Lebanese Army May Enter Fight

So Israel should just keep complying with these terrorists, and give them whatever they want? Even though these people are kidnapping Israeli soldiers to barter? I find that train of thought very misguided.

Let memory serve that this most recent escalation was a DIRECT result of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. The Israeli government asked for the soldiers back, and Hezbollah said no. Israel commences attacks on Lebanon to try to force them to put pressure on Hezbollah to release the captives. They do not. So the actions continue to escalate. How is this train of thought illogical? Yes there are tons of casualties, as there are in any confrontation. That doesn't mean that Israel is the bad guy. If Hezbollah would simply relent, and give those two soldiers back, then Israel would cease the attacks and back out of Lebanon.

It's a very simple request for a very simple response. Until that request is met, then there will be no relenting, and for that I cannot fault Israel one bit.

TheBorg

Look, this is getting old. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of robots incapable of altering their own probgramming. I would have more success talking to a brick wall, or perhaps a potato.

Lets explore it with a simple analogy. My neighbor kills your dog. In retaliation, you burn down my house. Now, who do I see as the enemy: the guy who killed your dog, or the guy that burned down my house? I might be annoyed at my neighbor for getting me into the whole mess, but the guy I'm gunning for is the guy that burned down my house.

You ask why Israel should "give in" to Hezbollah.
But why the hell should Lebanon "give in" to Israel? - you know, the people that are killing lots of Lebanese right now. Lebanon has as much right to defend itself as Israel does.

If Israel were confining itself to attacking Hezbollah, there wouldn't be a problem.
But they're not, they're clearly taking their war well beyond Hezbollah and attacking the Lebanese in general. And that's the problem.

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm with you z-man. I don't think the extermination of Hezbollah is at hand. the only way that this might (might) be accomplished would be for Israel to invest the whole country and stay there for the next 30 years to oversee the reigme change.

z-man, I hope that's refering to me! I like the sound of that

Perhaps I came across too strong. The only thing I disagreed with in your post was the 2:1 ratio for Israeli success based on troops numbers. I'd say Israel could not afford to lose even a quarter of that 60,000. The political will is just not there. Everything else I agreed with

Originally posted by xmotex
Look, this is getting old. I feel like I am talking to a bunch of robots incapable of altering their own probgramming. I would have more success talking to a brick wall, or perhaps a potato.

LOL!! In all seriousness, you may have a point there. Most people have thier own views on things, and that's why it's so hard to make a point. You may actually have better luck talking to a potato. Maybe you should try.

Lets explore it with a simple analogy. My neighbor kills your dog. In retaliation, you burn down my house. Now, who do I see as the enemy: the guy who killed your dog, or the guy that burned down my house? I might be annoyed at my neighbor for getting me into the whole mess, but the guy I'm gunning for is the guy that burned down my house.

You ask why Israel should "give in" to Hezbollah.
But why the hell should Lebanon "give in" to Israel? - you know, the people that are killing lots of Lebanese right now. Lebanon has as much right to defend itself as Israel does.

True, Lebanon should be able to defend itself from foreign invasion, but what about domestic terrorism. I think you are failing to see that the problem here resides in the fact that they are harboring terrorists in their midst. If they don't like them, and can't get rid of them, then why not ally with someone that can? Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Am I the only one that sees this as being as simple as that?

If Israel were confining itself to attacking Hezbollah, there wouldn't be a problem.
But they're not, they're clearly taking their war well beyond Hezbollah and attacking the Lebanese in general. And that's the problem.

[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

Well, as I said above, the true colors of the Lebanese government are beginning to show. They're allied with Hezbollah. If they wanted to rid themselves of the threat, then they could easily ally with Israel. I'm sure Israel would be more than happy to relenquish the grounds back to Lebanon after Hezbollah was exterminated. What better show of good faith than to ally with a powerful neighbor. If they wanted peace, and I mean TRULY wanted peace, that'd probably be the best way to go.

Just my thoughts though. It appears I'm in the minority on this one.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
True, Lebanon should be able to defend itself from foreign invasion, but what about domestic terrorism. I think you are failing to see that the problem here resides in the fact that they are harboring terrorists in their midst. If they don't like them, and can't get rid of them, then why not ally with someone that can? Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Am I the only one that sees this as being as simple as that?

You misunderstand Lebanese views on Hezbollah. Hezbollah are not terrorists they are a militia of resistance fighters who were created to repell the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and her occupation thereafter.

It's a common occurance to deem ones enemies terrorists. If the Iranians dubbed US forces "terrorists" would that make it true? The same weight can be put behind Israeli and American proclaimations that Hezbollah are terrorists. It's just as accurate.

