It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Important Questions to all Friends of Israel On the War in Lebanon…

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Liberal1984, The story of getting the 2 grunts back was a scam, the US/Israel are planning to attack Iran, what the Israel's were trying to achieve in the Lebanon was to take out the infastructure so Hezbollah cannot stab them in the back when thay attack Iran. As you stated if they were going after the terrorist why hit the airport, powere supplies, bridges, communications.

Israel knows that once they hit Iran they in turn will be hit by Hezbollah, they are trying to prevent any kind of sustained attack from the back door so to speak. The timing of this recent attack and the US plans to attack Iran are not just coincidence. I'm sure it will all become very clear very soon.




posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Ah yes the Evil empire is at it again and the innocent people of Iran ,Syria,Egypt and the palestiniens are all going to suffer. I am sure it has nothing to do with them stocking weapons by the ton and shooting rockets every day. I do not care for Israel but I hope they wipe them all off the face of the earth because there will never be any kind of peace with these people around. And that also goes for Israel. I am sick of hearing how the United States is to blame for Evil that has existed since the begining of time and always will. Mohamed was a cold blooded killer that only other killers could respect.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Originally posted JackJuice

Wow you must have real disdain Israel don't you?


Come on they targeted sewage plants, grain elevators, as well as the power stations and airports.

I agree with everyone that Israel tried reasonably hard to avoid actual civilian deaths, and that simultaneously Hezbollah was all too happy to encourage them. However I do not agree that Israel tried to avoid suffering to the Lebanese people. Their target list clearly states otherwise and the bomb craters are proof of that.

Question is why?
1. Israel has a flawed belief in collective punishment. Their propaganda leaflets blaming Hezbollah for the Lebanese peoples suffering is just on demonstration. Just as the way those same leaflets were torn up by the Lebanese people, and the way Hezbollah’s support soared even before a victory was obvious, is proof of this philosophies major flaw.
The Question Is: If Israel believes in collective punishment as a way of producing useful results; then would they inflict collective punishment in the hope of seeing those same useful results (i.e. a public backlash against Hezbollah) materialise?
Well their target list points to that answer being a yes.

2. However because this philosophy is flawed, and because Israel isn’t lacking in intelligence I believe that the biggest reason for causing deliberate Lebanese suffering was to make it easier for Western governments to justify sending their troops in to help. Is this flawed? Does it not make enough sense to you JackJuice? Look at Darfaw do you really think there would be international talk of sending troops there if there was no civilian crises?

My thinking here has nothing to do my disdain for Israel, only a disdain for the way they made the Lebanese war turn out.

Off Topic…
I have a disdain for Israel; but it’s more to do with things like they’re: disproportionate influence (in relation to size) on Western politics and media ownership, or for retailing Western military technology to China. I hate they’re use of particular weapons in evil circumstances just as I hate our own.


No, no they are insane, i don't know any other group of people myself included who's rage wouldn't have boiled over beyond human recognition after what they have been through in the past century


Really you mean a whole nation should be with strained under the Mental Health Act? Maybe you’re right but it isn’t just Israel that has a right to be blinded by anger. Fact is modern Israel was legitimised when the U.N ruled that 3.5% of Palestine’s population (i.e. the Jews) were entitled to 50% of the countries land. Few of the Palestine’s who lost farms or homes have been compensated so they have every right to be mad.
If Israel is right to still be upset about the Holocaust (pre-1945) then the Palestine’s and Arabs have every right to be upset about things post 1948. As for Israeli claims over Lebanese land they are equally valid as the decedents of Romans might have over our back garden as these claims too are about 2000 years old.
In my view every nation (Britain included) that voted in favour of the creation of the state of Israel owes much compensation to the Palestinians for the land they authorised the taking away from. As for the state of Israel it has every right to exist, not because its founding was right but because its there, and we as people do best to work with the world that confronts us, and not the world that once was (in some selected chapter of history).

