BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:21 PM

Well Bill, if that was the real reason for this overkill, don't you think those soldiers would enter into the ceasefire negotiations?

Those two soldiers don't mean squat to Israel. It was just an excuse to invade Lebanon.

Do you really think Israel can justify the slaughter and destruction of another nation based on a couple of captives? Based on that reasoning, lets start counting the number of captives Israel has.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

I reiterate my question---who invaded who's territory? Colin Powell's theory is if you use force---use massive force. Otherwise you are just sacrificing your own people for naught.

That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg.

Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us:

A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:01 PM

Good question, Bill H.

Who invaded who's territory?

Thats the big question. Lets see...

Before there was Israeli territory, there was...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

There was Lebanon---and there still is Lebanon. Their weak army attacked no one---their terrorist band which is doing its best to be Lebanon did.

One other point--Israel is not a territory.   It is a sovereign state as is Lebanon.   You must use the proper terminology---otherwise you know that you colored and biased the discussion. Use "neutral" terms to make points if you are truly thinking of truth and not propogandizing.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM

Actually Bill Israel invaded the Lebanon last month and before that in 1982.It destroyed Beirut then and did a good job of it again this month with its huge bombs and missiles pulverising apartment blocks,bridges,clinics schools and houses.
Prior to the latest invasion it has raided Lebanese territory on many occasions assassinating individuals,kidnapping , collecting information and terrorising local people.
This time around an arrogant Israeli war machine commanded by a bunch of bone headed incompetents met its match against a well armed and well led guerrilla army using mobile tactics to good effect.
Read Seymour Hirsch's article for further info about the Israeli attackon the Lebanon.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

George Dumbya has been a moron all along; now he's apparently suffered some kind of psychotic episode and entirely lost touch with reality:

Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
16:34 EDT 14 August 2006

WASHINGTON -
President Bush, just hours after a cease-fire took hold Monday, said Hezbollah guerillas had suffered a sound defeat at the hands of Israel in their monthlong Mideast war...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:57 PM

Bill H. - I was using your terminology. You were the one who use the term, territory. Then, when you could not answer my question, you suggest that I use neutral terms so as not to cloud the truth.

If you are attempting to de-rail the discussion by inserting a red-herring, you might try to be a little less transparent.

Hezbollah has shown the world that Israel/U.S./Britain is not as all powerful as once thought. Isn't it amazing what people can do when they fight back? Hezbollah stood up to the Israeli Army and Israel did not win. Nobody won but Israel has shown their true colours and lost alot of international support.

They lost my support a long time ago. Any nation dependent on 'daddy' is not worth my respect. Its time for Israel to stand on its own two feet and start to negotiate in good faith. Its also time for Israel to stop being so needy. I can think of alot of countries that need support more than Israel does.

Makes me wonder where Israel would be if they didn't do exactly what the U.S. and Britain wanted them to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:04 PM

When Hezbollah attacked Israel, they opened the door for Israel to go after their structure and leadership, and it's about time someone had the cajones to do so.

Muslim genocide:

Sudan
Rwanda

Terrorist attacks:

London
Madrid
Bali
Mumbai
Israel
USA


Nice people, huh? But of course, we won't be talking about that because we are going to paint these bastards as 'poor deprived folks with a little attitude--just the boys out on Friday night killing a few hundred thousand people--sowing their oats as it were'. This is the trash you support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:06 PM

PEOPLE

are losing.

Who gives a shit whether Hezbollah, Israel, or anyone else thinks they're winning?

I'd like to have been at the UN this week. I *really* wanted to bang together the heads of a lot of diplomats who seemed to think that the form of words & their country's "face" was rather more important than the fact that people were busy dying unnecessarily...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:22 PM

Majority back Harper's support of Israel, poll shows

Vito Pilieci, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, August 14, 2006

An overwhelming number of Canadians support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertion that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are justified because Israel has a right to self defence and say Iran and Syria are wrong to have armed Hezbollah, according to a new poll to be released today.

The poll, which was conducted by public opinion researcher COMPAS Inc., will appear today in the news magazine Western Standard. The poll states that 82 per cent of Canadians asked believe that Israel has a right to self defence.

The results come on the heels of protests by Lebanese Canadians who have criticized Mr. Harper's comments in support of Israel. Protesters have derided Mr. Harper as being nothing more than a carbon copy of U.S. President George W. Bush.

In one Ottawa protest, thousands of Lebanese supporters marched on Parliament Hill demanding the Canadian government call an end to the bombing in Lebanon. Some of the protesters carried Hezbollah flags, openly flaunting their support for the organization.

In another rally in Montreal, supporters of Hezbollah marched alongside opposition members of Parliament, including Liberal MP Denis Coderre and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The demonstrations sparked outrage from the president of B'nai Brith Canada last week, who demanded the federal government crack down on pro-Hezbollah demonstrations.

"The streets of Canada will not be taken over by radical Islamic forces supporting terrorist activities," said Frank Dimant.

"B'nai Brith Canada will do its utmost to ensure that Canadians will not be intimidated by these terrorist sympathizers."

This week's COMPAS poll shows that of those Canadians polled, the majority are on-side with B'nai Brith and have no tolerance for Hezbollah.

The organization is classified as a terrorist organization and its operation is banned in Canada. More than 69 per cent of respondents said that Canada should continue to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and of those supporting the terrorist label for Hezbollah, 72 per cent said supporting the organization from Canadian soil should be illegal.

The poll further shows that 69 per cent of Canadians believe that Iran has been arming Hezbollah and is wrong to do so. Another 68 per cent of those asked believe that Syria was wrong to disobey a United Nations resolution requiring Syria to keep guns out of Lebanon.

