Haifa hit by heaviest rocket attack yet

[maddezmom]

JERUSALEM - A barrage of Hezbollah rockets struck the port city of Haifa city Sunday, injuring dozens of people, in the heaviest attack on Israel's third-largest city since fighting with the Lebanese-based militia began nearly four weeks ago.

Emergency services confirmed a number of people had been injured and were being sent to several hospitals. Initial reports by Israeli media indicated the casualty toll would be high.

A spokesman for the Haifa fire department, Chezi Levi, said one crowded residential district suffered five or six hits, and that there were many casualties.

At least one house collapsed, apparently trapping people inside, Channel 2 television reported.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_haifa_attack_1

[ruggerson]

1. Get ready for the "Israel is too" brigade n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Both sides should stop attacking civilians.

Is that an is too brigade comment?

[jpkenny]

159. Isn't this old news from Sunday?

[Zhade]

21. The killing of civilians on both sides needs to stop NOW.

I don't think any one of us can disagree to that!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

36. As I said, the killing of civilians on both sides needs to stop now.

NT!

[Behind the Aegis]

41. You made a GREAT point!

[Zhade]

42. No, s/he made a bullshit personal attack, as evidenced by the delete.

I have equally condemned the deaths of civilians on both sides.

What was quoted did not show anything but my contempt for Israel's war crimes. You'll note that the attacker didn't post the quotes wherein I also condemned Hezbollah's war crimes - some of those comments are in this very thread.

[mtice]

120. Who or what will stop Hezbollah from killing civilians...

... if not the IDF, doing exactly what we have been witnessing? If Lebanon had the will or the power, it had 6 years to act - it chose not to. Syria obviously supports what Hezbollah is doing, as does Iran. There is no other country with enough influence to make a difference in Hezbollah's behavior.

[Ms. Clio]

124. apparently you haven't noticed that the IDF "doing exactly what we have

been witnessing" has utterly failed to stop the rocket attacks. Ultimately the only way out of this disastrous situation will be discussions and negotiations.

[mtice]

127. Given that

there have been more ceasefires, discussions, and negotiations between Israel and her enemies over the past few decades than in any other conflict in the world, what makes you think that talks now will be any more successful than ones in the past? Give them time - soon enough Hezbollah will run out of rockets to fire, now that they can no longer easily get resupply from Syria and Iran.

[Ms. Clio]

132. "Hezbollah will run out of rockets to fire"

yeah, maybe in some alternate universe that will happen. Not in this one.

[lumpy]

157. So the IDF stops Hezbollah

by killing civilians. Makes sense. (sarcasm)

[joemurphy]

2. Sad and stupid. Anybody for a cease fire? n/t

[Stella_Artois]

5. I'm all for a ceasefire

Not one that involves European troops though. There isn't a square inch of that area that is worth the life of a single EU soldier. Its America that likes to puff its chest out and presume to be the "worlds policeman".

[joemurphy]

10. I can kind of see your point, but the EU hasn't been remarkably

good about shouldering responsibilities either. I'm thinking about Bosnia and Kossovo.

I'm ashamed of America's role in this Lebanese fiasco, but I would hope that the EU would step in, if needed, and provide some responsible leadership and help in at least defusing things if there is a real opportunity to do so.

[leftchick]

14. Israel is against a cease fire

why I don't know. :(

[Zhade]

19. Latani River?

NT!

[leftchick]

24. yes

and Iran in the scariest of scenarios....



http://www.juancole.com/

:(

[Zhade]

35. Holy... this deserves its own thread!

Non-OPEC production will decline sharply in coming years, increasing the importance of the Persian Gulf region. The point about excess capacity is this: The US in 2005 produced over 7 million barrels of petroleum a day, but consumes all of it, and then imports two times that from abroad (using nearly 22 million barrels a day in 2005). So US petroleum is essentially off the market. But Saudi Arabia produces 9.5 million barrels a day and exports over 7 million of that. It doesn't use it all up at home. Even now, the excess production is in the Gulf, and that excess production will become more important over time.

It may be that that hawks are thinking this way: Destroy Lebanon, and destroy Hizbullah, and you reduce Iran's strategic depth. Destroy the Iranian nuclear program and you leave it helpless and vulnerable to having done to it what the Israelis did to Lebanon. You leave it vulnerable to regime change, and a dragooning of Iran back into the US sphere of influence, denying it to China and assuring its 500 tcf of natural gas to US corporations. You also politically reorient the entire Gulf, with both Saddam and Khamenei gone, toward the United States. Voila, you avoid peak oil problems in the US until a technological fix can be found, and you avoid a situation where China and India have special access to Iran and the Gulf.

The second American Century ensues. The "New Middle East" means the "American Middle East."

And it all starts with the destruction of Lebanon.

That's PNAC, in a nutshell - and we know a couple of PNACers wrote "A Clean Break: A Strategy For Securing The Realm" for Netanyahu in the 90s.

[leftchick]

53. There is a great one actually....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1832012

I am sorry I forgot to post the link. They seem to get locked around here lately.

[DemFromMem]

48. It's Lebanon that is now the obstacle

A HUGE disappointment...


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746632.html

Parliament speaker: Lebanon rejects draft UN truce resolution
By Aluf Benn and Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies

The Lebanese government rejects a United Nations Security Council draft resolution to end the fighting, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said Sunday, as it would allow the Israel Defense Forces to remain on Lebanese soil.

Lebanon submitted an amendment to the Security Council on Sunday calling for an Israeli withdrawal to be added to the resolution.

The Security Council was expected to meet Monday to discuss the terms of the resolution.

The draft text for a UN Security Council resolution on ending the crisis in Lebanon, was agreed Saturday by the United States and France.

[Ms. Clio]

50. what "obstacle" -- they don't want Israeli troops on their soil

is that so unreasonable?

[DemFromMem]

54. Yes.

This resolution is supposed to be a first step to stop the violence and then is to be followed by a second resolution in a few weeks where Israel withdraws and is replaced by Lebanese forces. If Lebanon showed a willingness to disarm Hezbollah and take over in the south, this would have been a different deal.