Trouble for Israel and the world is that everyone who commits crimes against humanity loses some of their moral right to exist. It was true of the British Empire,
Nazi Germany and today maybe Israel and the United States. Unless these nations change they will continue sewing the seeds of their own destruction. These are laws of physics, human politics and reality that God left for us, and I thank God that he did even (if I as someone loyal to Britain and America suffer as a result).
Mark my words because you’ve seen what happened when you brake just about every moral convention in Iraq (we’re worse of for it) and Israel has now seen the same again in Lebanon. It’s inevitable that things will work out this way, and it doesn’t take any faith in any religion of anyone to see that.
So when I criticise Israel don’t think its out of disdain (although that’s present). But I am not a world statesman so my goals have nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with learning, and hopefully being more wise, and contributive to a better future as result; if anything through the power of ideas. And these can always be corrected by the power of the all knowing truth: The rules of what happened and what will happen if you repeat a failed course of action again.

What Israel Somehow Overlooked…
1. Israel might have feared Hezbollah missiles and if it had stuck to destroying them it would have been relatively alright. But it had to sin by blatantly trying to enlist the emotions of Lebanese people caused by the suffering it imposed on them in its own cause. No surprise they failed.
2. The two soldiers were kidnapped because peace with Hamas was not enough. Israel had to cut of Palestinian funds unless it kissed its diplomatic arse by officially accepting their so called right to exist. But by doing this Israel did not act and can hardly argue acted in the interests of peace, and so once again they weakened their own right to exist.
3. Israel does not seem to negotiate with terrorists even when it would weaken the terrorists own case. So rather than (before this bombing) attempting disarmament with Hezbollah (in exchange for the few economically unimportant hills in dispute) they did not. These talks may well have failed but they would have given Israel another step to the moral high ground, something very important if your serious enough to be honest in your attempt to turn Lebanese people against Israel.
As it happens Israel’s only attempt for the moral high grounds seem to have been its moderate efforts to avoid civilian deaths. Although contradicted by the use of certain weapons (particularly the extensive use of cluster bombs in last 3 days) it is the only record they got out of the Lebanon war worth having.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Come on they targeted sewage plants, grain elevators, as well as the power stations and airports.

What would you rather them target? It's not like there are many hard military targets there.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
The Question Is: If Israel believes in collective punishment as a way of producing useful results; then would they inflict collective punishment in the hope of seeing those same useful results (i.e. a public backlash against Hezbollah) materialise?
Well their target list points to that answer being a yes.

No reason to comment here you already answered the question. Thanks.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
2. However because this philosophy is flawed, and because Israel isn’t lacking in intelligence I believe that the biggest reason for causing deliberate Lebanese suffering was to make it easier for Western governments to justify sending their troops in to help. Is this flawed? Does it not make enough sense to you JackJuice? Look at Darfaw do you really think there would be international talk of sending troops there if there was no civilian crises?

I do believe I already stated this, you see involving the international community for Israel is a useful result.
Originally posted JackJuice

2. because they achieved one of their short term goals, which is to pass the problem onto the international community



Originally posted by Liberal1984
My thinking here has nothing to do my disdain for Israel, only a disdain for the way they made the Lebanese war turn out.

I would agree with you here, I believe that if your going to commit to war and all of the hell that it brings that you should do it and finish it, that means doing what our good man President Grant would do. That would be Total War if you were wondering. What is more evil, fighting your enemy and totally breaking their back and ability to make war so that there can be peace in the aftermath much like the US did with Japan? OR Doing very little in war and allowing the war to continue for generations causing suffering to not just the present population but the subsequent populations later on?


Originally posted by Liberal1984
I have a disdain for Israel; but it’s more to do with things like they’re: disproportionate influence (in relation to size) on Western politics and media ownership,


Are we talking about Israel or Jews here?



Originally posted by Liberal1984
or for retailing Western military technology to China. I hate they’re use of particular weapons in evil circumstances just as I hate our own.


I would agree with the part about China, this along with spying on america pisses me off, but i am bias, I'm American.

The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't blame just one party for this mess because it took a bunch of people and nations mucking up to create this current situation and guess what? There will be no peace in the middle east until there is a major war and entire populations are destroyed. I'm predicting it right here, right now.
Therefore i don't think we should take sides here, let them deal with it we have enough problems.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

What would you rather them target? It's not like there are many hard military targets there.

Nothing; hitting out at sewage plants, grain elevators, power stations is evil and makes you look evil. It does nothing for the war other than turn people against you and turned against you they are right to be. For Israel to target these in the absence hard targets is like a manic attacking a patients life support machine in the absence of being able to target the persons illness.
As for a shortage of hard military targets; well that just demonstrates yet another avenue from which Israel’s entire Lebanon war should be questioned. After all the absence of these is a reason against war, not for it.