However, when it comes to Canadian involvement in the region, the COMPAS poll found that many Canadians are still wary about sending our troops into Lebanon.

Of those polled, 65 per cent said Canada should not send peacekeepers into Lebanon, or should only send peacekeepers into the area if Hezbollah is disarmed. Only 27 per cent of those polled said that Canadian peacekeepers should be sent to the region if Hezbollah is still armed.

According to the COMPAS poll, the only issue that Canadians are divided on is the question of who started the war. Thirty-eight per cent of those polled believed Hezbollah started the war. Thirty-five per cent disagreed that the war was started by Hezbollah.

The COMPAS poll was conducted in response to a Strategic Counsel poll which was conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail. That poll said that 45 per cent of those asked disagreed with the prime minister's open support of Israel. According to the Strategic Counsel poll, only 32 per cent of Canadians agreed with the prime minister's comments that Israel has a right to defend itself.

� The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Slag, you asked "What is money?" Money is the artificially created idea that stands between modern human beings and sanity, between modern human beings and justice and equality. It is the made-up thing that serves as the motivating factor and the excuse for starkly irrational and destructive behaviour on the part of the aggressive and ruthless who claw their way to the top. It is the thing used to enslave the "little people" who put up with being enslaved in order to get their pitiful allowance of it at the end of each week or month...so they can survive as slaves a little longer. It is the thing for which good taste and rationality are exchanged for vulgarity and criminal waste.

It is a totally artificial concept, and the love of it above all else is what lies at the heart of most of the evil in this world.

Money is just a tool. In itself it's neither good nor evil. It is the way people have chosen to use it and think about it that has caused things to get way out of hand.

You said, "It's always about $$$ in all but a Holy War." Dead right, but in most holy wars it's to a great extent about the money too, in my opinion. Religion is used to motivate the fighters, because it's a very effective way of motivating people.

You said, "the US ceased Imperialism after T. Roosevelt."

Ha! The USA was practicing grand imperialism long before Teddy Roosevelt and has been practicing it ever since. You don't have to have official colonies to practice imperialism. You just have to control governments and economies through a combination of financial power, bought politicians, and military muscle. The USA does that whenever and wherever it can. So does Russia, but Russia has had serious setbacks since the late 80's, due the the failure of their economy to match American military and social spending. So does Israel, but in a much smaller geographical area than the USA or Russia. So does China, to some extent, in Tibet for example. So does Great Britian, but they now ride on the coattails of America.

The Anglo nations, meaning Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the USA...(in connection with Israel, as regards the Middle Eastern region)...are basically in a sort of unofficial alliance to dominate the world and control its energy resources right now, and they are setting themselves slowly but surely in opposition to the rest of the world community by so doing. This does not auger well for "peace in our time". Like the Germanic peoples, the Anglos will find out that the world does not take willingly to such grand imperial designs, and will resist them effectively in time.

I regret that I am a citizen in one of those countries, because I may yet live to find my own nation on the wrong side in a great world war, and I would be very sad to see such an eventuality....just as sad as I would have been to be a German in 1939-45.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Yes - This planet and people are the losers whenever there is war.

Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion. Perhaps you should start a thread about Muslim vs Christian vs Jewish genocide. Who started it, how many killed, who are the chosen, etc. Who worships what has nothing to do with genocide. None of their Gods would approve of genocide. Using God is the worst excuse imaginable.

The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals.

To hide behind God is a coward's way of defending atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:04 PM

"Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion."

Oh, but it does. This will be the last time I ever address you. The Muslims you support are terrorists. Period. I have yet to hear you speak against terrorism. Or against Hezbollah. They started a war with Israel. They are getting killed--and along with them are the innocent people they hide amongst. But you seem to think that doesn't matter. Because of that, your opinions have ceased to matter to me. Please do not address me in future. I will return the favour. If you have something to say about waht I have written, say it. That is it. Period. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM

SO---has anyone yet read the piece in the NY Times?   It might open some eyes---or you may disagree. But, since the author is from the Lebanese area one might have to believe it.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:36 PM

Whatever your view on the situation out there I think they have proven to be a formidable fighting force. When you consider the six day war in 1973. It's great to see the guns silent tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM

From: Bill Hahn
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

"That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg".

?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on, when there was a flourishing country rebuilt for 15 years after the civil war and last Israeli invasion, ripe for the picking. It reminds me a lot of the nonsense put about by British elements in the media when their soldiers and police burned Cork city to the ground (in Ireland) during the war for independence there in 1920. The next day, with the city a smouldering ruin, the British claimed the IRA and civilians burned the city down themselves to discredit the British and turn the people against them!(hardly a very convincing explanation when you think about it, after all they'd just be saving the British army a lot of work) The only problem was that there were a wealth of civilians who had seen what really happened, and the British army and police had carried out the destruction without even bothering to remove their uniforms. Now even if Hezbollah did want to run Lebanon in this manner, they would find it more profitable to simply turn their rockets against their own infrastructure (though admittedly their rockets are not as effective as US/IDF bombs and missiles) and take on the Lebanese army - a much weaker opponent than the Israeli forces.
And if the Israelis keep blaming Syria for sponsoring the Hezbollah (though the Israelis are of course, sponsored by the White House) why don't they just go in and attack Syria and be done with it? Maybe because they haven't yet received the 'nod' from the White House!


"Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us"

I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think. It's a bit like the Black Hills of long ago. Back in the middle of the 1800s the US government signed a number of treaties with the Sioux Indians and other tribes to guarantee them the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians but thought to be worthless by the US government at the time) 'for as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines'. Well, the sun stopped shining pretty soon after that apparently, because someone discovered gold in the Black Hills and before long the US government was allowing white prospectors in to try their luck, depsite their promise to the Indians to prevent this. Naturally the Indians were angry at the failure of pale face to honour their promises (not realising the true nature of pale face) and when the prospectors began to increase in number and refused to leave, and the US government did nothing, the Indians attacked them. And then the kid gloves came off! No more 'tolerant' Mr.Nice Guy! The Indians had become 'terrorists' (or whatever word was in vogue at the time) and the US army went in to 'restore order' which turned out in translation to be grabbing the Black Hills. In a way you could be led to think the US government allowed the panhandlers, knowing how the Indians would respond, and using this perfectly natural response as an excuse to simply grab by force what they had promised not to in writing. The Black Hills were full of gold, and the backward, smelly Indians were in the way, so they had to be pushed aside if they didn't go peacefully. Then, not content with breaking their promises and their treachery, the US government decided to add insult to injury by carving up the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians, remember - think how you might feel if someone dropped a bomb on the White House, or, on a lesser scale, tramples on the American flag - then you have a fraction of an idea of how the Indians felt about the Black Hills). They carved the Black Hills up into the faces of 4 US presidents. As John Fire Lame Deer (Sioux medicine man, died sometime in the 1970s or 80s) said "This is what the four faces mean: when white people come out and see them they think: '"we did this. We are powerful. What we want we get, and no-one can stop us' They may not know that's what they are thinking, but they are thinking it" (see 'John Fire Lame Deer, Sioux Medicine Man', by Richard Erdoes and John Fire).
What's this to do with Iran etc.,? I hope it should be clear by now. The White House and its allies want to control the world's oil (remember their attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002 in Venezuela - a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, so much for love of democracy!) and anyone who stands in the way of that project will be eliminated. It's that simple. If they can't be eliminated (for example, many US citizens disgaree with White House policy, but the White House can't just go round killing THEM) they will be silenced in other ways: harrassed by the police, accused in the media and elsewhere of 'sympathising with terrorists' of being 'un-patriotic' etc., (in the old days, they called you 'a n****er lover, or a injun lover, and before that, a witch). As well as the oil producing countries, they need to control a few peripheral countries as well, such as Afghanistan, in order to create a buffer zone between the oil fields and the energy hungry countries around them, such as Russia, China and India. I wonder how long the Russians, Chinese etc., will tolerate this before World War Three is launched?

"A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy"

They never really were the enemy, like the Indians - but they are sitting on top of one of the world's most coveted natural resources, and so they are in the way of neo-con New America (I'm not blaming Americans here, by the way, as I hope you realise. It would help though if they didn't vote for Jeb Bush when he tries to continue the family dynasty at the next presidential elections, that is if Bush hasn't crowned himself 'dictator for life' by then. Watch out for Condoleeza Rice too: if Jeb doesn't make it as a runner, she'll probably be put forward as a candidate, and will play the race card (as the first would-be black president) and the feminist card (as the first would-be woman president). Don't be fooled! She may be a black woman, but to get where she did, she made her heart a neo-con's white man's). A far better choice might be Hillary Clinton, if no-one truly amazing steps up in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,BN
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

"The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals."

One thing that I'm getting sick and tired of are Hezbollah's Mudcat fellow travelers like the anit-Semitic Dianavan who continually point out at the lesser numbers of Israeli losses as proof of war crimes.

What bullshit!

In World War II, more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression.

In response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children.

To be sure, EVERY loss of an innocent life is a tragedy. But that's what happens in a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Just for the record:

I do not support terrorism.

I do not support Israel either. In fact, I hold the nation of Israel to a much higher standard than I do a group of terrorists, therefore my criticism of Israel.

Just because I criticise the actions of Israel, does not mean I support Hezbollah. Although I do support the social programs provided by Hezbollah, it doesn't mean I support terrorist activity. Neither do I support the Israeli army.

On the other hand, I try to imagine being Lebanese and offer the Lebanese (regardless of their faith) the support they deserve. If I were Lebanese, I am pretty sure I would feel justified in defending myself from Israel. History has shown that Israel does not respect Lebanon or its people. What has Lebanon done to Israel?

Whenever someone (I'm not naming anyone) decides that Israel is endangered because Muslims are intent on genocide, I know that they responding hysterically. Its difficult to discuss a problem with anyone who resorts to emotional hype.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Nick: You draw good analogies. I would say, however, that some comments need response:

"?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on"

It was not the NYT opinion--rather the writer who is from the area and now serves on committees to resolve the issues. He gives a succint reason for what you state.


"
"I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think"

It is called diplomacy---you talk so as to avoid mayhem. But, when you are a cowboy from Texas who wants to show dad he is more macho this is what you get.   Not to mention the greed and arrogance of his VP and the return of Rumsfeld as an alleged military expert. Any semblence of diplomcy and military strategy left with Powell.

Your comments about the Native Americans is right on, as far as I am concerned. And a good analogy. Though not totally on the mark it is very close.

Funny thing--I had the same thought about Bush and his last term a while back---and wouldn't it be nice if he could declare and emergency and have it extended. I doubt that he is that thick as to try that.