It shows me that Lebanon is not serious about its call for a ceasefire. France is certainly not Israel's best friend and the fact that they are a primary drafter of this plan should tell you something.

[Zhade]

55. It shows me that they don't trust Israeli troops on their soil.

Given the high numbers of avoidable civilian casualties in Lebanon, I can't blame them - especially when Israel has been dishonest in this conflict (e.g., the way they changed their story several times about the Qana bombing).

[DemFromMem]

91. Israel has nothing to apologize for

They were attacked. A war was brought to them that they did not provoke. Civilians die in war. That's the end of the story and you can hem and haw all you like about Israel exercising restraint. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans bombed London, we didn't wring our hands wondering how "honest" we were being about German and Japanese civilians getting killed. The Lebanese can explain to their children one day how they ceded control of a whole region of their country to an Islamic extremist party with its own terrorist wing and how this resulted in hundreds of people getting killed and terrible destruction to their towns and cities.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans get it even if the extremists here at DU don't.

[Ms. Clio]

96. You can believe it was unprovoked, but that is not true

and the WW2 comparisons are so ridiculous they don't require further analysis. The Lebanese did not "cede control" since they never had it to begin with.

[Zhade]

99. And the vast majority of the world knows better than you...

...and rightly condemns the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians. They also understand the truth, which is that the Lebanese people don't have a choice in Hezbollah being in southern Lebanon.

My sigline applies to you, and all who support collective punishment, a tactic used by the German army in the very war you mentioned.

[DemFromMem]

116. You mean all those European countries

with their wonderful record on human rights over the last century. The only reason there IS an Israel is because the whole world sat by and watched the slaughter of the Jews. Puhleeze. Israel SHOULD ignore the rest of the world who would be happy to see the country disappear.

Sometimes America IS right and the rest of the world is wrong.

[Ms. Clio]

125. Sorry to burst your bubble, but America sat by and watched that happen

too.

[DemFromMem]

142. The US didn't gas and shoot 100 of my relatives

so you can try the typical moral equivalency arguments we see here and I won't buy. And I was also speaking of the pogroms of the early 20th century. Our open immigration rules saved a lot of lives.

The Europeans have NO moral authority to weigh in in this conflict. Sorry if that's inconvenient.

[Ms. Clio]

143. You seem to be conflating Nazi Germany and Czarist Russia

with the entire entity known as "Europe." Did France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc. gas anyone? No. So why you want to blather on about Europe's "moral authority" at this juncture is beyond me.

And sorry if you can't deal with the fact that the U.S. knew exactly what was going on in Germany during the late 1930s and early 1940s, and did not do anything about it. As for saving lives, perhaps you are also not aware that the U.S. actually cut off most immigration from southern and eastern Europe, including Russian Jews, in the 1920s. Who knows how many lives might have been saved if that had not been the case?

Sorry if that's all terribly inconvenient. History often is.

[DemFromMem]

146. Dumb conversation

Blaming the US for the Holocaust? That's what it's come down to for the Euro-defenders? Makes it a lot easier to accuse Israel of war crimes when you advance silly arguments like this.

As for confusing Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany, I knew exactly what I was saying. Russia began the century with pogroms of the most horrible nature. The Nazis continued the tradition as the century went along. Jews died in virtually every country in Europe with a few notable exceptions. Of all the countries allied with the Nazis or under their control, only Bulgaria acted to save its Jewish community. Sweden acted admirably in rescuing Danish Jews. Holland - ask the Frank family how their Dutch neighbors stood up for them.

FYI - I practice asylum law and know a bit about this subject.

[Ms. Clio]

147. Yes, it is stupid, to use terms like "Euro-defenders"

Why you persist in blaming all of Europe for the Holocaust is mystifying. I notice you skipped right over the facts about the United States, but I teach history, so I know more about the subject than you ever will.

[DemFromMem]

150. You're joking, right

You teach history? Do you teach courses on the Holocaust? Where, at Beeville Junior College? To junior high school kids? Let's hear your wonderful credentials that make you more qualified than I ever will.

[Ms. Clio]

153. I didn't say I taught courses on the Holocaust, I teach U.S. history

on the university level. And we're done now. Go babble about "Euro-defenders" to someone who gives a flying fuck -- and that probably won't be here. Especially since all that hostility towards Europe sounds uncannily like rightwing smears by the likes of Bill Kristol et al.

[DemFromMem]

158. If you didn't give a flying

fuck, you wouldn't have given that arrogant "I know more than you ever will" response. You'll excuse me, but do you have any idea how insulting that remark is to the decendents of those murdered by the Nazis? But given that you don't give a flying fuck about things, I guess it wouldn't matter anyway. I'll take my own University of Chicago doctorate as well as my years of studying the Holocaust on my own to see how this could have happened to both my family and my wife's and crawl back in my hole since I'm such an idiot. Thanks for helping me out here.

[Lindacooks]

102. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You're just spouting talking points now.

Israel is committing war crimes:

1. Disproportionate respones
2. Using cluster bombs
3. Using chemical weapons

AND leafleting areas, telling residents to leave, then bombing the escape routes and trapping them.

Not to mention the high proportion of children killed.

Grow up.

[mtice]

129. "Disproportionate"?

The only thing disproportionate is the idea that when your enemies want to commit genocide upon your people and outnumber you 200:1, that you are only allowed to trade casualties at a 1:1 ratio. If that were the case, there are dozens of Muslim nations which would gladly trade 1:1 until there was not a single Jew left on the planet.

What exactly constitutes a disproportionate response to attempted genocide? Was kicking Japan's butt all over the Pacific a proportionate response to Pearl Harbor? Should we have stopped once the casualty counts were equal?

[Ms. Clio]

57. Lebanon has never been able to disarm Hezbollah

and certainly will never be able to do so now. Holding the entire nation hostage for the actions of a group of guerrillas is not acceptable. Any agreement will have to include Hezbollah's cooperation to be successful.

