Discuss
 

They are political parties like the Nazis were a political party, which does not insulate them from the evil acts they have undertaken the last 40 years. I am essentially advocating a "kill all people that wish to wage war against civilization" philosophy. The fucking moral equivalency that you espouse is fucking nauseating.

And it's certainly not genocide. The fact that they are all of the same ethic background is irrelevant. It's a war against an ideology, not against an ethnic group. Get your fucking head out of your ass.

Discuss
 

You see nothing wrong with attacking an entire village, shelling it, killing women and children, eradicating the whole population, because certain unidentified members of the village are terrorists. You admit that you can't, or simply don't care to, make any effort to identify the terrorists so your solution is to kill them all.

I support Israel in its efforts to maintain its safety. I firmly believe there must be an Israel. But shelling an entire village, or suggesting that it is morally right to kill Arabs because they are Arabs and Arabs are the enemy? That's just wrong. Even if some of those Arabs believe that all of Israel must be chased into the sea.


And you want me to get my head out of my ass? Fuck you.

Discuss
 

Never said anything like this. It is a tragedy when innocent life is taken and it seriously pains me, especially when I see children killed. However, there is a serious problem here. Those that Israel is fighting are completely interwoven with the society at large. They are are part of a democratically elected government, which means that the people that put them into office likely (a) agree with their position regarding Israel and (b) therefore must bear some of the blame (i.e., they are not completely innocent). In addition, Hezbollah hides within the civilian population. That is somewhat unfair to the truly innocent civilians, but I find it to be more of Lebannon's concern than Israel's. IMO, Israel must primarily concern itself with the best way at proteting ITS OWN CITIZENS. Within that framework, it should choose a path that cause the least amount of collateral damages, but that should not be its primary goal.

I never suggested it was morally right to shell an entire village, and I certainly didn't suggest it is morally right to kill Arabs based on their ethnicity. But it is morally right to exercise self defense, and I find it ludicrus that the burden should be on Israel, the country of 8 million that has been under continuous fire from nearly every single one of its neighbors for the last 60 years, to error on the side of caution.

ETA: Just to day we read:

• The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Discuss
 

Oh, fuck off. I have not advocated a "kill em all" policy. If I had I would be calling for Israel to nuke Lebanon.

I have simply recognized the reality that when your enemy launches missiles at you, and hides the launcher in a civilian area, you may have to kill civilians to destroy the launcher. It's a difficult choice, and Israel avoided making it for several years.

In other words, Israeli soldiers are dying because Israel did not attack earlier, and gave Hezbollah time to dig in.

Genocide depends more on intent than anything else. You know, like the intent of the Hezbollah guerillas over whom you seem to be shedding so many tears, to wipe Israel off the map.*


*No, I don't really think you support Hezbollah. But lately you sure sound like you do -- because you seem to believe that Israel's only option upon being attacked is to wring its hands in dismay, or politely ask the Hezbollah fighters to please stand 100 feet away from any civilians so they can be neatly killed.

Discuss
 

And the alternative you propose? That is what I am waiting to hear.

Or is it, "Israel should quietly kill off every Hezbollah guerilla, through silent assassin-type operations"? That's where you were last week, and it was pretty damned silly.

Once again -- when a violent and aggressive military force intentionally takes refuge among civilians, the blood that is spilled is on the hands of that military force -- not on the hands of the victim, who must choose between killing the human shields or letting its own civilian populace die.

Discuss
 

It's a shame we have to kill them all, but it is rather their own fault, now, isn't it?

Discuss
 

I already proposed my alternative. We send in an occupying force. US troops administer the area until (i) all terrosrist activity is gone; (ii) both Jew and Arab have managed to hammer out a joint governing or separate state arrangement; (iii) the children of both sides are being taught to work for cooperation and mututal respect; and (iv) all Arab nations are made to understand that any assistance to a terrorist organization or incursion, militarily, or through proxy guerillas, will be viewed as an act of war against the US itself.

We may never get out of there, but if that's what it takes to stabilize the region that most threatens world peace, then so be it.

Discuss
 

Oh, okay. That sounds pretty simple. We'll just send the boys over from Iraq when they finish up there.


eta: And the US is to accomplish this without civilian casualties, right? Just checking.

Discuss
 

I realize that this response is not to me, but it's consistent with what you've said to and about me.

In the past two weeks, Wonk, you first accused me of treating Arabs as less than human. You backed this up with the notion that I was more critical of US killing of Iraqi civilians than I was of Lebanese or Palestinian civilians. (Yes, it didn't make sense then, either.) Today, you've accused me of being a proponent of genocide.

And this because I believe a nation that has been under persistent military attack for decades -- attacks that are directed at its civilians, and that are motivated by an express, avowed desire by the attacker to destroy that nation -- has a right to defend itself. And that, if in exercising that right, it kills civilians, that is a terrible thing but the blookd of those people is on the hands of those who intentionally and stragetically use those civilians as shields.

When pressed for an alternative, you gyrate between suggesting that Israel, in essence, should simply take it like a man, and that the US should extend the protectorate that has functioned so superbly in Iraq to Lebanon (and presumably to Gaza and the West Bank too, and maybe also Syria and Iran since they are motivating and financing much of the hatred) and, in fact, expand the mission of that protectorate to include mass reeducation of children.

And for disagreeing with that, and recognizing the reality that when you are under attack, you have the right to respond, I am a proponent of genocide? Again, go fuck yourself.

You have essentially taken the position that Hezbollah should be immune from counterattack -- by Israel, by the US, by anyone, because no one can attack them (or build the protectorate that you propose) without civilian deaths. In other words, you propose that we reward a terrorist organization for hiding behind women and children with impunity for their endless, bloodthirsty crimes. Go ahead and kill Israeli civilians and launch rockets into villages -- you'll get away with it, so long as you base your terrorist military in a village.

Discuss
 

I never said anything about your stance on Iraq relative to your stance on Israel. I defy you to find a single instance. Furthermore, when I suggested US occupation, you started the whole "genocide" thing.

You wring your hands and say "It's a shame, but what are ya gonna do? That dog won't hunt. Both sides are attacking civilians and both sides have done so since before Israel's independence in 1948. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that both sides are intracably wed to their positions and neither has shown any inclination to cave.

I have never taken the position that Israel should bend over and take it. you're a liar if you say otherwise.

Yes, I have suggested we extend out military presence to Israel. Personally, I woukldn't have gone in in the first place because it's such a fucking rat's nest. But we're there. And we're increasing the instability.

And Israel is engaging in overkill. Sure, there's less of a cost in Israeli lives if they conduct an air war and soften up a village before they send in the troops. But hey, it's okay because the Arabs did it first.

The situation is either intractable or it will require an outside force to impose order on all parties. You may not like the reality of it, but that's your bad trip, not mine.

I'm not suggesting that Hezbollah should be immune from attack. But it should be done in a bloody, street-to-street sweep, because that's the only way to root an entrenched enemy while minimizing civilian casualties.

And finally, I repeatr for emphasis, you were the one who threw out the Genocide card first.

I ask you this: if you are are going to say that (i) it's okay for Israel to attack Hezbollah; (ii) it's a shame that there are so many civilians in the way, but hey; (iii) they let the bad guys move in there in the first place, so it's kinda their fault; and (iv) you're going to justify that killing by pointing to the killing of Israeli civilians, then how can you claim the moral high ground on anything other than a preference for one group's body count being bigger than anothers?

The roots of this conflist in its present phase can be traced to the colonial powers' withdrawal from the Middle East without building any sort of infrastructure, physically or politically. Both Israel and the Arab nations need this infrastructure if the situation is to be resolved. Either we can build this infrastructure or not. But nothing will change without it, and they aren't even trying to build it themselves.

Discuss
 

I am okay with the above. A majority of the non-direct combatant Arab citisenry has made it clear that they are (1) virulently anti-semitic; (2) supportive of the destruction of Israel; (3) willing to give aid, comfort and husbands, fathers, and teenage sons to the cause. The civilian population of Gaza, Syria, Lebanon et al. are behind this effourt. They have allowed Hizbowllah to intermingle within them for cover. they house them, feed them, assist their supply lines etc.

You lay down with the devil.....

We didn't win WWII without civilian casualties and the civilians there were not innocents. They supported racist, genocidal, imperialistic regimes. Similiar construct here.

The point I got from reading yesterday's Times is, for Israel to stop without destroying these guys will be a castrophic disaster.

In the words of the great Jewish philosopher warrior, Al Davis, "Just win baby!"

Discuss
 

Why not just give them both a time out and send them to their respective rooms to think about the consequences of their actions. That's what we do in our house and it really works wonders.

Discuss
 

Except Israel's position includes a reasonable co-existence plank that they have shown they can live up to. The Arabs position includes a (reasonable?) drive them into the sea provision. Any inherent problem here?

The difference between Rs and Ds
 

[Mimi Miyagi, Nevada Gubernatorial Candidate] sees herself right at home as a Republican. The party has a long history of inclusion, going back to the days of Abraham Lincoln, she notes. Many in the x-rated film industry vote Republican, she adds, because they like their taxes low.

Indeed!

You make the choice:

The new breed of R:

http://www.mimi4governor.com/gallery/Fgallery3-2.jpg

Same old same old breed of D:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/6944.jpg

Discuss
 

Shorter Penske: Arabs think bad things and should be bombed.