As to Rice. I am no expert on her, certainly. But she seems to have the diplomatic skills required to fulfill her duties. Can she handle domestic affairs? I don't know. A Bush appointee that toes the line would be expected---but, one has to ask, how did she get involved witht the likes of someone like that would be nice to know.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM

Lebanon had two years to oust Hezbollah from the south of Lebanon. They didn't. Hexbollah started a war and they hide amongst civilians. Basically, the war that is IN Lebanon has nothing to do with the Lebanese people--it has to do with a governemnt that ignored UN Resolution 1559 for TWO YEARS, THEN, the terrorist bastards known as Hezbollah--nurtured by the same philosophy that destroyed hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan and Rwanda--hid amongst civilians where they continue to hide. Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would mnake their job easier. But had they NOT been careful, the civilian death toll would be in the tens of thousands. That is a main difference between Hezbollah and the Israelis. Israel cares about life. Hezbollah cares about the complete and total killing of every Jew in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM

"Muslims are intent on genocide"

Indeed they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:18 PM

"Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would make their job easier. "

Still scratching my head about how Israel bombing Maronite Christian residential areas fits into 'The Master Plan'...

any 'Master Plan' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM

Bill Hahn,

fair point about NYT.

Re. talking to Iran, Syria etc., I know it's called diplomacy and I do agree it's preferable to mayhem. But my point is that it's not going to be honest diplomacy. It's going to be along the lines of "You have to change your societies and the way you live. You are going to have to be more pro-Western in your attitudes. You are going to have to co-operate with our takeover of resources in your region. You are going to have to render yourselves militarily impotent. While your neighbour and our ally may be allowed to have nuclear weapons, this right is not for you. You are going to have to open your markets to our Free Trade regulations which will be great for our big corporations, but probably disastrous for your social welfare, as has been the case all over the 'Third World'"

Now, if you were one of the countries being addressed in that way, you might be less than enthusiastic about such a message. Certainly if China was interfering in the Middle East region in this manner, planting its troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and demanding that the populations and governments of those countries toe the Beijing line, Britain and America would be the first countries to shout about the spread of communism (though China is no longer communist - as Diang Xiaopeng said 'to get rich is glorious') and democracy etc., That is, unless China was stronger and / or willing to cut them in on the deal. They would complain about it not because they really have any great love for democracy, but because China would be 'interfering' with what they regard as their pie.

The White House makes a lot of noise about Syria and Iran having no real respect for democracy and not being interested in democracy for palestine or Lebanon, but I think it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

As for Condoleeza Rice: as a diplomat? She certainly knows how to be tough and has the ability to handle her opponents fairly well. But to many she comes across as being a bit creepy. There was a very good cartoon in a paper that summed it up here: It shows Rice standing in front of a Lebanese landscape that is being slowly reduced to rubble. Regarding the hoped-for ceasefire at the time (about two weeks ago) she is saying "Not yet.....not yet....' and finally '..Now!' as the last building in Lebanon is flattened. But her hypocrisy unfortunately is fairly clearly visible to most, and hardly does much for her reputation as a diplomat. I don't think any of the Arab countries take her seriously anymore (Lebanon's leader even told her go home until she was willing to get serious) and many countries in Europe find her a bit creepy as well. If she ever became president she would simply continue her warmongering subtext in a more open fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

When you run with the hyenas...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:50 PM

From: Peace "Instead of wars, when countries want to do battle their leaders should go--and may I suggest machine guns at fifteen paces?"

that's one of the most sensible comments I've seen on any forum for a while! I couldn't agree more - when the leaders want to do this or that, you never find them actually going out and fighting for it themselves. Pink Floyd had a very good song on their album "The Final Cut" (1983). It was about the need to build a kind of retirement home for 'incurable tyrants, colonial despots and wasters' where they could take tea on the lawn and play their war games out of harm's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:09 PM

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Just on the News...

Israel opened fire... believed it had a right to, as its soldiers thought they were 'under attack'....

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 11:37 PM

This has become quite a thread (rope?). It has ranged far afield at times but really timely, interesting, passionate, revealing. LittleHawk, if you use a broad enough brush you can paint everything in a single swipe. Money is a medium of appreciation. Most of you as musicians and artists can readily understand the truth of that statement. This holds true for BIG money too. When money becomes a medium of exchange it becomes a way of quantifying said appreciation but something happens. As we put FAITH in money we also are putting faith in the issuer of the medium. We all know that in unity there is strength and accumulations of wealth represent power and strength. In the world the US Dollar has proven worthy as a standard whereby one can measure how well other nations are doing. Enter the Petrol-Dollar. I believe the petroleum strategy of the US (let's use up THEIR oil first) failed to appreciate the foregoing. As the Arabian and other oil producing nations saw how much we are addicted to oil they decided to test the degree of "appreciation" we hold for the stuff and if it made us strong, it would make them strong. Enter OPEC. You can apply the logic to any political situation and it holds true. FOLLOW THE MONEY. And it really is like a gigantic Milton-Bradley board game, MONOPOLY, highly complex with millions of varying assets deals, intrigues, cheats, powerplays, etc. Truly the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. And I would have to concede to you the one point that USA's financial intresests, private and public do represent a type of imperialism but no more than any of the other players. I could get very cynical and bemoan all the evil that has come about because of it and I'd be right but that is only part of the balance sheet. You can also use money to do good and much good is done with money and ironically you can see instances where both good and evil occur at the same time, kinda like the old comedic "Good News/Bad News" routines. And ultimately MONEY itself is a neutral agent. There is NO INHERENT WORTH in the physical object(s) we call MONEY. In essences money is a reflector, a revealer of the hearts of men and women. Enough on my philosophy of money.

As far as putting a list of countries together which the US has had direct or indirect military action, so what? Does that tell the provocation? We fought two and a half wars with England. What does that tell you? Does Pancho Villa's quasi-military incursion into the US go on Mexican tee shirts? So what? That kind of crap is just incindiary fodder for non-thinkers. A bunch of "yeah, yeah" stuff for the rent-a-crowd and Berekely freshmen.