I don't care if France is "Israel's best friend" or not. That's really immaterial to me. France is not really Lebanon's "best friend," either. I just want the Lebanese people to stop dying.

[Zhade]

73. And, like me, you also hope the Israeli people stop dying.

(I know you do, and the only reason I mention this is so you don't get falsely accused of not caring about Israeli lives.)

[Ms. Clio]

95. thanks, Zhade

But it really only matters that you and the other people I respect know that.

[Zhade]

100. Thank goodness we stand with the rest of the world...

...which knows what Israel and Hezbollah is doing is wrong.

Hang in there, friend. The propaganda will fail, just as it did with regards to the "threat" from Iraq. As long as we explain our position calmly and in peace, we win every time those who support madness like killing innocent children speak.

[Ms. Clio]

111. muchas gracias, amigo

although the "calmly and in peace" part of the deal sometimes eludes me.

[Zhade]

114. It's eluded me a lot in the past few months.

My anger was starting to get out of control a bit, so I have to work to curb it.

Not easy, with such maddening lies and heartlessness abounding here.

[Spearman87]

137. I have listened to the Lebanese Prime Minister

speak at length about what he wants out of this conflict (Charlie Rose interview end of last week). Their leadership is just not anywhere near as interested in ending the bloodshed as the idealists would like to believe. Of higher importance to him were making political statements, “Isreal has occupied the (insert name of the disputed territory that BOTH Syria and Lebanon claim belongs to them, not the other and not Israel) territory for years, they must give it back”. “Israel must work to solve the Palestinean question”, etc. He spent most of the interview posturing for the Arab Street, Hebollah and Al Jazeera. I don’t care that Hezbollah has seats in Parliament. If the Lebanese leaders refuse to renounce Hezbo’s role in this fight, they are not truly on the side of ending this conflict nor are they sincerely on the side of ending the civilian bloodshed. They’ve thrown in their lot with the radicals and thrown their citizens to the wolves.

[Zhade]

18. I'll take one, please, with a side of long-lasting peace.

NT!

[Stella_Artois]

3. How is this possible ?

The Israel Chief of Staff pledged to destroy Hezbollah in ten days. Oh i get it, he didn't say WHICH ten days !

[Ms. Clio]

6. yes, wasn't Hezbollah's "infrastructure" declared "completely destroyed"

just days ago?

I guess it depends on the meaning of "completely" and "destroyed."

[xultar]

9. Ahhhh, so true. ad, but true.

[Zhade]

20. I guess Hezbollah doesn't need the same roads, power plants, or...

...water facilities to use their mobile rocket set-ups as the trapped civilians do.

[ruggerson]

7. He meant ten business days n/t

[Zhade]

22. LOL, bad!

NT!

[AngryAmish]

26. He said ten business days

[xultar]

4. Good thing this whole war thing is working for Israel. They really stopped

Hezbollah from firing rockets. :crazy:

[Ms. Clio]

8. just the way pouring more U.S. soldiers into Baghdad is really stopping

the "insurgency."

[FlavaKreemSnak]

11. The CNN reporter said it all but I don't think she meant to

She said that every time Israel destroys one rocket launcher, that several more rocket launchers will be there in their place.

I don't think she meant to but if you think about launcher not as the weapon but the person firing the rocket, every time that Israel bombs somewhere and kills a person, whether they had been firing rockets or not, all the people who were friends with that person and their family will at least be in favor of fighting back, and several of them will go get some rockets.

I asked somebody about this in another thread, but since then I was reading some more, and the bombing campaign has not turned the people in Lebanon against Hezbollah and made Israel popular. It is the opposite. Hezbollah is more popular now than it ever was, even people who might not agree with everything are in favor of anybody who will fight back against the invasion. And people who wanted peace with Israel before now don't think that Israel is a partner for peace, just a country that is killing people with American bombs.

So maybe one time Hezbollah was this set group with certain political views and religious views but now Hezbollah is anybody who is in favor of fighting back, and that is almost everybody, the same as it would be with any country.

[High Plains]

13. 2:20 PM Eastern Time--Networks reporting 3 dead, 100+ wounded

Hezbollah's ability to do damage remains impressive. Israel is being bloodied. I think Mr. Olmert has made a grievous error.

[Zhade]

23. Unfortunately, some of the blood is civilian.

:(

[High Plains]

27. Yes, and I wonder if and when the Israeli public will begin to turn

against this war. It's not going quite the way Israel expected.

[Zhade]

38. Hopefully soon - it would be horrifically ironic...

...if Israel were to be rent asunder due to actions ostensibly undertaken to ensure its longevity.

I really feel for the Israeli people, having such a shitty rightwing government that endangers them by its actions (kinda the way our shitty rightwing government endangers us by its actions).

[EFerrari]

52. I identify with the Israeli people. Their government is crazy

and their peace movement is nearly invisible to the rest of the world.

A situation too familiar to many of us here in the United States.

[Zhade]

56. Funny how it parallels our own situation, isn't it?

I stand with the Israeli people as well as the Lebanese.

Gush Shalom and Btselem are doing very important work!

[EFerrari]

58. It's easy to stand with the people once you understand

that their governments don't represent them or even, hold their interests as the first priority.

It gets very easy after that.

I don't recognize the orgs you cite, Zhade. But I will look them up. Thank you.

[jpkenny]

68. I sympathize with the Israeli people also. They are hostages to their gov

just as we are. We don't want this carnage in Iraq either. Most of us want to live and peace and would love for others to do the same. I feel no ill will to ME peoples and do not hold any of them responsible for the insane foreign and war policies of their greedy, elitist leaders and power brokers. I think the Israeli people (at least those truly seeking peace with their neighbors) hate the neocons as much as we do. May god help us all!

[EFerrari]

69. Welcome to DU, jpkenny.

:)

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

74. We are not helpless and welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Zhade]

75. Absolutely.

And may I say, welcome to DU - newbies without a bent one way or the other are very welcome!