JackJuice Why would you have Israel target civilian military infrastructure in the place of civilian? What is it you will think it will bring them in the modern world we live in?


What is more evil, fighting your enemy and totally breaking their back and ability to make war so that there can be peace in the aftermath much like the US did with Japan? OR Doing very little in war and allowing the war to continue for generations causing suffering to not just the present population but the subsequent populations later on?


Not finishing the job is always more evil; just look at North Korea.
Finishing the job can be done by negotiating a strong peace or exterminating the problem. Israel did neither; and the same was true last time they attacked Lebanon in 1982. It’s what I hate about the Israeli way of thinking most; its completely indecisive. Just look at the Palestinians any other country would have exterminated them or learnt to live with them; once again Israel has done neither. And I don’t mean genocide (that’s too extreme) (at least unless it’s actually necessary) I mean exterminating Arafat and putting in a puppet government. Perhaps they could do that with Hamas?
As for George Bush: Well if a democratically elected second version of Iran is his idea of finishing the job; then I hope he fails. If on the other hand it’s a secular western government great. Trouble is he’ll need a dictator like Saddam to do that. I just wish those dumb republicans would look at the fundamentalist, poverty stricken, and often damn right backward nature of the majority of Iraqi people and admit it.


Are we talking about Israel or Jews here?

No we were defiantly talking about Israel (if I remember correctly). I was referring to the pro Israeli organisations that openly exist, openly aim to influence our politics with cash and other legal means, and which do.
As for the Jews: I just wish so many didn’t support Israel so blindly. I think they would be better of if they just focused on maintaining the power of the West; after all it’s in everyone’s interests. If Israel were to colonise Iran or something like that then I would support it; trouble is they don’t, they just run away and retreat, then cause suffering from a distance, before perhaps someday reinvading again (as in Lebanon). I would support Israel if it was a bit more like how the British empire was towards its enemies. And at the end of the day it collapsed (but only after those enemies had changed).


I would agree with the part about China

Exactly it’s really counter productive of Israel to sell them our weapons technology. If they want a bit of extra money they should just ask. Now if America, Britain and the West weren’t so politically influenced by Israel then we would do something. We would say: Dear Israel we would like to give you free money, weapons and support. But we would like you to stop selling our technology first. What’s it to be?

But because too many people have mistaken the interests of Israel and the West for the same thing our politicians just don’t. Too bad as it’s to both parties long term disadvantage. Unless that is; Israel was one day to side with China? And why not if we’re going down hill? Remember all nations (equally) tend to do what’s in their own interests.


There will be no peace in the middle east until there is a major war and entire populations are destroyed. I'm predicting it right here, right now.

Agreed but I’ll give it another ten years at least. There will be no war with Iran as long as they keep their existing biological weapons pointing at Israel (fact).

Currently there are nearly one billion Arabs, and only 6.25 million Israelis; because of this I am tempted to support the Arabs. That said I hate Iran. Perhaps the best thing would be if both places destroyed each other? Peace at last!!! Seriously I would rather Israel survived but only if they stuck to their borders, or became expansionists (none of this in-between c***). I would hate it if they survived and prolonged the suffering of everyone; including the resources and policies of America, Britain and the West in general.
One things for certain: And that’s I don’t think there’s much point not tacking sides because our own governments already have. And it’s got less to do with what’s on our behalf and more to do with who supports their election campaign interests.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
So let me get this straight Liberal1984 your against Israel for adhering to the latest rules of engagement for modern warfare? Wow, I think we are more on the same page on this issue than i previously believed. Of course i don't blame Israel for doing the things that it does because they would lose all of their support from the west if they started a large war. Therefore the West is as much to blame for all of these failed policies and the failed peace as Israel.

Incedently you don't sound much like a Liberal too me, atleast none that i've ever met. Perhaps our definitions differ.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
“Secret plans” have yet to tangibly surface; so far not much more than conjecture and conclusions drawn on hearsay.

The timing of the claims (which somehow all go back to the White House in each instance) calls the creditability of the comments deeply into question. I can see most attributed to nothing more than political motivation given the timing.

Right before elections e.g. Clark’s book in 2003 etc…sheesh..

