to us..." The gist of it is that Israel is in the wrong, because the terrorists feel they have a tacit right to kidnap Israelis for the purpose of effecting prisoner swaps.
Without getting into the down and dirty details, I DO think negotiation is the preferred course. But guys like this Johnson character don't help that position one iota. Neither do lies to the effect that Israel's military actions are on a par with -- or worse than -- the terrorist actions they're designed to counter.
Do I question the wisdom of the scale of this attack? Yes. Do I question Israel's right to engage in the action? No.
So the complaint is that Israel does not check with Washington before pursuing a national security objective? Well, since we don't know that Israel did not do so (and we don't know that Israel did,) you can put your mind at rest on that subject, for this round. An ally, however, is not a satellite. If George Bush has objections, he needs to voice them. Thus far the U.S. is surprisingly quiet about Israel's actions.
Israel isn't holding the U.S. Government hostage, Patters. Hezbollah and Hamas are holding soldiers hostage. They intend too to terrorize the civilian population of Israel. And in pursuing this course, and doing so as irregulars, they put other populations at risk, that is, the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations.
Don't start nothin', won't be nothin', as we say in D.C. (and also on Men in Black.) Terrorism's not okay as a modus operandi. Intentional targeting of civilians is not okay as a form of "freedom fighting." In fact, it's disgusting.
So again: Does Israel have the moral right? Yes. Is there a wiser course? Possibly. However, Israel has chosen not to implicitly accept terror tactics as a concommitant to their withdrawl from Gaza, and their earlier withdrawl from S. Lebanon.
I dont know anything about Larry Johnson's politics but damn, can he run downhill with that pigskin.
Having that monster line paving the way in front of him doesnt hurt either.
OK...I was addressing FTW, but since you know who they are...please tell us.
You say they are muslims? What nationalities are they?
Are those fanatical muslims Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians???
Who, man, who are they?? Cuz as far as I can tell, the guys you are referring to are still alive and well...probably hanging with Bushs allies in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
Smelly muslim you say Harry?? Can you be more specific or is that the fullest extent of your mental capacity??
While I don't agree with all of what Larry Johnson said in the article, I knew there would be disagreements..and that is certainly fine..I expected that...but I didn't expect sophomoric attacks by some pissants, who cavalierly throw out things like "quite inaccuate".."horrible with accuracy"...
In the Section called AKA Lies...
This is what Johnson said.... "Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military." OK.."reportedly never served".. His reports were wrong..fine, but basically this wrong fact was taken out of context..."Like George Bush"...we all know he served..Johnson does as well..and if THAT paragraph was correctly understood, it wasn't about NOT serving, but that BOTH had little to do with launching military operations. Did Olmert have anything to do with launching any military operations?? The link provides this about his Military career..."Olmert served in the IDF as a combat infantry unit officer. Later he worked as a reporter for the Israeli army journal."...VERY little about actually what he did..NOTHING at all about military operations..not even dates of when he was in the military..and how much time he was a reporter. Johnson's point clearly was that neither Bush or Olmert had much military experience dealing with the larger issues. If Olmert did in fact have THAT experience,
then, a charge of being inaccurate would be in order, but as it stands now,
that is NOT TRUE!!
Where did Johnson say it was a "land invasion"??? OR did I miss a word or two?? Invasion does not equal a land incursion...sorry, you obviously believe that but I think you have to look at the many meanings of invade..."infringe" "encroach upon"...Do you believe that Israel in it's aerial bombardment has not infringed on Lebonese air space?? Again, a point about lies is made and it is NOT TRUE!!!!
And then in "Basic flaws and opinionated thesis,
Lying?? So apparently because he disagrees he is lying?? This clearly depends on one's point of view..If one disagrees they are lying...I think it ALL depends on point of view..Maybe you never heard of the term "one person's terrorist is another freedom fighter."
The real CIA???
And so..what?? That defines what terrorism is?? Would you ask the families of the Canadian citizens who were killed by Israel in the bombing?? Obviously you disagree with Johnson's thoughts on this..and obviously that means he is lying...Here is what he says about Hamas and Hezbullah....
"What about Hamas and Hezbollah? They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists. They are something far more dangerous. They are fully functioning political, social, religious, and military organizations that use terrorism tactics, but they are far more formidible than terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Basque Terrorist Organization. They do have the resources and the personnel to project force, sustain operations, and cannot be easily defeated. Unlike the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1973, Hamas and Hezbollah will not easily fold and cannot be defeated in a seven day war. If that is the assumption among some Israeli military planners it is a crazy fantasy."....More dangerous than Al Qaeda???
Here is a bit about Mr Johnson... Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs foreign governments on a regular basis on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on product counterfeiting and smuggling. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State DepartmentĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State DepartmentĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US GovernmentĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. JohnsonĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US GovernmentĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIAĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s OperationĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American UniversityĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.
Embarassment?? Let's see...a quote out of context and a paragraph totally misunderstood and a definition that one didn't think of..I think you disagree so much with him that your emotions cloud your thoughts...As to other paragraphs..this is enough "rubbish" for me, including your so called pronouncements of inaccuracies...the only sniff you will have of the CIA of Langley is from miles away driving in your car...
I find it interesting how anyone who seems to have a different opinion of Israel is always attacked, taken over the coals and trashed..NOT just disagreed with..
Pats726, your man Larry is simply a liar or an ignoramous, I think the former, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you choose to argue the latter (though it's at odds with your research on his credentials. Congratulations, by the way... you just out-researched a CIA analyst, with a counterterrorism company, who briefs our own military -- and he had an easy subject, a world leader!)
You're having a really fun little jaunt through your dictionary, thesaurus, and mental gymnastics home jungle gymâ„˘, trying to make 2+2=5. It's just not going to work.
Mr. Johnson - whose sterling credentials would suggest he could fact-check his lead paragraph - is either wrong (but how? look at his credentials... and this is such a simple thing to check....) or lying.
1) Ehud Olmert did serve. Mr. Johnson says he did not serve.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to stick with good old Aristotelian, "either A or not A" logic here. The case is that Mr. Olmert did serve. Johnson's first accusation is that he never served in a combat unit. The name of Olmert's unit was the combat infantry. Then Johnson says Olmert "reportedly" did not serve at all. Oh that's right. If you put "reportedly" in front of the second smear attempt, it indemnifies you from inaccuracy. So Mr. Johnson's second smear is of no value because he is incapable of gathering factual information?
You are only arguing the mechanism by which Johnson's credibility is rendered null and void, not whether it is. This smear is not "out of context," it is the thrust of his first paragraph.
Beyond that, your arguments are well over the line into the realm of the Orwellian; your entire reply looked like an entry in the newspeak dictionary.
2) I'm not going point by point with you through your last post. It's just funny at this point. Why was D-Day an invasion, whereas Dresden was a bombing? Why is it said we never had to invade the home islands of Japan after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were the rocket attacks against Israel prior to the events of the last two weeks, invasions? How about the kidnapping of the soldiers held by Hezbollah? Perhaps if tourists travel to a country on vacation, that too can be considered an invasion. Invasion is not used as a synonym for an air war. You are attempting to split hairs here -- your boy is caught again, but it's just pointless to go on. I could even stipulate to #2 -- that, for Larry Johnson and for his supporters, a bombing raid is an "invasion" -- because point #1 is so solidly decided. For the record, I do not stipulate to #2, because it is almost as assinine a position as #1 (the claim that Olmert never served).
3) After the rant in which you've chosen to defend the lie in the lead paragraph of Johnson's smear sheet, I can see you have no interest in the truth of matters, only in your own spin on the situation, and your claim that where you and Mr. Johnson are wrong, it is my personal "opinion".
The very fabric of the English language -- nay, of logic itself -- must be torn apart and rewoven for this truth to be merely my "opinion."
Either Olmert has a service record or he does not. Either "Terrorism" means the intentional targeting of civilians, or it does not. If the point of the exercise is to denigrate the English language, or insult the intelligence of readers, by claiming black is white, up is down, freedom is slavery, war is peace, etc., you may be on the way to succeeding.
However, if your point is to spew as many words as possible without regard to the possibility of defining a truth, basically believing it to be a moveable feast, you can preserve your subjective belief that you are right forever -- but at the cost of being able to use the language to express meaningful thoughts. If your expression depends on the nonexistence of meaning, you not only cannot be depended upon, you cannot be meaningfully spoken to.
I have no reason to believe that a man who does not know the difference between "served" and "did not serve" has much to add to a discussion of fine points such as definitions of terrorism. Your heartfelt plea that those who target civilians should not called terrorists -- per Johnson's recommendation -- has fallen on deaf ears, in my particular case.
Good luck with that one though.
One edited-in comment: Check what the CIA puts out on terrorism, as an organization -- that is what I mean by the REAL CIA. I did not mean to somehow imply that I walk into CIA HQ every day, learn what I can, and write it into Patsfans.com bulletin board posts. If you got the impression I was claiming to be a CIA operative, that certainly was not my intent, and I do not now, nor have ever worked or claimed to work for the CIA, even when I was drunk and trying to impress a girl.
I guess I'm slightly OT as usual, but I read this thread's title and saw a very poignant quote on bbcnews.com:
When one Israeli soldier is kidnapped, the whole world goes crazy, but Israel kidnapped a whole nation.
that was by a reader, identifying himself as Mike.
You are not OT...you are totally clueless as to what is going on over there.
Are you there right now? We are ALL clueless about what's going on there. What I'm not clueless about is the history and build-up to the current situation. I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall when Condo-sleeza Rice has her meetings this week, maybe then I'd be less clueless. But can you honestly say that ONE captured soldier is worth all of the civilian casualties, all the destruction, and the potential death of a young Lebanese democracy?
I can't honestly say that one (I think it's three, by the way) captured soldier justifies the Israeli response.
However, the paradigm itself is wrong. The captured soldiers are only the latest in a long, long line of bombings, shellings, suicide attacks on school buses and pizza parlors, etc., etc., etc. I'm speaking of the last six years, since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, but I could just as easily be speaking of the last 50 years.
So, to begin with, your premise is wrong. Try factoring in the history--the recent history, if you wish. Add the future threat. Why did Hezbollah stockpile 10,000 missiles? Excess warehouse space in Southern Lebanon?
Why would a group like Hezbollah, which provided many social services in Lebanon, build such an arsenal--and, by the way, use it, not just now, but for the last few years?
Those are important questions because that, in large part, those missiles are the underlying reason for Israel's attack on Lebanon. To put it another way, no missiles, no Israeli attack.
You can accuse Israel of many things--over-reaction, disproportionality, disregard for civilian life--but I do not think that anyone can accuse Israel of irrationality.
Israel saw Hezbollah stockpiling--and using--the missiles and drew the obvious conclusion: that sooner or later, all of these missiles would be crossing Lebanon's border and heading for the cities and towns of northern Israel.
Then Israel made the decision not to wait until the missiles were launched, but to destroy as many as it could. Hezbollah cleverly mingled the missiles among the civilian population. This, they thought, would protect the missiles from Israeli assault, because Israel would not risk world condemnation by attacking these areas.
Hezbollah miscalculated. Israel does not enjoy world condemnation. It does not enjoy killing civilians--unlike, say, Hezbollah. But it enjoys the prospect of extinction even less. This is something to keep in the forefront of your mind when thinking about Israel.
I understand why it is difficult for others to understand this. Very few countries in modern times have ever faced total extinction. Defeat yes, occuation yes, regime change yes, even enslavement. But not extinction.
Of course, the idea of extinguishing a nation seems a bit on the preposterous side. If not for the Holocaust, it might even be unimaginable. But the Jews learned something from the Holocaust, and maybe they learned it too well: never again.
I'm not sure exactly how you'd characterize that, Bruschiontap, but I don't think it's a plea for "Jew-sympathy."
Who cares what their nationalities are thats not what drives the smelly pigs to kill it's the fanatical belief in their religion that does it, why didn't the filthy f-cking dogs go after the military or the politicians why did they target 3000 innocent civilians, women and children, they come in all nationalities but they only come in one religion "Islam" they want you f-cking DEAD.
The batty kiss a$s lovey dovey liberals still can't get it through their sappy heads that America is at war with an enemy that won't stop fighting until every one of them is dead and gone. They will kill you and they will kill your children no matter how much you slobber over them.
Separate names with a comma.