[CJCRANE]

34. True

Hezbollah are no heroes, just part of the problem, but because Lebanon is sustaining more civilian casualities Hezbollah seems to be winning in terms of world opinion.

[MrPrax]

15. I suspect with the pressure on Olmert...

to show results on the 'Jewish street', he will either 'beg' for a ceasefire, like Fisk seems to think or expand the conflict and go after Syria as the source of the rockets and use that as an excuse for their blatant ineptitude.

I assume this is the game plan as none of the western nations seem to have much urgency in getting the ceasefire in place -- the longer it goes on, the likelihood of it's expansion is assured.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

17. This is terrible. Hezbollah shouldn't hit civilians.

Stick to the invading IDF if you must fire back, guys. These Israelis might have even been some of the courageous intelligent Israelis who don't agree with their government indiscriminately bombing innocent Lebanese.

The killing of civilians on both sides must end!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

44. As I said, the killing of civilians on both sides must stop NOW.

NT!

[saigon68]

134. Au Revoir voyez-vous

[Solly Mack]

25. I often wonder if we force those in power to do the fighting

and that's those in power in any conflict(this does include leaders of groups).......on any side ...and save the civilians - how much war would we have?

When you're not the one doing the dying, it's easy to continue the fighting.

I'm sick of hearing about people dying..and I'm beyond sick of hearing messages from governments and other assorted leaders about how they're resolved to let more people die.

[mogster]

28. Pictures

[cali]

32. I'm tired of pictures

of dead bodies, of faces reflecting terror and loss, of limbs severed from bodies. I'm tired of it in Iraq and Afghanistan and The Sudan and Lebanon, and Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and Israel, and London, and Bali, and Spaing and whereverer else.

[mogster]

43. I know

I'm tired too.
I have shifted focus in the picture area, and prefer to show people's grief rather than the dead bodies. Thinking about it, that has a stronger effect in moving people and I don't feel so uneasy about taking on the political 'mantle' it is to publish a picture from either side, in a public debate. It is more connected to my values also to show the human cost of violence rather than the violence itself. If we make a contest of dead people out of it, we've lost something. However, it's important to show also Israeli victims in the conflict, so there you go, one takes what's out there.

Peace, cali :-)

[Zhade]

45. Sickening, isn't it?

No matter of it's Hezbollah or the IDF killing innocent civilians, the result is the same - the innocent die for no reason.

Maddening!

[PCIntern]

31. This is most interesting from a political science standpoint...

When rockets hit civilians in Lebanon, it is considered to be a 'war crime'. Since all targets are apprarently 'eligible' in Israel, no mention is made of 'war crime' when Istaeli civilians are killed and injured. Since Hezbollah as the Front for the Iranians and all the other delightful peace-loving folk, dispute the rights of these civilians to even exist at all, much less in their place of residence or business, then they have the 'right' to kill these people. Israel has never made that statement - i.e. that Lebanese have no right to live in their land.

A Swifttian proposal might be that Israel should make that staement, then people could not accuse them of such war crimes, since their intended result follows from their announced plan.

Now that's a 'Swiftian' proposal, therefore it does not have validity - it is supposed to show irony. I'm saying that for a few who do not understand the reference to "A Modest Proposal"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. I suspect...

...that the lack of condemnation for Hezbollah comes from the fact that a great many people believe that Israel can be reasoned with, whereas Hezbollah can't. Thus there's no point in condemning their actions, as there's no chance of changing them.

I think that's wrong, but I suspect that's the underlying thought process.

[msmcghee]

39. I wish it was that innocent.

It would be nice if it was just an inability to think clearly. The truth, I'm afraid, is that many here are just as opposed to Israel existing as a state in the middle east as is Hizbollah.

For them, every fact is twisted to show Israel as the aggressor and the Hizbollah as bravely protecting the poor citizens of Lebanon.

What a crock.

[PCIntern]

40. Wow...

that's a good point...whichever side anyone's on here, and people are letting it be known that they're on a side, if that would be admitted, then the problem is easily solvable. I do not believe that folks would concede that, however.

[Zhade]

47. I've actually made that point before.

We expect Hezbollah to attack civilians - it's what a terrorist group does, right?

But Israel is held to a higher standard, as a state that's supposed to be democratic and not do things like indiscriminately bomb civilians. As a result, Israel's current actions reflect worse on Israel because we expect better of Israel, if that makes sense.

It's like being pissed off at the U.S. government for bombing a wedding party - we're angry, and probably more vocal about it, because the U.S. is always held up (by USAmericans) as the ideal country, and ideal countries don't do that sort of thing - or so we're told.

[PCIntern]

63. Zhade:

Higher standard = Hypocrisy.

[Zhade]

78. If you want to put Israel on equal footing with a terrorist organization..

...that's your call. I don't think they're on the same level.

I happen to think Israel is capable of what Hezbollah isn't - decency and restraint. I just see them failing at those expectations.

[gate of the sun]

94. I don't think we seen decency and restraint on the part of Israel

five times the amount of civilians have died in Lebanon as a result of Israel's restraint.

[index555]

97. who bears the responsibility?

(Part of this came from a reply to Zhade)

If Hezbollah sets up a launcher between 2 houses or apartment buildings and Israel bombs the launcher
the explosion kills say 15 people in those buildings,who bears the responsibility for the deaths?

Israel for dropping the bomb ?

The civilians inside the buildings for not getting out when (if) they saw a launcher being set up next door?(In their place I sure would , but they could be in a basement)

Or Hezbollah for not warning said civilians?(I don't think they would anyways they'll just declare the innocents "martyrs" and and scream "look at what the evil Israelis did!")
I'd say the responsibility was Hezbollahs.

I am truly saddened by all the death , but it's a war and the sad truth is that people die, including people who merely wanted to just get on with their lives like most of us do.
:(

[Zhade]

103. Easy - Hezbollah and Israel, jointly.

Hezbollah for hiding among the population and not warning civilians to leave (where applicable, it's always possible some members of Hezbollah care enough about their people to warn them, we don't know), Israel for disregarding the fact that civilians can't escape because they bombed all the roads out and bombing anyway.