As for point 2, you left out the huge 10 square miles of the Shabba Farms www.terrorism-info.org.il..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> (which is not part of Lebanon) as justification for maintaining arms and resistance in Lebanon…? C’mon…or is it any or all of seven villages ?...it gets confusing…

The misconceptions of Hezbollah’s history, function, affiliation and status are often ignored…and the misinfo is sucked-up without question as fact….

…as for the rest…understanding re-supply, escape routes and that Hezbollah was using civilians as cover…well then you’ve unfortunately missed a few dozen threads that address these topics specifically.


mg



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by JackJuice

So let me get this straight Liberal1984 your against Israel for adhering to the latest rules of engagement for modern warfare?


Weapons…
Not quite I agree with the international laws governing weapons use and once more I think they should be extended to ban the use of Depletive Uranium. I despise white phosphorus, and hate cluster bombs until we find a way of preventing so many unsafe failed detonations.
I already have one: It’s called a “lit fuse”. You see the thing about a fuse is ether burning or it isn’t. There are plenty of self sustaining ones we could use at 20,000 feet, and there are plenty of ways of lighting a fuse (electronically or chemically).

1. However I passionately believe that biological weapons are better than nuclear weapons (well in ethics anyway). Look at a world-area that’s just suffered a nuclear war and all the trees, plants and animal life is dead; its not a case of the world being difficult for humans to live but almost anything. Biological weapons also have the advantage of you having a cure to the strain your using, they make no nuclear waste, in fact anything that goes into them can easily to be destroyed just above 120C. Also they are cheap; but this is where they fall down, as they are affordable to the enemies of the West; then again international law doesn’t seem to make too much of a difference when it comes to regulating our enemies, be them terrorists or rogue states like North Korea.
2. I believe that many of the more modern chemical weapons are more human than the white phosphorus. And I believe they are always better than DU because at least they don’t contaminate an area with a radioactive half life of 4.2 billion years. So (with this in mind) I would much rather see chemical weapons in Afghanistan. They would be perfect because the men we are fighting still live in caves, because it’s mountainous and gas is heavier than air, because the place is sparsely populated. My only objection would be if a chemical agent populated the environment way after its use. Say at least over a year.
3. I have no problem with landmines providing they have a self destruct mechanism, or we promptly pay for the cost of clearing them up afterwards. Also providing we are careful who we sell them too.

Conduct of War…
Furthermore: I believe in the rules of war regarding the targeting of civilian infrastructure. That’s why I was so mad when I heard Israel was targeting sewage plants, grain elevators, power stations and airports unnecessarily.

Why I Dislike That War…
I objected to Israel’s war on Lebanon very quickly not because the war was being persuade by Israel or who it was being persuade against (although I did question very rapidly whether it was really the wisest response).
No the reason why I think Israel’s war was dammed was because of their choice of targets, because it was extremely arrogant for them to think that their manipulative reasoning behind these targets was not bound to backfire (accept the bit about harming enough civilians so that Western populations would find support for their troops ceasefire involvement) (although being a war against terrorist they could have had most that anyway).
And I'm mad (in my heart) at Israel’s extensive use of particular kinds of weapons. I know we do it; and when we do I'm mad and shameful about us too.

On the Withdraw…
Israel had no choice because they weren’t making ether military or political progress. The fact people were getting upset in the West had most of its routes in these two factors as it rightfully denied the proponents of the war intellectual ammunition (if only because it didn’t exist).

Angry at the Israeli…
Now I am “angry” at large swaths of Israeli public opinion; because I am aware that most Israeli people (about 80% I believe) think Olmert should have let the troops finish the job. It makes me mad because the effects of their propaganda (or perhaps just stupidity???) meant they didn’t see…
a. They were loosing
b. Would loose
c. The war was counterproductive to a multitude of long term Israeli interests.

I just think “god you people are stupid; why didn’t you’re government let your troops stay? Who would of cared if it had been another 100, 200, 400 even Israeli troops had died by the time you realised the war wasn’t worth it. It would have been a great thing; not because so many troops would be dead; but because you as a people would have actually collectively learnt something”

Instead all you’ve got is lots of angry Israelis saying “why didn’t the government stay?” I just think: “You know what?” “I agree with you. And once more I'm happy to know (that in this nation of national service) you would of have been doing some of the fighting; as it’s clearly you who need to learn the lesson most.”

As for Olmert’s governments…
Well in your Lebanon war you were about as evil as you were incompetent. But to start this war, then to deny your people the right to learn that what you (both equally supported) was wrong; is quite pathetic. If you had “attempted to finish the job” then although there is only about a 0.5 chance out of ten you would have; at least you would have carried away a lesson to your people that might have helped stay clear of such future folly. But you did not; you didn’t even behave like politicians which is why you now have to deal with Israeli anger at the “job not being finished”. To put it bluntly in every significant area you could have failed (both military or politically) you did.

About Me…

Incedently you don't sound much like a Liberal too me, atleast none that i've ever met. Perhaps our definitions differ.


Oh I am when it comes to personal freedom. Big time in fact; I hate for example most of prohibition of drugs. I also care about the way is conducted; and on what grounds it should. I believe in authoritarianism to the authoritarian which is why I hate countries like North Korea, or certain backward elements of Islam. This is why I support Saddam because he killed those who opposed freedom by the thousand (hence my belief in authoritarianism to the authoritarian) (the Kurds are an exception done because of they’re treacherous support for arch enemy Iran).
Also economically I am very liberal as well; I believe in the free market, with precious little state interference accept responsible people protecting legislation, that and I believe the state has its place in big, big projects and giving tax breaks. I care about the environment, not just climate change (although that’s why I support nuclear power) but also biodiversity passionately, and I have a huge amount of time for animal welfare (just one of the reasons why I don’t eat battery chicken).
Ultimately though I am quite right ring; and originally was so in the extreme. Some of my biggest priorities are the upgrading of the Western democracy and most of all the survival of the West as a whole.
As for Africa I don’t give a s***. In fact if global warming threatens our food supplies too much I would be one of the first people to advocate covert biological warfare against the third world populations. This would bring their populations down meaning there was more food to export to us. Of course you probably wouldn’t publicly talk about; but it wouldn’t stop me ether. There’s too many people in this world; sorry, but places like Africa and Brazil should be amongst the first to go. As for China its just a real shame they’re ruled by an evil government, but the Chinese well they seem quite smart. I like Arabs, have time for Jews (just wish so many weren’t into Israeli worship) and like the whole of Western Europe, and Russia the most. So you see I'm a ruthless thinker with my own morals, and ideologies and all of these may change according to what I may know, and see.
But one thing’s for certain I’ll always be into the liberty of mankind, and what I know to be morally right. The fact I don’t care for certain areas of mankind is to do with belief that overall mankind is (currently) quite a bad thing; and secondly because I don’t see them belonging to people I associate myself with (a sort of multi nation nationalism). But I am determined to leave this world a richer place for my existence than without; and will try to correct my views where a appropriate.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Liberal, you kind of sound like a Libertarian


Not that's a bad thing! I am a libertarian as well.

I am so glad to see though, some one put out why they do not like Israel.. it is refreshing, and now that you have made your points very clear, I see, understand and respect your decision not to support them.

I would have to disagree though, Israel would have never "lost" and they where never on the "loosing" end just because they lost some soldiers.. how many militants and civilians died?... also they left for two reasons 1. they completed their mission 2. the world was pressuring them. Their objective was to completely destroy Lebanon, which they did rather effectively. They hit power station for obvious reasons... they hit the airports and such to hurt tourism.. (did the Israelis honestly think the Hezbollah would get a cargo plane in there?) and they hit the coast for the same reason. As for grain silos.. I don't know why that would have been a target.. much like I don't know why helicopters chased down ambulances.. just he violent and disgraceful side of all wars.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
90% of the ATS Board Pro Israel HMMMMMMM

Let's see....

politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...


WOW!!!

That is only 1/2 way down the first page of most recent posts in the "Middle East Conflict" forum....

One Forum, first page, Halfway down...

So this is just another in the long line of Israel Hating Threads..

Semper



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Thanks Rockpuck And I guess your right about me being more of a Libertarian than a Liberal. Although it was my nick name at boarding school (mostly because I ran “The Resistance” and helped supply alcohol and tobacco) (also some weed).

Back to base: I suppose it’s almost indisputable that Israel is worse of for its Lebanon War than without it. Though that said you have certainly made a point about Israel winning as far as levels of destruction involved. The question is why did Israel target Lebanon’s economy so badly? Couldn’t they see it would create ideal conditions for Hezbollah and other forms of extremism?
So what was the point? Were they overlooking the latter or is there some other agenda involved?

I'm not really arguing with you at all; but it is another big question on my mind.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join