The Lebanese might not like Hezbollah being a separate entity from the Lebanese military but dont confuse that with them not respecting them for protecting Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

Also do not confuse the support for Hezbollah's resistance with it's shelling of Israeli cities. Not everything is black and white, especially not in the Middle East. There will be widespread support amongst Lebanese for resisting Israel but there will be considerably less support for Hezbollah's attrocious tactic of indescriminate shelling of Israeli citizens.

Herein lies the rub, Israel has a legitimate beef with Hezbollah and Hezbollah has a legitimate beef with Israel. Both sides conduct themselves in barbaric fashion and both sides claim to be doing things which are commendable. How do you vehemently pick sides in that situation?

Maybe you should try.

I have, but the little &^%*&^%'s just won't listen!

As you might guess, I get frustrated, and well, there are plenty of mashed potatoes to eat around here.

I think you are failing to see that the problem here resides in the fact that they are harboring terrorists in their midst.

But, unlike Al Quaeda, Hezbollah is not simply a terrorist organization. In Southern Lebanon, they're like the government, the church, and the Mafia all rolled into one. Most of the hosptals and schools in Southern Lebanon are built, manned, and funded by Hezbollah.

And while their armed wing has commited acts of terrorism, to characterize them as simply terrorists is inaccurate. They've gone toe-to-toe with the IDF before as a guerilla army, and forced them to withdraw. In fact they're the only military organization in the entire Middle East that has been able to do so.

They're allied with Hezbollah.

Not yet, but it appears the Israelis are not going to give them a choice: it's either ally with Hezbollah, or die in droves.

If they wanted to rid themselves of the threat, then they could easily ally with Israel.

You don't get it. To the Lebanese, Israel ***is*** the threat.
It's Israel that's killing Lebanese, not Hezbollah.
Anyone who attempts to ally with a state that's bombing them, well there's a name for that type of person.
The name is "traitor".


[edit on 7/22/06 by xmotex]

Are you people serious?

Are y'all SERIOUSLY condemning the Lebanese army for possibly preparing to attack Israel? Are y'all high? Israel is launching friggin' rockets at their damn country! Xmotex's analogy was on point.

And don't give me the terrorism crap. Any domestic issues are moot when another country attacks you. Hell, I'm surprised the Lebanese army hasn't started blowing up Israeli forces already.

Wow...:shk:

What we have here is a situation in which reality doesn't match up with desire. By doing what is for them the right thing, they end up doing what is for others a wrong thing.

I'm not "for" this, but I am a realist. If the Lebanese army doesn't take to the field to fight for what the majority wants, that government will fall. If that government collapses, there won't be anyone "official" for the Israelis to demand a surrender from. That, in a nutself, is going to the worst of it.

Can the government of Lebanon order the order to fight Hezbollah? Yes, and the army will try...just before it disintegrates in a firestorm that plunges the country in to a decade-long civil war. This would be good for the IDF, but bad for the region. There'd be nobody capable of surrending. All factions would fight the Israelis where-ever they found them.

If the Lebanese government wanted to play hard ball for a very long time, they might ask a friendly power to bring troops in country to fight Hezbollah while their loyalist units held the capitol and kept the official government from collapsing. Trouble is...those anti-Hezbollah troops...would have to come from a country the Lebanese liked...which wouldn't be...the United States.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Are y'all SERIOUSLY condemning the Lebanese army for possibly preparing to attack Israel? Are y'all high? Israel is launching friggin' rockets at their damn country! Xmotex's analogy was on point.

And don't give me the terrorism crap. Any domestic issues are moot when another country attacks you. Hell, I'm surprised the Lebanese army hasn't started blowing up Israeli forces already.

Wow...:shk:

Well, let's take another look at that analogy, now shall we?

Originally posted by xmotex
Lets explore it with a simple analogy. My neighbor kills your dog. In retaliation, you burn down my house. Now, who do I see as the enemy: the guy who killed your dog, or the guy that burned down my house? I might be annoyed at my neighbor for getting me into the whole mess, but the guy I'm gunning for is the guy that burned down my house.

Perhaps I overheard the neighbor that killed my dog and you talking about killing him for some reason, like he was peeing on your lawn or something. Let's even go so far as to say that I saw you supply the weapon of choice to the neighbor that killed my dog. Would my actions then be justified?

True, it's a bit excessive, but it gets the point across that this has gone on for long enough, and I'm not going to take anymore of it.