People die in war, yes. But indiscriminate bombing of civilians, as acknowledged by the UN, HRW, and others, is an avoidable war crime.

[hedgetrimmer]

107. There are no rocket launches from Beirut! But Israel is bombing the

f*ck out of it... Who bears the responsibility...?

[Zhade]

115. Excellent point!

Can't be said enough.

[index555]

145. hezbollah

for setting up their propaganda operation there.

[Zhade]

101. We haven't, you are right.

But unlike a terrorist group, I believe Israel can do better.

I hope the Israelis turn from the war crimes of their rightwing government.

[hedgetrimmer]

108. "Can" don't mean a thing, What someone does is what matters.

Saying someone is a terrorist and putting them in a category as a "terrorist" and excluding Israel from that category regardless of it's actions... Is basically saying that persons who do not have state sponsored war or retaliation is a "terrorist".

Terrorist: A person who uses violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims... (little oxford dictionary 8th edition)

If anybody is a terrorist it is the United States and Israel as well that fall into that catergory...

[Zhade]

109. I don't disagree with you.

NT!

[index555]

112. I don't know about that

Considering the amount of physical damage I've seen in pictures I think the actual death toll in Lebanon is surprisingly light.

I probably shouldn't be on this thread, ;-)
politically I consider myself a centrist , both the left and the right have good ideas and bad ideas,if you can sift through all the sides and views and sort it properly you can come up with something more robust and effective than if you only listen to one side. I think this is one of the things that have made our country great.
I believe anything can be talked out as long as you are dealing with an even slightly reasonable person.(or country), and I believe that the vast majority of people fall into this category.
I rather like Teddy Roosevelt's saying "speak softly and carry a big stick" , unfortunately our current administration seems to prefer the modified version " threaten everybody and use a big stick on them" :(

I think diplomacy and negotiation should be the only things used unless attacked. In which case now that I have been attacked I do believe in "No Mercy" . Until I am convinced that the enemy is of absolutely no threat to me whatsoever I see nothing wrong with pounding that enemy into complete submission (or even extinction if that is what it takes, although I Would prefer that Not to be the case}. This is why I think our invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, they housed the Al-Queda training camps , refused to disarm and dismantle them and refused to turn over the Al-Queda leadership , they actually supported Al-Queda completely.in fact I wouldn't have left nearly as much of the towns considered "Taliban strongholds" intact, I would have left "parking lots".

This is why I sympathize with Israel, I do not think Hezbollah , Hamas or Al-Queda fall into the category of "at least slightly reasonable people" , although it IS possible Hamas MIGHT eventually tone themselves down, but I doubt that.

To sum it up I believe "Live and Let Live", unless you try to kill me...Then you're Gonna Die!

[Zhade]

117. What you seem not to realize is that (e.g.) the people of Afghanistan...

...didn't support the Taliban, but in fact were brutalized by them. As such, we killed innocent people who had no real ability to resist their overlords and who did nothing to us whatsoever.

We killed innocent people. Kids. And they didn't support those we were aiming at. We just didn't care about the civilians.

Think about it this way, since you seem willing to discuss this calmly and rationally: suppose China were to invade us after we attacked them (just an example). Would you say that your death, the death of your family and friends, blown to bloody pieces, your grandmother's brains smashed onto a pile of rubble, would be a fair price to pay for your country's transgressions?

"To sum it up I believe "Live and Let Live", unless you try to kill me...Then you're Gonna Die!"

It frightens and saddens me greatly that you think like this, and forgive me but I hope you never command in the military. It is possible to stop someone from killing you without killing them. Violence just feeds into more violence. If you have a gun, get held up at knifepoint, and get the upper hand and a chance to stop the attacker, why kill him? Why not wound him, even paralyze him? You may be killing someone off their meds, or worse someone who's just snapped and gone crazy from a previously-hidden mental disorder. His actions are not dictated by him, yet you whack the guy for almost stabbing you.

It's understandable to want to put two in his head, but it's excessive to shoot him dead, especially when you might be killing an innocent man who wouldn't do this if he were in his right mind.

That's what this situation is like. Hezbollah is equipped with the equivalent of knives compared to Israel's military might. There is no conceivable way Hezbollah can destroy Israel. None. They just don't have the firepower, or manpower, to do so.

By indiscriminately bombing innocent Lebanese civilians, Israel is creating a lot more people with knives, and the more it does this, the bigger the crowd seeking revenge gets, the worse this escalates, and the more the death toll on both sides mount. Eventually, Israel might die the death of a thousand cuts.

This is not a proportional response, it's not a logical tactic, and it's not working. It's got to stop, on both sides.

[index555]

121. but you didn't entirely understand what I said

I also said diplomacy and negotiation should be the only tools used UNLESS ATTACKED. What I was trying to imply was we should not be the ones to attack, almost anything can be negotiated, and a reasoned compromise is a far better solution than violence.
In your China scenario, if we were both vain and arrogant enough to attack China and stupid enough to leave it with enough strength to invade us in return, well frankly , it would serve us right for aforementioned vanity,arrogance and stupidity. definitely not pleasant.
Honestly the only way that I can see that would weaken China enough would be to use nukes, then we would all die of slow radiation poisoning anyways. :nuke: :thumbsdown:
as far as Afghanistan is concerned, roughly 2/3 of that country was in fact exactly what you said , and I wouldn't have used the previously mentioned "Parking lot" tactics on those portions, only those towns where Taliban support was overwhelming( and still is today unfortunately, they're just quieter and sneakier about it).
In the 1 on 1 scenario you mention actually not "2 to the head" but "2 to the center of body mass" you have a far better chance of hitting him. "2 to the head" would mean I would have to basically walk right up to him, put the gun to his head and pull the trigger, that's not self defense, that's an execution, therefore murder.
if I was %100 certain that I could take him without killing I would, but the fact is that a determined attacker can get to you once he reaches 25ft, your chances start dropping rapidly as said attacker gets closer than that. besides 2 to the body won't necessarily kill, but it WILL stop almost any attacker.The point in that scenario is to end the threat to yourself, the possibility that "he wasn't in his right mind at the time " doesn't enter the picture at all, if he was in his right mind he shouldn't be trying to kill me. If he somehow is in his right mind and he's trying to kill me then he deserves to get shot, because it is extremely unlikely that I ever did anything to him to deserve a lethal attack.
besides, what if I hesitated, got myself killed or severely injured and the same person goes on to kill or injure other people? Then I become responsible for their death/injuries(perhaps not legally, but morally), because I could have stopped it!

of course that scenario is just for illustration, since I don't currently own a pistol and a concealed weapons permit is next to impossible to get in the L.A. area .