Just a general observation. As I stated earlier we the people haven't really done the good work of citizens of a free nation. We have voted our vested interests, our bias, ignorance and prejudice. We have not tried to see the big picture. Our "leaders" have forgotten that they are public SERVANTS. They are self-serving. They are your friends at election time but they are never going to "fix" the issue that won your vote because they are counting on that same issue to get them re-elected and you rise to the bait every time. BOTH PARTIES. I'd say we deserve better than that but we don't. We get the government we deserve. If you really believe in something more than "We hate George Bush" let's have it. What is your solution? Republican are winning on that because no Democrat has articulated a well thought out comprehensive policy or plan that will benefit the nation and ease international tensions. You all vote Democrat because, well, you're Democrats. DUUUUUH! You know, I remember JFK. I wasn't too impressed with his candidacy. I remember TV interviews of women who were going to vote for him because "he is so cute!" and even at the ripe old age of 14 I knew that was wrong. But hey! He surprized me. I didn't agrre with everything he did or stood for but he helped this nation and stepped up to the international challanges of the day. He promoted economic benefit for the entire nation and promoted civil rights. All this inspite of his personal foibles. The man had something on the ball. I can understand how Jack Ruby felt (barring any conspiracy theories). It seems we are all trying to elect ACTORS, posers, poll readers. I'll vote for an honest statesperson and clear thinker regardless of the party if we can only get one to run.

Hezbolla, the Army of God. God help us. Let's all hope that Hezbolla isn't winning. Yeah. Israel has been watching Hezbollah's build up of terror weapons. Yeah. they've been waiting for the right provocation to allow them a worthy pretext to go in and try to dismantle it. So what? So would I.

Ok LittleHawk. Thank you for answering my question about money. That was an honest, heartfelt response. I have another question for you. Why have most armies through the ages worn uniforms?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:06 AM

Very perceptive and well-thought out comments on your part, Slag. ;-) Thanks for such a thorough response to my response. All of what you say about money (good, bad, and/or neutral) is correct. I like the fact that money is a measure of appreciation. That's one of the good things about it. It is indeed a reflector of the hearts of men and women. Fascinating how plainly it reveals them, when you compare, say, someone like Al Capone to someone like Albert Schweitzer.

You asked: "Why have most armies through the ages worn uniforms?"

Well, the number one reason was so you could quickly identify "friendlies" from "unfriendlies", I would think, specially at a distance! The colorful uniforms worn in classical times by Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, and such gave way to the equally colorful uniforms worn later in eras such as the Napoleonic era...when it was necessary to identify large formations of men through a telescope, while peering across a field through masses of shifting smoke. And mistakes were often made! One thing that most people are unaware of is that many American Civil War units wore a bewildering variety of colors into combat...the Union wasn't all dressed in blue by any means, and the Confederates weren't all dressed in Gray.

However, the colors of uniforms in different units did often help in quickly identifying friend or foe.

Another reason would have been to establish "uniformity" (which helps build discipline) and a strong sense of shared identity, which helps establish good esprit de corps and fighting spirit.

Another reason would have been to distinguish the military man from the civilian.

Another reason would be to help inspire recruitment. Poor people were offered many enticements for entering military service, and one of those was..."You'll get to wear a good suit of clothes and a fine pair of shoes at no charge." (that, along with free meals, lodging, etc...in return for the risk of getting your head blown off or a bayonet stuck in your guts...).

Those are the reasons that occur to me. Do you have some more to add?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:20 AM

To say that "Muslims are intent on genocide", Peace, is not a useful statement, unless one is a professional politician intent on stirring his people up to fight more wars and kill more Muslims.

The reason I say this is simple. I know a lot of Muslims personally, and not one of them is the least bit intent on genocide.

Yes, I know that some specific Muslim zealots are intent on killing Israelis, and perhaps even Jews in a general sense. So too are some specific Jewish zealots intent on killing Muslims who they deem to be in the way of Israel's greater plans for the region.

That does not justify the blanket statement: "Muslims are intent on genocide."   It would not justify the blanket statement: "Jews are intent on genocide." either, would it? One statement is as unfair as the other. Most Muslims and Jews would just like to live peaceful and happy lives!

Either statement tars an entire people with the dark intentions held by only certain more fanatical and big-mouthed individuals among those people.

It's an irresponsible thing to say, but that can easily happen when speaking in the heat of the moment. It's a statement of extreme emotion in reaction to a perceived hurt of some kind. You could call it a racist statement if you wanted to...but I recognize that when people are caught up in things they feel very passionate about they sometimes speak to extremes.

Therefore, I pass no judgement on someone who says it...I merely say that it is an inflammatory and misleading statement, because it does not really make sense in the larger context.

I repeat: Most Muslims and most Jews would just like to live happy and prosperous lives in peace, and bring up their children in safety.

How apples does it take to spoil a whole barrel? Just one bad apple will do it. This does not mean that all the apples are bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:43 AM

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Littlehawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:06 AM

Gee, I should have picked the name "Grey Eagle" as a user name, then I'd always be one up on you LittleHawk.Yuk yuk.

In really ancient times armor and attire were pretty much hit or miss. Distinction was more the norm as counting coup and individual battle skill was important for your military and social prestige. There were individual champions and at times, when the hostilities were'nt too great, the battle of champions would settle the matter. In the near and middle east you had (have) the concept of the "harem" or the "ban". If it were a holy war or a holy cause the target people might be put under the ban. If that was the case then there would be no survivors. Men, women, children, livestock, every living thing was slaughtered, the town was destroyed and the stone buildings were dismantled and all were forbidden to build anything new there and no one was to ever live there again. Thus they took care of their problems. There are several instances of this in the Old Testament ( note King Saul's problems for not obeying the harem ). War settled EVERYTHING. Many archeological digs will come upon city/states of which no record is known in ancient history because of this fact. Many tels have never been explored or excavated due to lack of funds or access and no one knows who the people were! Unfortunately I see that same mindset in some of the Eastern groups today. Back to the uniforms. Armies did, however have certain uniform features: feathers, dyed cloth, familial tattoos, plaited beards, sheild shape, some featured that would allow them to distinguish friend from foe.

When the Greeks came along they brought uniformity to a science and the weaponery became uniform also. This aided in manufacture. The soldiers became faceless. They'd even organize rank and column by height. This was duanting to to less "hip" enemies as if one soldier fell another who looked, in the heat of battle, just like the other guy stepped up and they felt they were making no progress. Little touches like plummage or brooms would distinguish rank. Yes, it all involved discipline, morale and psychology. If the Greeks made warfare a scince, the Romans perfected it. Their armies were legendary.

And, of course as weaponry and tactics changed so did the uniform. Camoflauge reflects stealth and long range weaponry. BUT, since ancient times one thing has held true in the orderly chaos called "War" and that is that you never put on the uniform of the enemy or as a soldier, assumed the guise of a civilian. That made you either a traitor, a deserter or a spy and as such, your life was forfeit. Well, we are all somewhat familiar with the concept of espionage and how we deal with spies when there is no "hot" battlefield. They are pumped for info when caught or are traded like pawns. I bring all this up to make a point about "Is Hezbolla Winning?" because they bear no uniform. Their targets are indiscriminate as to whether they are military or civilian. Murder is their tactic, using the civilian population as a shield and hiding behind women and children because they know their enemy has a moral compunction against taking innocent life. It is about one of the most dispicable tactics there is. It is cowardly and evil. This "Army of God" is a reflection upon the god they serve. Why don't the moderate Muslims rise up with a clear voice and condemn this practice, this movement. Where are they? Is this truly what Allah is like? Not from what I have read in the Qoran (albeit the English version). I could be wrong but by their not doing so I get the impression that they are taking the "wait and see" approach. They don't want to take a stand because Hezbolla and other terrorists might win or the tentacles of Hezbolla might reach out and extract revenge upon them. Cowardice!

OK. You could argue that because they are small (they aren't: Israel is small) they use these tactics because they would be easily defeated were they to present their dispute with a uniformed army (which they or their prototypes have done before and have been soundly whipped. If they represent such a minority point of view then they need to get a new view point, one that more people will support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 06:54 AM

To Peace
I know Islamophobia is rampart in some people but to blame the slaughter in Rwanda on muslims is plainly untrue..actually it is a filthy racist lie.

Rwanda is an almost totally christian country with most of its population being either Roman Catholic or Protestant.Muslims make up less than 2% of its population.

The slaughter in Rwanda was a crime against humanity but it was not a crime commited by muslims and I call on you to withdraw that statement.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:13 AM

'because they bear no uniform. Their targets are indiscriminate as to whether they are military or civilian. Murder is their tactic'

I am tempted to make comment about the CIA not wearing unforms...

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are several instances of this in the Old Testament ( note King Saul's problems for not obeying the harem"

Hmmmm, if you wish to take all the OT literally, you may be misled - the tale of the conquest of Canaan reads like a whirlwind campaign, taking only a few months - and that fits in nicely with the alleged time line... archaeology of all those town sites, indeed reveals that they were indeed catastrophically destroyed, but over a total period exceeding 150 years, lending credence to the 'Hosianiac conspiracy' theory of the rewriting of history...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 10:54 AM

Hezbollah claims they won. They did not win anything. They got their ass kicked as usual but the Al Jazeera types claim it as at first time the Jews have been defeated.

What has Hezbollah gained? Disarmament? Any territory? Nothing.

Isreal got the rockets to stop for a while at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:26 PM

What has Hebollah gained?

Hezbollah has proved to be no pushover for the mighty Israeli war machine which suffered heavy losses in its ground offensive.

Hezbollah was also able to attack with missiles much of northern Israel and to empty it of much of its population during the course of the ground invasion of Lebanon.

Thirdly Hezbollah still has the Israeli soldiers it captured prior to the invasion and Israel will almost certainly have to release large numbers of its Lebanese prisoners if it is see them returned.

Fourthly with Lebanese refugees waving Hezbollah flags returning to their wrecked homes and guerillas still present in the surrounding hills an Israeli force north of the border looks increasingly unlikely.

Olmert and the Israeli High Command look likely to go in the very near future as the scale of the misdventure north of the border becomes clear.The damage to Israel's reputation has been immense.It has slaughtered hundreds of civilians ,mainly children in its indiscriminate bombing of towns,cities and villages across Lebanon.

Hezbollah has gained a huge amount of support across Lebanon with christians,shias and sunnis acknowledging its prowess in blunting the Israeli offensive .....Hezbollah's standing has also increaed across the whole of the Middle East.

The   carnage in the Lebanon makes an imminent American and Israeli attack on Syria and Iran more unlikely ,although the mad neocon war gang still seemed intent on such an attack in the future.

Lastly Blair's reputation in Britain has been still further damaged in Britain because of his role in the invasion of Lebanon.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:28 PM

Wow, you Israel supporters sure are sore losers, heh. As predicted, a clear victory for Hezbollah. Told ya so! All Hezbollah really needed to do to "win" was survive, showing Israel's impotence, which they did. And what's more, their popularity is now at an all-time high, not only in Lebanon, but all over the Middle East. They (and their sucessful tactics) are an inspiration to hundreds of millions. They remain the most powerful Lebanese military, and their social organisations will play a major role in re-building the country. And, most importantly, they've (once again) shattered Israel's overhyped aura of invincibility, and (once again) the Israelis are leaving Lebanon with their tails between their legs. And how lovely, that it happened just a short Katyusha-flight from Ain-Jalut, where Hülegü's Mongols were similarly brought down to Earth in the eyes of the Muslims. Yeah, Hezbollah really got their asses kicked. ;)

By the way, last week, on the NPR show "Fresh Air," there was a fucking awesome interview with Augustus Richard Norton, an expert on the region. If anyone is interested in the Israel/Lebanon conflict, and has forty-five minutes or so to listen to it, here it is. Very, very fucking highly recommended.