This here is the crux of Israel's position. True, if one looks at the history of things, Israel was indeed the agressor. However, so much time has gone by that the hatred should have died by now. To use another example, the United States decimated the Native American population, and turned right around and helped them back up by making them the sole beneficiaries of the casino chains in the US. Let that serve as an example of two groups of people that can learn to coexist. That all happened in less than 100 years.

The situation will not get any better until this little conflict is finished. Yes, people will continue to die, so long as Hezbollah hides amongst the civilian population. That is one of the hallmarks of a terrorist regime. If you don't believe me, here's a definition:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.

Courtesy of: www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

So you see, the rest of the world can and WILL label them as terrorists, regardless of what the Lebanese think of them. And last I heard, terrorism was something that the UN condemned in all forms, and it's also something that the US takes a big stand against. Yet here we are, trying to coax peace in a war between one nation and a small band of terrorists. Again, the logic behind the views of this whole situation elude me.

TheBorg

What? There's logic involved here? Why doesn't sobody tell me these things!

This here is the crux of Israel's position. True, if one looks at the history of things, Israel was indeed the agressor.

There's more to it than that.

What is now Israel was founded by a group of terrorist organizations: the Hagana, the Irgun, the Stern Gang, etc. The campaign to create the Israeli state was in large part a terrorist campaign against the British and Palestinians. Where do you think Hezbollah learned all it's best tricks? Ever hear of the King David Hotel Bombing?

So Israel's "tough stance against terrorism" is ironic at best.

They didn't punish the man behind the King David Hotel bombing - they made him Prime Minister. And indeed, he went on to be one of their better leaders: it was Menachem Begin that signed the first Israeli peace treaty with an arab nation, namely Egypt.

But you could easily argue that Israel is a state founded on terrorism, and the terrorists are still "hiding among the civilian population". See how easy it is to turn loaded terms like "terrorist" around?

So you see, the rest of the world can and WILL label them as terrorists, regardless of what the Lebanese think of them.

If you think Israel has much support around the world for this campaign, I think you'll find that outside the United States, there is little or none. And I don't think you'll find anyone labeling the Lebanese as terrorists, except for perhaps people trying to stretch a point a little too far on a message board

[edit on 7/23/06 by xmotex]

It's still looking like the army of Lebanon will bump heads with the IDF at some point. ased onwaht I now see, it appears that the AoL will not cross the Latina river. Can't say as I blame them for them. In many respects, they are about to be forced in to giving up a piece of their country.

xmotex:

I guess it should be stated that depending on what side of a conflict you're on, someone has to be the terrorist, now isn't that correct? Perhaps we're on opposing sides of the same issue, and you can't see my side anymore than I can see your's. Israel has been VERY gracious in recent years, trying to make peace with all of it's neighbors, and yet no one seems willing to learn to coexist.

The biggest problem for the Arab states is that they can't take Israel down no matter what, and I think that frustrates them to no end. I think they feel as though the only way they can ever feel good about themselves is to die fighting to get that few miles of ground back, which is negligible at best. The bad part for them is that they'll never get it back, and they should know that by now. The thing is that one of Israel's biggest allies, the US, is the most powerful nation on the planet, and we won't let anything happen to her. So this conflict will go on until someone finishes it, however much they bicker back and forth with their religious rhetoric. No side is 100% right, and I challenge anyone to give me a flawless belief system.

There are so many ways that this conversation can go from here that I don't know where to go next. I'm trying to stick to the point here, which is that Israel and Lebanon/Hezbollah will just have to either come to an agreement that will lead to lasting peace, or someone's going to have to win this war. I'm just tired of seeing them fight all the time. If the Arab nations can learn that Israel is there to stay, and that they can't do anything about it, then maybe there's still hope for them. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll ever see things this way.

God has hardened their hearts just as he did Pharoah's when Moses was in captivity.

TheBorg

All we need is for IRan or Syria to publically state any attack on the lebanese military is an attack on the muslim world.

Then we become locked in a stalemate.
Whom ever makes the first mistake starts this war.

I think it's pretty clear that the Lebanese are going to have to make some hard choices for themselves. The Lebanese army (point of this topic) is in a tough place. To defend theri homes and families, they'll have to stand up to some serious punishment.

Not if they bring the US into Lebanon to help with policing. I mean we've got an army sitting in Iraq, ready for combat. No better place to get troops from than there. Once the Lebanese government can get a military of caliber up, then we could leave them to do their jobs.

Until then though, someone needs to help them. I'd be all for helping them beat Hezbollah back, but they'll need to ask for it first.

TheBorg

Its very very technical.

I mean hezbollah were part of the government, so theoretically anyone that SUPPORTS hezbollahs idea's are PART of hezbollah.

so when the Israelis say they are specifically targetting hezbollah ONLY.
IT could mean mrs so and so, sitting in her pram rocking her baby.. simply because she supports hezbollah, follows them idealogies.

she might be thousands of metres away from the nearest hezbollah militant, but she supports them, there fore israel feels justified to shoot a missle in her direction.

IE, if you support the hezbollah political group, then you will be targeted.

But c'mon guys, the airport was a definate target.
How do you think syria and iran would get munitions and men INTO lebanon?
destroying the roads that trucks use to transport missles?
Hezbollah are deeply rooted IN lebanon, so you cant stop them coming in. You simply destroy there ability to REMAIN. Cut of food, water and so forth.
Any smart civilians would of gotten out immediately, not hung about.

Israel have been warning them since day one..
The lebanese people LET hezbollah infiltrate there way of life, use there civilian infrastrucutre in which to STAGE attacks, in which to FLOURISH.

Israel are making sure they get the message, that if you harbour terrorists, then we will destroy your ability to harbour them.
I feel sorry for every innocent that dies, but it has been known for a long time israel arent going to lay down for ever.

The lebanese people LET hezbollah infiltrate there way of life, use there civilian infrastrucutre in which to STAGE attacks, in which to FLOURISH.

The Lebanese had little choice, it was that or a civil war.

As for now, it's Israel killing hundreds of Lebanese civilians, not Hezbollah.

Let's see, you're a Lebanese - one group keeps invading your country, killing lots of your people. The other group is a bunch of loopy religious fanatics, on the other hand they build schools, hospitals, etc... not to mention they drove out the other bunch last time they invaded.

Which group do you see as the enemy? Which group do you see as the "terrorists" - the people that bombed you, or the people that didn't?

PS: I love the "warning" Israel is issuing to the Lebanese now: "Evacuate southern Lebanon, but if we see you on the road in a vehicle, we'll bomb you to paste." Whaaaa?!? How exactly is that supposed to work? How are they supposed to evacuate then, flying carpets?

[edit on 7/25/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by TheBorg
True, Lebanon should be able to defend itself from foreign invasion, but what about domestic terrorism. I think you are failing to see that the problem here resides in the fact that they are harboring terrorists in their midst. If they don't like them, and can't get rid of them, then why not ally with someone that can? Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Am I the only one that sees this as being as simple as that?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Harboring terrorists? Where the hell do you think those guys came from that destroyed the twin towers. US flight schools! Isn't that harboring terrorism? Every country 'harbors' (is home to) terrorists...past, present and future terrorists. I don't think a country is responsible for terrorists. If some nut in the US got hold of a nuke, and hit like, Russia or something. Do you think Russia should level the US, because that's where the nut came from?! Or even the guy's home town?

Now, I'm not picking on you personally. I've seen many people make this accusation against Lebanon. Can anyone explain to me why bombing civilians in a country is ok, because that happens to be where some uncontrollable nuts are!



EDIT:

xmotex and subz made a great point.

I can't spell to save my life.

[edit on 7/25/2006 by Arcane Demesne]

Originally posted by TheBorg
True, if one looks at the history of things, Israel was indeed the agressor. However, so much time has gone by that the hatred should have died by now.

Not really, it's only been- what?- 60 years? That's not that long, especially to people whose civilizations have lasted for millenia.

To use another example, the United States decimated the Native American population, and turned right around and helped them back up by making them the sole beneficiaries of the casino chains in the US. Let that serve as an example of two groups of people that can learn to coexist. That all happened in less than 100 years.
.

Please don't use the massacre of the Native peoples as a shining example of how people can work together. That was a terrible moment in history and no one else should ever have to experience that again. But, to address the analogy, the only reason it worked out that way was because the Native Americans didn't have any equally- armed allies. If they had, I can bet the US would have had a little more trouble expanding.

On topic, the Lebanese army has to enter the fight, to protect its own statehood and, like someone else said, I'm amazed at their restraint thus far. Protecting one's sovereignty should never be considered a "terrorist activity."

As to "who started it," this time at least, I read (somewhere on this site) that Lebanon had discovered a Mossad cell in its territory recently. Then, Israel kidnapped several Middle Eastern law-makers (from either Palestine or Lebanon, can't remember). If that is the case, and there is some kind of agreement between Hezbollah and Hamas, then the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers would have to be seen as a retaliatory act, one that Israel would have expected, yes?