Just ask yourself a question , say you somehow found yourself with a gun(never mind how ,we're talking hypothetical scenarios here) and were in a situation like that Jewish center in Seattle with that guy "who just snapped" and who started shooting people at random . would you take the shot? I would .

[hedgetrimmer]

139. History would be beneficial for you to learn before you pour such

thick concrete.

Afghanistan was already to be attacked by the U.S. prior to al-CIA-da and hijacking ... OIL PIPELINE.. google it....

Find out historically who in that region started the "TERRORISM" I'll give you a hint, Israel... further,
Who then is defending their families? Google it...

But you know I'm a centralist however, first I try to get my facts straight before I draw that center line... where-ever that maybe.

[index555]

144. stern?

I suppose you are referring to stern?

[hedgetrimmer]

148. Bingo! n/t

[index555]

155. Hmm...

so a small group adopted the IRA's tactics against the British.
Lehi was not very popular even among the Zionists,(of course at the time they couldn't afford to turn down anybody that wanted to help)and I don't believe I ever heard any reference of them calling for the elimination of Britain or the extermination of all British. Unlike Hezbollah wanting to elimnate Israel and wanting to exterminate all Jews. (and the similar calls by the current Iranian leadership, and Al-Queda , and Hamas).

[hedgetrimmer]

160. Actions speak louder than words... Also, How did Israel become

Israel? After stern... How did the state suddenly come into presence? Look into the covered over history and see for yourself but, try to take the biasness out of your mind while you do it.

[mtice]

130. The definition of anti-Semitism

is holding Jews to one standard and others to a different standard. If you are not going to hold Hezbollah to the same standard that you hold Israel, that is anti-Semitism.

Let's be honest here - the only ones you expect to actually cease firing in a ceasefire are the Israelis. Thus a "ceasefire" really means "free fire" for Hezbollah, while Israel has to sit there and take it according to a twisted standard of "decency".

In my book, a decent man defends his family when bloodthirsty enemies aim to kill them.

[hedgetrimmer]

140. The definition of anti-Arabism

is holding Arabs to one standard and others to a different standard. If you are not going to hold Israel to the same standard that you hold "Hezbollah", that is anti-Arabism.

Let's be honest here - the only ones you expect to actually cease firing in a ceasefire are the Arabs. Thus a "ceasefire" really means "free - fire" for Israel, while the Arabs have to sit there and take it according to a twisted standard of "decency".

In my book, (yours too) a decent man defends his family when bloodthirsty enemies aim to kill them.

[mtice]

141. Pretty absurd

I guess the point you're making is that when you switch Israelis and Arabs it becomes a non sequitur. Who can imagine a ceasefire where the Israelis attack and the Arabs don't attack back? Yet the reverse is what everyone expects to happen, without even needing to voice it.

[hedgetrimmer]

149. Opinions and facts...

My statement was meant to bring to light the fact of opinion... and that opinion is not a fact...

The fact is that either side will respond violently to a break in a cease fire... Both sides are known to violate eachothers line in the sand... To say one side is of more valour than the other is opinion, the fact lies in that both sides are aggravating an already inflamed situation and neither side has the balls to come to the table for an equall balance for peace in fear of losing a grain of sand...

And, what "everyone" expects is conjecture as well.

[mtice]

151. The record says otherwise

To say that the Israelis are just as likely to break a ceasefire as is Hezbollah is to completely ignore the fact that Hezbollah and its ideological kin have repeatedly done so and the Israelis have never done so.

[Ms. Clio]

154. good luck with that

most of us actually know something about history.

[Zhade]

46. That's a great point, but some of us condemn both.

Targeting innocents is wrong, whether it's Hezbollah, the IDF, the U.S., or the Iraqi insurgency doing so.

It's got to stop. There is no justification. None.

[msmcghee]

122. Welcome to DU Index555. For Zhade:

Zhade said: "Targeting innocents is wrong, whether it's Hezbollah, the IDF, the U.S., or the Iraqi insurgency doing so. It's got to stop. There is no justification. None."

What I have been trying to get across - and what I think Index555 also was saying (or at least agrees with) - is that initiating the use of force rather than negotiations to settle disputes - is the problem. That is what causes the other side to have to use force to defend itself. That is what causes the deaths on all sides. That is what has to be condemned and criminalized - at least by anyone who cares about innocent civilian deaths.

Once someone (or a nation) is attacked and their civilians (or their military within their borders who are not preparing to attack a neighbor) are being killed, then proportionality is no longer relevant. The only choice for the defender is to sue for peace (give the attacker whatever they want) or attack back.

If they attack back they are putting their own military in jeopardy. Certainly the attacker will be ready for them. Is that OK that the IDF are now dieing defending their country? No it's not. It is terrible. Their country did not put them in that position to die. The attacker did.

Should the defender use only a little force hoping the attacker will quit? No - absolutely no. The defender should use the maximum force available until the attacker quits. It is not the fault of the defender if the attacker's civilians die - as long as there is a justifiable military purpose that leads to making the attacker stop. If the attacker hides his artillery and launchers among civilians, then any suspected launch site is a fair target. To use less than the maximum available lethal force is saying that we are willing to more civilian casualties on our side so that we create fewer civilian casualties on our enemy's side. Do you really think any sane nation is going to make that decision - that it's better that more of our people die than yours - even though you attacked us?

