Not sure how the opinion of the "Arab governments" is at all relevant. They've been in Uncle Sam's back pocket for some time now... Just because Hezbollah is at some fault doesn't justify brutalization upon the Lebanese people.
When you said "Hezbollah doesn't have a 'right' to do anything - they shouldn't even exist and they are the reason all of this is going on right now. Hezbollah is not the aggrieved party." what do you mean then? You said that Hezbollah is the reason this is happening meaning you are justifying Israel's actions upon the Lebanese people. Hezbollah and the Lebanese people need to be viewed as completely seperate entities. You cannot punish one for the other's actions and then try to justify it. The idea of Israel trying to put pressure on Lebanon to take out Hezbollah is completely unethical. I'm not adressing you in this instance Hayes, but I am disgusted by those of you on this board who deem human life as so insignificant that it's taking is a viable political tool or pressure point. Absolutely disgusting.
Not at all. Your making a leap that I don't make. I can say 'Hezbollah created this situation' without endorsing Israel's response.
I think you're mistaken since the Arab governments rarely (if ever - I can't think of a time) criticise an Arab group for starting something with Israel.
they initially criticized hezbollah. since then they've been bashing israel for obviously massacring fellow arabs. why dont you follow the entire news.
A much more balanced conclusion. Kudos. That doesn't affect my point. cabbage argued that the Arab governments were in the US's pocket. I responded that they have traditionally criticize Israel, but in this case criticized Hezbollah. That shows that despite their relations with the US they make their decisions on outward criticism on a case by case basis. That they've now come out and criticized Israel has nothing to do with this dispute. It would be better if you'd read the thread before jumping in as opposed to wasting our time.
The Malaysian Communists weren't defeated by overwhelming British force they were defeated because the people quit supporting them. Not because punitive British measures caused such collective pain but because the Brits withdrew removing the primay reason for the Malaysian insurgency. The Malaysian Insurgents could themselves claim a partial victory since their goal of the Brits leaving happened. For El Salvador the insurgents weren't defeated. The government brought them in and even met their goal of free elections. In both cases you cite the insurgents weren't defeated by military might and in both case the insurgents could claim a measure of victory since the greater powers acceded to some of their key demands. I don't know where you're getting that from. My comment was in regard to your argument that the Contras weren't a terrorists organization not that Hezbollah isn't one. If you don't consider an organization that terrorized civillians, kidnapped and tortured civillians along with summary executions not a terrorists organization, which the Contras did, I'm not sure what qualifies as a terrorists organization in your opinion. Again shades of Creepy Floyd's denials regarding Hezbollah.
I don't like to call people out but I find this very offensive. Do you understand that one, Hezbollah is an elected part of Lebanon's government, two that Hezbollah is militarily more powerful than the Lebanese government, and three that by destroying Lebanon's economic infrastructure, airports, ports and roads, that is destroying any chance that moderate Lebanese forces can become strong enough to stop Hezbollah. Your statement is akin to blaming a woman in an abusive relationship for her abuse or telling a rape victim she brought it on herself.
I'm sorry but that's very offensive. The Lebanese govt may be being abused, but it's also protecting a force that is abusing a third party. If the Lebanese govt wants to be abused, so be it, but they have no right to expect a third party to tolerate abuse from an entity they are protecting.
Didn't see it, I received a link to the poll I initially posted from a former professor of mine, I didn't even click on the link, as a matter of fact. Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the Israelis had a right to retaliate in response to Hezbollah's kidnapping of its soldiers, not to mention that it's clearly an 'act of war' on Hezbollah's part; there isn't much disagreement from what I can tell in regards to those 'legalistic' aspects of the conflict. Seriously though, thanks for posting it, I had no idea that only slightly more than 50% of respondents believed that Israel had the right to retaliate, I would've thought the percentage was much higher than that...
Born in China, my most friends are ethnical Chinese. The second largest ethnical group of my friends are actually Jewish, more than Koreans. Maybe because one of my previous employer was a company founded by Jewish people, the whole senior management were Jewish people from different places, and I made lots of friends from there. Over the past 10 years, I made friends with Jewish people from Israel, Russia, Ukrain, South Africa, Canada and US. We have discussions or debates regarding politics and religions all the time. Fortunately, those were all some real discussions, including chats about the current event. There weren't many twisted facts, ignored logic and common sense. There weren't much little games of words. Most of them were serious and sincere discussions, and I really like that. I am quite surprised or even shocken by some of the comments here. Maybe because my friend circle isn't that big, some of the things said here, I am really glad that I never heard from my Jewish friends or colleagues; otherwise, it would be too hard for me to have any respect left to continue friendship or even just working relationship with the ones who would say those awful things. I am not sure what those "crafty rhethorics" (a nice word I learned recently on this board) serve, just to make themselves feel better?
Hezbollah leader says Lebanese government knew and approved of Hezbollah's coming attack on Israel This is from the full interview with Nasrallah. Found it pretty interesting (link at the bottom). I actually came away from the interview fairly impressed with him although I don't agree with a lot of his position. However, this has massive implications for the argument that the Lebanese government (and by extension the rest of Lebanon) have no part in the fight between Israel and Hezbollah. [Nasrallah]Let me go back to your question about not telling them [the Lebanese Government] or asking them. First, the government statement, on the basis of which we participated in the government, talks about the Lebanese Government's endorsement of resistance and its national right to liberate the land and the prisoners. How could a resistance liberate prisoners? Go to George Bush for example? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you talk about the resistance's right, you are not talking about the Foreign Ministry's right. You talk about an armed resistance, and you establish in the government statement its right to liberate the land and the prisoners. So, I represent a resistance and I have weapons. This was the government statement according to which the government won the vote of confidence from the Chamber of deputies. That was the first point. Second, all that was said at table of dialogue is available on tapes, as some have now begun to say Al-Sayyid [Nasrallah] said so and so. Yes, I told them we would maintain the border calm. That was our policy. However, there are two issues that stand no... [Nasrallah changes thought]. I used to say there are four points, two of which can stand delaying, procrastination, and making reminders about them. No problem about that. The first issue was the continued occupation of the Shab'a farms. In this respect we can take our time. This is a limited piece of land. We do not want to go to war because of the farms, not a war like the one taking place now. The second issue is that of the air and maritime violations, and even the land violations. We can put up with these. Yes, violations of our sovereignty are condemned, but we would not raise hell because of them. However, there are two issues that can stand no postponement. The first is the prisoners' issue, for this involves humanitarian suffering. The second is any attack on civilians. I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be. [Bin-Jiddu] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers? [Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners' issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. [Bin-Jiddu] Clearly? [Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country. I do not want to mention names. When the time comes for accountability I will mention names. They asked whether this would resolve the prisoners issue if this happens. My answer was that it was logical for such an act to solve the prisoners' issue. I assure you that our assessment was not wrong. I am not being stubborn. In the entire world, tell me about any state, any army, or any war that was waged because some people kidnapped two soldiers, or even took hostages, not military soldiers. Tell me about a war that was waged against a state because of two soldiers. This has never happened in history. Nor has Israel done it anytime before. However, what is happening today is not a reaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I repeat that this is an international decision and an Arab cover. It is a decision that has to do with...[changes thought]. I stress to you that had we not captured two soldiers in July, which could have happened in August, September, or some other time, the Israelis would come to this battle and would create for it any pretext and any excuse. The issue of disarming and finishing the resistance could not be achieved domestically, regionally, nor at the negotiating table. The Americans were well aware that this issue cannot be addressed domestically. Therefore, the Lebanese were told to step back and to let Israel terminate and disarm Hezbollah. But a cover was needed. So they provided an international and an Arab cover. This is what the issue is about. Finally, I will tell you how any resistance in the world operates. If I want to kidnap or capture two Israeli soldiers, the political leadership would make the decision and hand it to me, but even my brothers [in the leadership] should not know that this would happen at such a time and such a place. If 60 to 70 people know such details, would a capt uring operation be successful? No, no such operation would be successful, let alone when informing a government of 24 ministers, three key leaders, political forces, and political blocs. On the table of dialogue, we hold discussions, and only one hour later the minutes of the sessions become available to [foreign] embassies. So do you expect me to tell the world I am going to capture [soldiers]? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20060722&articleId=2790
as always hayes you are more concerned about making your inane points and winning at your semantic games than about whats going on and how it affects people. more importantly today's news is more of the same. israel hits a bunch of non hezbollah targets which have nothing to do with hezbollah. and of course there is no international outcry. times bbc apartments. terrorist apartments. more terrorist apartments in beirut. southern beirut. the ghetto. terrorists. terrorist vehicles. caption:...Eight-year-old Howeida Khaled was injured on a strike against her village to the south of Beirut. In a hospital in the city, her mother can only wait for her daughter to recover.
Look if you want to jump in and get snippy then at least make sure you understand what people are saying. If you don't, and you obviously didn't in this case, then coming back and continuing to be an ass only doubles your misstep. The argument had nothing to do with semantics. I can appreciate that you've seen other people use the word and maybe you thought it sounded cool but at least have some recognition of what it means (yes, there is some irony here).
I could care less of the offensive you take. I understand hezbollah is a recognized terror group that must be eradicated. The fact is Lebanon IS A w**** HOST because they lend resources in the way of physical cover, diplomatic cover, monetary, basic needs, logistics...Lebanon has even said they are a state within a state, and if this is so...The State within the state must be utterly and uncompromisingly destroyed. Short term, Lebanon suffers, but long term they no longer become a w**** HOST...
I'm not sure exactly what he's saying, except that it didn't make sense. That part I understood. Keep D&D Civil.
Hezbollah gets a large portion of their money from syria and Iran. To condemn all of Lebanon is absurd. Again, I will ask you, Is the U.S. a w**** HOST to drug dealers because they get physical cover, diplomatic cover, monetary, basic needs, logistics... from the U.S.? What a w**** HOST that little girl and her mother are.