Old Guy: I hate to say it, but maybe just go back to the copy-and-pasting news articles. Like that story about the Druze dude denouncing Hezbollah. (As if you even know what a Druze is. Admit it: When you read that the Druze leader lived in a castle, you pictured him riding a unicorn, didn't you?) Or, better yet, take my earlier advice and fuck off back to those racist blogs you love so well. Fossil-brained Twentieth Century relics such as yourself have nothing to add to this conversation.

Peace: Uh, yeah... Rwanda?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 12:31 PM

GUEST,hugo: Will you be my bride? :}

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM

No I wont but I will help you counter the Zionist war crew on Mudcat!!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 01:48 PM

I pretty much agree with Lepus Rex on this one, Slag. Hezbollah has won the psychological victory this time, and that was the vital key.

It's very comparable to the psychological victory won by the Viet Cong in the famed Tet Offensive in the 60's. In military terms, the Viet Cong lost...if you go by body count, material losses, who controlled the battlefield at the end of the fighting, and so on...in fact, the US military command was delighted by the situation, because they were able to inflict such heavy losses on the usually elusive guerrilla forces in that fight. However, psychologically speaking it was an enormous victory for the Viet Cong, and it basically began the slow slide to defeat and withdrawal for the USA in that region. It convinced the American public that the war could not be won. That was the key factor. It gave the lie to the illusion that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were going to soon be worn down and defeated and just fade away.

In the case of this fight in Lebanon, some other popular illusions are now going down to destruction. One is the belief of Israelis that their forces are invincible on the battlefield, to the extent that they can always score an easy and almost bloodless victory. They're not going to be thinking that way so much in the future. This will have quite a chastening effect on their strategy, and it should temper their recklessness a bit, I would think. It should contribute to more even-handed negotiations between Israel and its opponents.

I do not fault Hezbollah for fighting in the only way possible if they want to fight effectively and not be slaughtered, Slag. That is what smart soldiers do. Fools make banzai charges across open ground against superior weaponry and get slaughtered. Hezbollah's tactics were smart, well-thought-out, and exactly geared to the realities of the situation. They have shown good organization, good discipline, and they appear to have good support among most of the civilians in the areas where they are operating...plus they have the wisdom to offer a lot of non-military support to civilians in those areas. That, again, is smart. You don't just win wars on a battlefield, you have to address yourself to other social matters as well as fighting if you want to win wars.

It's been a most interesting and unexpected shift in dynamics for the Middle Eastern conflict. Not what Bush was hoping for. I believe what he had in mind was the usual lightning-fast decisive Israeli victory, followed by a much larger war on Syria and Iran, with Israeli forces advancing toward Damascus.

If so, everyone can thank their lucky stars that Hezbollah stalled the Israeli advance and turned it into a stalemate. By doing so, they may have saved a great many lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM

"Hezbollah's tactics were smart, well-thought-out, and exactly geared to the realities of the situation. "

International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ernest
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:32 PM

Interesting thoughts, Little Hawk. Still I disagree with some points:

I do find a faullt in the tactics of Hezbollah: Using civilians as a shield is not exactly what I would call moral behaviour.

And more important I don`t think the outcome saved a great many lives. Hezbollah did not achieve the big goal of "wiping Israel of the map". And I never heard that they gave it up. So if they aren`t disarmed for good it will probably start all over again...

Best
Ernest

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

Well, of course the lives of two soldiers were important to Israel. How could they not be? The lives of soldiers everywhere are important to me, for one, and certainly those of my own country. Even those on opposing sides, say on North Korea, or the former East Germany...I wish them all well and hope they don't suffer. So to say Israel doesn't care about its soldiers, who could very well end up mutilated or whatever, is astounding. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM

This time around Jerry beat Tom!
Walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:51 PM

I very much doubt that Hezbollah had any expectation whatsoever of wiping Israel off the map in this latest fight. ;-) The Israelis, on the other hand, did have an expectation that they were going to wipe Hezbollah off the map, and that expectation has not been met. That is why I say Hezbollah has won the psychological victory here.

You have to separate populist rhetoric from actual military planning. If Ahmadinejad or some other spokesman quotes the Ayatollah Komeini making a statement many years ago that it would be good to "wipe Israel off the map", it's populist rhetoric, geared for the ears of a local audience. As such, it has bloodly little or nothing to do with military realities and military planning by someone like Hezbollah.

Bush uses such rhetoric too. He talks about the desirability of achieving "regime change" in other countries. He talks about "taking out" this government or that one. Such talk is never appreciated much by the people whom it is aggressively aimed at, but it's lapped with enthusiasm up by the more bloody-minded members of the loyal home audience, isn't it?

Were the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto using "human shields" when they rose up against the Nazis? Were the Poles in Warsaw using "human shields" when they did the same thing later in the war and rose up against the might of the German occupying forces?

I'm sure the Nazis accused them all of so doing. I'm sure the Nazis reviled them all for not wearing uniforms, and for skulking and hiding amongst the civilian infrastructure and causing "needless civilian casualties" (although in truth they of course didn't give a damn about that).

This sort of thing is always seen as "bad" when you think you're good and the other guy is bad...and when you have the far greater military power on the scene. It's seen as "good" when those roles are reversed, and YOU are the guys who must hide amidst the ruins and fight a far more powerful opponent.

Hezbollah did exactly what the militarily weaker forces always do in the face of a far better armed opponent. That is guerilla warfare.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 02:59 PM

The Tet Offensive was planned by (PAVRN) the People's Army of Vietnam and carried out in coordianted maneuvres by both the Viet Cong and the PAVRN. It's success (psychological) cannot be singled out as a succes just by the Vietcong. Without North Vietnman's involvemnt the Tet Offensive and the war would have had different results.

The war just did not invlove the the (the People's Liberation Army) Vietcong but also (substantially) by divisional sized forces of the Northern Republic of Vietnamn's army. The PAVRN was greatly assisted with supplies, guidance from the USSR.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 03:08 PM

"Nasrallah taunts Israel and claims victory"           

"Ahmadinejad gives 'victory speech' before masses"

"Hamas Sees Hizballah 'Victory' As Cause for New Intifada"

All you Hezbollah supporters are certainly in lockstep with some pleasant company.

Little Hawk, you comparison of this situation to that of the Nazis in Poland is repugnant.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

Bobad: "International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield"

Many of the civilians living in the areas where Hizbullah operate are in fact their relatives, family and friends. When a Hizbullah fighter is able to get off duty, if he gets into civvies (civilian clothes) he will go back and mingle with friends and family. This fact is very conveniently ignored by the White House and other neo-con commentators. The so-called human shields are the friends and family of Hizbullah, and the area where Hizbullah is opertaing is home to all of them. What the hell makes anyone think Hizbullah value their relations any less than we do? Maybe they should all line up in an open field well away from anything of value so they can be mown down. Maybe their critics think it would be better yet if they marched all the way down to Jerusalem and fought the IDF there, well away from Lebanese civilians??

Durung the war of Independence in Ireland in the 1920s the IRA 'operated out of civilian areas' - well, why wouldn't they? The so-called civilian areas were actually their homes, not some kind of convenient DMZ zone! They were a guerilla army and their country was occupied by a foreign army that was all around them. They British made all the same comments at the time about hiding behind civilians and ambushing from behind walls instead of coming out in the open to be shot down like fools. One IRA leader had to point out the obvious by asking a British general - 'you accuse uf of hiding behind walls etc., Well," he continued "what do you call hiding inside THAT?" pointing at British armoured car.

As for Hizbullah starting the war, the two IDF soldiers who were kidnapped were actually across the border in Lebanon at the time of their capture (and what the hell were they doing there?). The Israelis changed the story after initial versions came out to make out that Hizbullah actually crossed their border into Israel. Someone futher back along this thread explained why Israel had to invade, because Lebanon had two years to kick Hizbullah out, and hadn't succeeded. Actually, Israel never fully withdrew from Lebanon - it still occupies the small, but strategic area of the Shaaba farms in southern Lebanon. Now if the Lebanese were unable to oust the Israelis from Shaaba Frams, what gives the Israelis the right to go round pompously demanding Hizbullah be evicted from Lebanon? As I said earlier, and I repeat again - the two unfortuante Israeli soldiers WERE probably killed in the massive aerial and ground bombardment that was supposed to rescue them. Logic: If someone kidnapped my men, and I was serious about getting them back ALIVE, the last thing i would do would be to blanket bomb the whole area where they might be held. To do so would be to simply risk killing them myself, saving Hizbullah the job. Commonsense and logic make it an obvious conclusion, and indeed the two soldiers families have said as much. It was never about the two soldiers to begin with.

"Little Hawk, you(r) comparison of this situation to that of the Nazis in Poland is repugnant"

Why is it repugnant?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:46 PM

HUGO:

I do withdraw it. My apologies to Muslims in Rwanda.

However, I will not issue apologies to Muslims in the Sudan. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

Guest: If you believe that what the Israelis were doing in Lebanon is no different than what the Nazis were doing in Poland, your head is so far up your arse that anything I say will provide you with no illumination whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM

It is "repugnant" only to one is emotionally wedded to the idea that Israel is always "good" and anyone who is against Israeli policy is always "bad". Those are entirely subjective notions.

Every partisan fighter and supporter of such believes his side is "good". The fact is, there are good people on both sides in every conflict, and there are well-intentioned people who fail to recognize the wrongdoings of their own side in any conflict...and such has been the case since time immemorial.

The Romans would have considered it "repugnant" to be compared to the Carthaginians, and vice versa. So what?


Israelis will simply not be able to see their own actions in the same light as those of others until they put aside their holier-than-thou ultimate victims of all time illusions of collective martyrdom, and wake up to the reality that they are no better than any other people in this world. The excuse of one's own past suffering cannot be used forever and ever to inflict suffering on a great many other people. That is what the Nazis did. You see what happened to them in the end. They had a holier-than-thou attitude as well, and that is one reason why I find them a very apt comparison. They were also looking for land to occupy and settle on with their own people, while displacing others. They also relied on an elite war machine, superior to all others in most respects (until about 1944), and sudden crushing attacks using a combination of air power and armour. They also considered themselves to be morally and culturally far superior to those they fought. If you can't see the similarities, it is simply because it would force you to confront that which you cannot bear to.



Guest - You are entirely correct in what you said about North Vietnam assisting the Viet Cong, with further technical and arms assistance from Russia (and China), and so on. I could have mentioned it if I'd gone on at more length, but I didn't bother to. I consider Vietnam to always have been, in reality, one country, and I consider the Vietnamese wars to have been wars against foreign occupation...first by the French, then by the Japanese, again by the French, and finally by the USA and its surrogates. The Vietnamese won. The foreign occupiers lost. But it took a very long time to achieve that.