War is terrible. Many civilians will be killed. That's why we should throughly condemn those who start wars - and thoroughly support those who defend themselves from unlawful attack. If we do otherwise - we make it more likely that belligerent assholes will attack their neighbors - and we make it more likely that thousands of innocent civilians will die.

Saying the war must stop "on both sides" - is naive and will only lead to more violent war later. Zhade, you keep insisting that you only want the killing to stop on both sides. If you mean that - I guarantee you that the only way to get what you want is for Hizbollah to be thoroughly destroyed. If it is not then I predict the next round will see hundreds of thousands of civilians killed - possibly millions if Hizbollah gets their hands on WMD's. This is an extremely likely outcome basd on Hizbollahs actions as well as their stated intentions. How can you ignore that while stating that you don't want innocent civilians to die?

Reading between the lines in your posts I get the sense that you really want Israel to lose and Hizbollah win. But, I could be wrong. Please explain why you think that making Israel stop before Hizbollah is rooted out will result in fewer causalties in the long run. What's to stop Hizbollah from doing this again in a few months when they've got even better missiles from Iran? Hizbollah has openly stated that its goal is the destruction of israel.

PS - I have to go to the dentist now. I'll check for your reply when I return in a couple of hours.

[msmcghee]

135. I've been back for a couple of hours. But . .

. . still no reply.

I'd hate to think you just don't have a reasonable rebuttal to my points - that you're just avoiding facing me in open discussion.

Perhaps this is similar to what happened last night when you alerted on me after I showed your anti-Israeli bias by showing several of your actual posts and how when Hizbollah does something outrageous you call for both sides to stop fighting - but when reports appear of Lebanese civilian deaths, these are caused by anti-Arab fascists committing war crimes, etc.

I'd like to believe we have the same goal - peace - but that we just disagree about how to get there and that you don't really want the terrorists to defeat Israel.

But, we won't know if you won't debate me. You have the ball.

[breakaleg]

49. Israel, as a soverign nation is expected to follow the rules of war

which says not to target civilians.

Israel has the technology to actually find and hit their targets.

Hezbollah, simply points the rockets south with no ability to hit anything specific.

It's also about capability. Israel, has the capability to wage this war on military targets only. Hezbollah, a resistance force with limited inaccurate weaprons, does not.

Altough I believe the HRW has accused both sides for War Crimes in this thing.

[EFerrari]

51. Yes, they have. And it must stop -- if there are any unbought statesmen

left to stop it.

:(

[Disturbed]

59. "a shitty rightwing government that endangers"

Yes, that describes Israel and the US. Disagreeing with these govts' actions does not imply that one is anti- either nation. A nation is not the same as the govt. in power at a given time. I feel that Hizbullah and the Israeli Govt./Military have commited crimes against innocent people.

[EFerrari]

60. I've understood only lately, that for some people it isn't possible

to talk about the current regime in Israel without implicating a people. It just isn't.

I don't know what to do about that.

Except to extend my support for the Israeli people and my condemnation of both my government and theirs.

[mogster]

64. Oh, you have understood

Your last line was eggzactly as I'd have said it misself :hug:

[EFerrari]

67. Sorry to be so slow to understand, mogster.

:loveya:

[Zhade]

80. it's bizarre when you consider a great number of Israelis...

...don't support these actions on their government's part, haven't for decades in fact.

Assuming all Israelis think alike regarding the actions of their government is just as bigoted as assuming all Arabs think alike regarding the actions of theirs.

[Zhade]

79. They have, and they both need to stop right fucking now!

Sorry. This killing of innocents is pissing me off.

[EFerrari]

85. I should just log off. Both side accuse me of bias when I'm just

anti murder.

I still may do that.

:(

[Zhade]

86. Don't, please. Your voice is more important than theirs.

You are advocating for what's right, they are partisans. Your words are important.

[Seeking Serenity]

61. Hebollah counts on that kind of double standard

That kind of thinking, that Israel as a civilized nation is supposed to follow the rules, while Hezbollah, as a non-nation-state actor, is somehow absolved or excused, just plays into Hezbollah's hands.

I'm not playing that game.

Civilization is not a suicide pact.

If Hezbollah (and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, et al.) would put down their guns, there would be peace.

If Israel puts down its guns, there will be a Jewish slaughter.

[EFerrari]

62. delete

edited for bad attitude and just general frustration.

[Seeking Serenity]

88. And where might that be?

Almost 60 years as fully functioning representative democracy where its citizens can freely elect their representatives in a region of the world where representative democracy is an alien notion?

You mean a place where they would just as soon live in peace with their neighbours, but their neighbours don't want to?

You mean that?

[Zhade]

104. It would be more accurate to say "some percentage" of their neighbors.

Believing all Arabs want war with Israel is as racist as believing all Jews want to kill off Arabs.

Please understand, I am not accusing you of racist beliefs; I am merely suggesting that it be acknowledged that not all Arabs support groups like Hezbollah, just as not all Jews support the IDF using white phosphorous on civilians.

[msmcghee]

123. But Zhade . .

. . every report I've seen from Lebanon has Lebanese saying they all support Hizbollah and were happy to see them set up their "defenses" in S. Lebanon.

This morning on NPR they interviewed Lebanese from Dearborne MI - who basically stated that they all support Hizbolah and their "defensive" actions.

It seems to me that Hizbollah would have a hard time setting up such extensive launch sites throught the region without the support of the majority of locals. Over the years they probably marry and integrate pretty well with the locals who are admittedly happy to see them there.

[Zhade]

81. No one, to my knowledge, says Israel has to put down their guns...

...if truly used in self-defense.

I submit that indiscriminate bombing of civilians not only isn't self-defense, it actually increases the danger to Israel in the long run.

And of course Hezbollah counts on Israel's expected restraint - it's a terrorist group. Should we put Israel on the same level of a terrorist group?

I happen to think Israel can be better than this, hence the anger.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seeking Serenity]

138. Oh, no you don't.

You're not going to tar me with that epithet.

Irrespective, I stand by what I said and believe. You don't have to be so civilized and noble and follow every jot and tittle of rules to your own destruction when your opponent has shown no willingness to follow said rules.

Face it, Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, et al., have no intention of playing by any set of rules of war, not if means sacrificing any advantage toward their oft-stated ultimate goal, i.e. the destruction of the Jewish state.

Yet to many here, Israel is supposed to defend itself with both hands tied behind its back while Hezbollah is given some kind of license or excuse.

[Marie26]

90. Human Right Watch has

condemned both sides for war crimes.

Israel/Lebanon: End Indiscriminate Strikes on Civilians - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

Israel/Lebanon: Hezbollah Must End Attacks on Civilians - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm

[savemefromdumbya]

65. Haifa, bit too close for comfort

[mogster]

66. Picture of rocket hitting Haifa

( Photo: Shachar Tzarfati - AFP )
From here (NO):
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/midtosten/article1411997.ece

[PCIntern]

70. Didn't one of the posters somewhere say

he was tired of pictures?

I'm not tired of pictures...I'm sickened by the hypocrisy of some of those who cry and rend their clothes for the innocents.

[EFerrari]

72. You're not "tired of pictures"? Cool.

:)



Because I'm in no position to tire of reality.

[PCIntern]

76. Bad attitude and General frustration...

Well, for once, you're right!

Just agreeing with you for achange.

have a good night...my extended family is sleeping in a shelter in an unnamed community in Israel..

[EFerrari]

77. May any person trying to save their life be safe.

/ accuracy.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[index555]

89. explain to me, I don't understand

I'm curious;
How should Israel deal with Hezbollah?
I for one am always ready to discuss an issue with another person or group, but if their first point is"you have no right to exist and we will kill all of you" that doesn't leave much to talk about does it?

[Zhade]

92. I can't pretend to have all the answers.

I *can* say that indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians isn't going to decrease the number of people that want to hurt Israel.

The first, immediate step must be a total cease-fire. Bare minimum. Innocents on both sides must no longer be killed.

[index555]

93. sad but true

I do agree that the deaths of civilians doesn't help Israel.
But what do you consider indiscriminate ?
If Hezbollah sets up a launcher between 2 houses or apartment buildings and Israel bombs the launcher
the explosion kills say 15 people in those buildings,who bears the responsibility for the deaths?

Israel for dropping the bomb ?

The civilians inside the buildings for not getting out when (if) they saw a launcher being set up next door?(In their place I sure would , but they could be in a basement)

Or Hezbollah for not warning said civilians?(I don't think they would anyways they'll just declare the innocents "martyrs" and and scream "look at what the evil Israelis did!")
I'd say the responsibility was Hezbollahs.

I am truly saddened by all the death , but it's a war and the sad truth is that people die, including people who merely wanted to just get on with their lives like most of us do.
:(

[Zhade]

"But what do you consider indiscriminate?"

What the UN and HRW considers indiscriminate - knowing there are civilians there who don't have a say in Hezbollah being there, knowing you've already bombed the roads out, and bombing anyway.

As I explained above, the blame rests jointly on Hezbollah and Israel.

[Zhade]

106. self-delete

dumb mouse

[muryan]

110. sometimes people just have to fight

the number of innocent civilians killed in armed conflict has decreased so much over the past half a century. Its horrible and lamentable yes, but it could be a lot worse.

[Zhade]

118. That's quite a callous attitude.

It takes no moral courage whatsoever to say "you and he should step outside".

Even one dead child is one too fucking many, if you'll forgive my language, especially when it can be avoided.

What no one can explain to me is how Hezbollah kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others constitutes some major threat to Israel. Hezbollah is an ant compared to the power of the Israeli war machine. Israel is in no danger of being "swept into the sea" by Hezbollah.

[Ms. Clio]

126. so what wars have you served in?

How many family members have you lost? I somehow doubt you would express the same insouciance if they were among the "innocent civilians killed in armed conflict."

You could not be more wrong about the toll of modern warfare, which primarily kills civilians.

[muryan]

128. Im only 20 years old

I refuse to fight in Iraq. However, dating back to WWII there have been about 10 deaths in my family during war..most of which were in vietnam. Im the only male in my entirely family that has never been in the military. Not that i am anti-military, just against the way its being used in this administration.

Modern warfare of late has been a national army against a civilian militia. So yes there are going to be civlian deaths because the people dying hold no oath to a country, but rather to a religion. Im talking about how it pales in comparison to say dresden or any other MASSIVE amount of civilian death. As im aware the death count has not even reached 1k with both sides put together.

[Ms. Clio]

133. More than half the casualties of WW2 were women and children

In this conflict, 90% of Lebanese casualties have been civilians. And they are not dying because of any "oath" to "a religion." They are dying for reasons that are completely out of their control.

[index555]

156. Completely?

I suppose you mean with the exception of allowing Hezbollah to set up rocket launchers, arms caches, radio and tv propaganda sites, etc. in their neighborhoods?

[Minstrel Boy]

136. decreased?

That's rather disingenuous.

If your benchmark is the Second World War, the number of all dead has decreased. But the ratio of non-combatant deaths to combatants has never been higher.

[Zhade]

82. Pretty sure the poster meant "pictures of the dead".

In that, there are dead innocents on both sides (as the poster mentioned) to fill those pictures.

[EFerrari]

84. It has to STOP NOW.

That's all.

Death doesn't bring security or peace.

We have to STOP IT NOW.

[Zhade]

87. I wish I knew how we could do it.

NT!

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

119. And just when the flames died down...

Look, I agree that what you say about the expansionist Israeli government is true, but aren't phrases like "blood guilt" just going to set people off?

I mean, we can argue the right without resorting to their kind of rhetoric. We have the truth on our side - like the truth about the targeted victims you mention.

[ckramer]

131. When the Israeli imitating our cowboy president bomb this bomb that

They forgot about their lands are right next to their enemy!

How stupid!

[Doctor_J]

152. According to yahoo, this attack hit a funeral procession for last week's

victims.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel