Guns In The Closet (Political)
- Thread starter R. Richard
- Start date
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
RRThe Israeli main military goals are two:
1) Get back their kidnapped soldiers.
2) Stop the Hizb'Allah rocket fire against Israeli civilian targets.
Has there been any reduction of rocket fire into Israeli targets?
So how do water plants in tyre* and apartment buildings in Beirut figure in with these objectives?
Let us assume, ftsoa, that Israel does not send soldiers more than 10 miles into Lebanon, but continues with the bombing at will. Do you suppose that's going to stop the rocket attacks?
*i know tyre is a port, but the rockets come in through syria, do they not?
1) Get back their kidnapped soldiers.
2) Stop the Hizb'Allah rocket fire against Israeli civilian targets.
Has there been any reduction of rocket fire into Israeli targets?
So how do water plants in tyre* and apartment buildings in Beirut figure in with these objectives?
Let us assume, ftsoa, that Israel does not send soldiers more than 10 miles into Lebanon, but continues with the bombing at will. Do you suppose that's going to stop the rocket attacks?
*i know tyre is a port, but the rockets come in through syria, do they not?
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
For some, unknown, reason military commanders typically do not release the results of their campaigns until well afterwards. Actually, the reason(s) may be to deny the enemy feedback about scattered operations that can't easily communicate with a central command.Pure said:
I am not aware of a major water plant that was hit in Tyre. Perhaps you are talking about the Jiyeh power plant in Tyre? As to your question about apartment buildings in South Beirut, you need to first read up on the punic wars and two men named Scippio. [Hint: Hizb'Allah comanders have homes in South Beirut.] Do your homework now!Pure said:
An interesting question. The bombing may or may not stop the rocket attacks, but the bombing has certainly caught the attention of the Lebanese. Maybe the bombing is to cut down on the 80% Hizb'Allah support among the Lebanese Christians and Druze?Pure said:
If you know for sure, you should immediately contact the United Nations. As a part of the Israeli pullback from South Lebanon, the UN was to disarm Hizb'Allah. If the UN is letting in rockets from Syria, they are not doing their duty.Pure said:
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
CharleyH said:Clearly, you do not see the big picture, only the small one you read about on CNN.
I don't watch CNN. Perhaps you could fill me in on the big picture.
TIA.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
To be an apostate, you have to have the true faith, then fall away from it. Islamic converts to any other religion, or to atheism, would be apostates. Christians are not apostates unless they were originally muslim. Unbelievers, yes.
Seriously, you have it garbled.
Seriously, you have it garbled.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
I don't believe the poll numbers, either-- nothing is over 90%-- unless the question was something like "Do you support Hizb'Allah as a defender of Lebanon?"
Since they are far an away the most effective defender of Lebanon, then the answer would be yes, and in that kind of numbers. I'm sure it doesn't translate as material support, but with a quarter of the population displaced by catastrophic bombings, people tend to unite, so I see it as political support. For now. But wholehearted, just the same.
Since they are far an away the most effective defender of Lebanon, then the answer would be yes, and in that kind of numbers. I'm sure it doesn't translate as material support, but with a quarter of the population displaced by catastrophic bombings, people tend to unite, so I see it as political support. For now. But wholehearted, just the same.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
ok, rr, trying to stick to the facts
rockets entering Israel do not appear to have lessened in number, it's reported in several places
as to your expectations:
rr The bombing may or may not stop the rocket attacks,
you're sure about that?
Here's another assessment by the US correspondent of Haaretz.
The Israeli military wanted a rapid victory; now they need an exit strategy.
By Shmuel Rosner
Posted Monday, July 31, 2006, at 12:50 PM ET
The scenes from Qana in southern Lebanon were devastating though revealing. More than 30 children were among the 54 killed Sunday morning by an Israeli air force strike. This is the same place where Israeli shelling of a U.N. compound killed more than 100 civilians in 1996. The outcry over that incident effectively ended Operation Grapes of Wrath, the last previous major Israeli campaign against Hezbollah.
Qana was devastating for the obvious reasons—and revealing for anyone trying to understand why the Israeli military, with all its might and sophisticated technology, has been unable to defeat Hezbollah in two full weeks of war. It is a cruel and clear example of the complications that are built into asymmetric warfare. The United States learns this lesson in Iraq every day. Israel is now being schooled in Lebanon.
Had Hezbollah succeeded in killing 30 Israeli children while launching a rocket attack on the city of Haifa or the town of Afula, it would have been considered a "success," proof of the terror organization's effectiveness. Killing civilians is exactly what Hezbollah is expected to do. But when the Israeli military struck this problematic blow, it was a huge failure. Maybe even a turning point. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rushed to apologize. A 48-hour halt to the airstrikes was announced. The winds of '96 were blowing hard: Is this the beginning of the end of the operation?
"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory," Georges Clemenceau once said. Israel had its share of catastrophes Sunday, but the victory is not yet in sight. "The Israeli military needs to achieve 90 percent of its goals in order to be considered victorious in this war," an Israeli diplomat told me last week. "But all Hezbollah has to do is survive, keep firing, and avoid annihilation"—a much more modest task. Its members can strike and hide, they can disappear among the civilian population, they can surround themselves with children.
This, an Israeli officer explained, presents two sets of problems—one operational, one psychological. First, you have to find a way to fight the war, then you have to find a way to convince the public that you won.
So far, Israel has failed on both counts. It might have achieved some modest goals in the field—it has killed Hezbollah combatants and discovered and destroyed some missile launchers. But, as long as Hezbollah is still capable of shelling Israeli towns, a declaration of success will seem hollow.
That's why Olmert asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for 10 more days of license to operate. He is hoping that this will bring some visible gains, without which the war over who won the war will never be decided.
And for a country launching a war to deter its enemies from further attacks, a dispute means failure, doubt means a let-down.
How can Israel get to the point where it is able to say that it achieved something meaningful from this war? As often happens in such cases, there's an undercurrent of blame. The military says it doesn't get enough breathing space from civilian leaders. Officers wanted a more comprehensive ground operation, but the civilians balked, afraid of more casualties and of public opinion turning against them. The civilians—and you can't blame them for this—want a victory on the cheap.
So, they need a grandiose crescendo for the war. The assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah would be an acceptable outcome. So would the discovery and dismantling of Hezbollah's long-range missiles. Even getting to the point at which Hezbollah requests a cease-fire and offers to stop shelling Israel is an option. But stopping short of all these scenarios will enable the enemy to show it has not surrendered.
In his speech to the Knesset almost two weeks ago, Olmert set the bar high: "We intend to do this. We will continue to operate in full force until we achieve this." "This" meant "to take control and terminate" the activities of "radical, terrorist, and violent elements" and more specifically, "the return of the hostages … a complete cease fire; deployment of the Lebanese army in all of southern Lebanon; expulsion of Hezbollah from the area, and fulfillment of U.N. Resolution 1559."
Arguably, all but the last of these goals can be met. And that is the most important, if one wants a "long term solution," as Secretary Rice has said—many times—she does. Resolution 1559 demands the dismantling of all armed militias in Lebanon, and that's the one task neither an international force nor an agreed cease-fire will be able to easily achieve—unless the Israeli military gains the decisive victory it aspired to. In the time that has passed since Olmert's speech, the Israeli government has blurred its message about the ways such an outcome can be achieved: maybe not now, maybe not us. But in that case, what is it that Israel is still fighting for so fiercely—and will it be enough to count as victory?
Israel needs to answer these questions. It needs to formulate what victory means and then convince the rest of the world it can be accomplished. The war that was forced upon Israel was just and moral—but an exit strategy should also be just. It should let people feel that this battle was not fought over too modest an achievement.
rockets entering Israel do not appear to have lessened in number, it's reported in several places
as to your expectations:
rr The bombing may or may not stop the rocket attacks,
you're sure about that?
Here's another assessment by the US correspondent of Haaretz.
The Israeli military wanted a rapid victory; now they need an exit strategy.
By Shmuel Rosner
Posted Monday, July 31, 2006, at 12:50 PM ET
The scenes from Qana in southern Lebanon were devastating though revealing. More than 30 children were among the 54 killed Sunday morning by an Israeli air force strike. This is the same place where Israeli shelling of a U.N. compound killed more than 100 civilians in 1996. The outcry over that incident effectively ended Operation Grapes of Wrath, the last previous major Israeli campaign against Hezbollah.
Qana was devastating for the obvious reasons—and revealing for anyone trying to understand why the Israeli military, with all its might and sophisticated technology, has been unable to defeat Hezbollah in two full weeks of war. It is a cruel and clear example of the complications that are built into asymmetric warfare. The United States learns this lesson in Iraq every day. Israel is now being schooled in Lebanon.
Had Hezbollah succeeded in killing 30 Israeli children while launching a rocket attack on the city of Haifa or the town of Afula, it would have been considered a "success," proof of the terror organization's effectiveness. Killing civilians is exactly what Hezbollah is expected to do. But when the Israeli military struck this problematic blow, it was a huge failure. Maybe even a turning point. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rushed to apologize. A 48-hour halt to the airstrikes was announced. The winds of '96 were blowing hard: Is this the beginning of the end of the operation?
"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory," Georges Clemenceau once said. Israel had its share of catastrophes Sunday, but the victory is not yet in sight. "The Israeli military needs to achieve 90 percent of its goals in order to be considered victorious in this war," an Israeli diplomat told me last week. "But all Hezbollah has to do is survive, keep firing, and avoid annihilation"—a much more modest task. Its members can strike and hide, they can disappear among the civilian population, they can surround themselves with children.
This, an Israeli officer explained, presents two sets of problems—one operational, one psychological. First, you have to find a way to fight the war, then you have to find a way to convince the public that you won.
So far, Israel has failed on both counts. It might have achieved some modest goals in the field—it has killed Hezbollah combatants and discovered and destroyed some missile launchers. But, as long as Hezbollah is still capable of shelling Israeli towns, a declaration of success will seem hollow.
That's why Olmert asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for 10 more days of license to operate. He is hoping that this will bring some visible gains, without which the war over who won the war will never be decided.
And for a country launching a war to deter its enemies from further attacks, a dispute means failure, doubt means a let-down.
How can Israel get to the point where it is able to say that it achieved something meaningful from this war? As often happens in such cases, there's an undercurrent of blame. The military says it doesn't get enough breathing space from civilian leaders. Officers wanted a more comprehensive ground operation, but the civilians balked, afraid of more casualties and of public opinion turning against them. The civilians—and you can't blame them for this—want a victory on the cheap.
So, they need a grandiose crescendo for the war. The assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah would be an acceptable outcome. So would the discovery and dismantling of Hezbollah's long-range missiles. Even getting to the point at which Hezbollah requests a cease-fire and offers to stop shelling Israel is an option. But stopping short of all these scenarios will enable the enemy to show it has not surrendered.
In his speech to the Knesset almost two weeks ago, Olmert set the bar high: "We intend to do this. We will continue to operate in full force until we achieve this." "This" meant "to take control and terminate" the activities of "radical, terrorist, and violent elements" and more specifically, "the return of the hostages … a complete cease fire; deployment of the Lebanese army in all of southern Lebanon; expulsion of Hezbollah from the area, and fulfillment of U.N. Resolution 1559."
Arguably, all but the last of these goals can be met. And that is the most important, if one wants a "long term solution," as Secretary Rice has said—many times—she does. Resolution 1559 demands the dismantling of all armed militias in Lebanon, and that's the one task neither an international force nor an agreed cease-fire will be able to easily achieve—unless the Israeli military gains the decisive victory it aspired to. In the time that has passed since Olmert's speech, the Israeli government has blurred its message about the ways such an outcome can be achieved: maybe not now, maybe not us. But in that case, what is it that Israel is still fighting for so fiercely—and will it be enough to count as victory?
Israel needs to answer these questions. It needs to formulate what victory means and then convince the rest of the world it can be accomplished. The war that was forced upon Israel was just and moral—but an exit strategy should also be just. It should let people feel that this battle was not fought over too modest an achievement.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
cantdog said:
If a Mulsim attempts to convert to another religion, or to no religion, then that person is an apostate. However, even for a non-Muslim to do certain things makes that non-Muslim an apostate. Such an iten is a public declaration or conduct that denies Islam, its beliefs, symbols or its principal actors such as statements as "I believe in gods other than Allah", or "God has a material form". You might recall that the Danes who published cartoons that supposedly defamed Islam were cited as apostates.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Details of poll and editorial from Lebanese paper
Lebanese newspaper "Daily Star" report
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74334
Poll finds support for Hizbullah's retaliation
Opinions diverge on sectarian lines - but not completely
Editor's note: In an attempt to gauge the mood of the country after nearly two weeks of Israel's latest assault on Lebanon, the Beirut Center for Research and Information queried 800 citizens regarding Hizbullah's July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers, the resistance's military operations against Israel and the American position on the crisis. Respondents were also asked to assess the Lebanese government's performance on the diplomatic front and its handling of relief efforts. This survey was conducted by Lebanese statistician Abdo Saad between July 24 and July 26 according to confessional and regional distribution, including the opinion of the displaced in the regions of emigration.
The survey consisted of direct questions concerning respondents' position regarding Hizbullah's role in the conflict. The answers to the first question showed a relatively high level of support for Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, contrasting the positions of some local political forces' condemnation of the operation. Such support was based on a belief that Israel and the US intended to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 by force, regardless of whether Hizbullah carried out the July 12 raid.
Moreover, the results show the majority of Lebanese believe the only way to liberate Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons is through the capture of Israeli soldiers and a prisoner swap, as was the case in 2000. The survey showed near-identical numbers as an earlier survey, published by As-Safir on March 2. That survey showed 70.9 percent support for Hizbullah operations to capture Israeli soldiers.http://www.dailystar.com.lb
However, while 59 percent of the Druze community in March supported such operations, only 40 percent now express such support. Christian support for capture operations rose from 48 percent to 55 percent, due likely to the Free Patriotic Movement's memorandum of understanding signed with Hizbullah.
The survey showed 87 percent support for Hizbullah's retaliatory attacks on northern Israel. Such a high level of support must be attributed to Hizbullah's political and military performance, in addition to a national consensus identifying Israel as Lebanon's main enemy. The survey suggests that Hizbullah's military performance has bolstered confidence in the resistance's abilities as 63 percent of respondents expected a Hizbullah victory over Israel.
The survey showed that a large majority of Lebanese do not consider the US to be an honest mediator (89.5 percent). A similar survey conducted by the Beirut Center for Research and Information published in As-Safir on January 31 showed 38.2 percent support for the US role in Lebanon. This drop is due to the close political cooperation between the US and Israel.
Meanwhile, the majority of respondents were unsatisfied with their government's performance on the diplomatic level (64.3 percent) and relief efforts (54 percent). However, the rates varied according to sect, as 82.1 percent of Shiites polled and 64.8 percent of Sunnis polled said they were dissatisfied with the government, while 50.1 percent of Druze polled and 61.9 percent of Christians polled said the government had done a good job with humanitarian relief.
Lessons from wartime, to be applied on a better day
Editorial
Polls are a controversial way to assess the public's mood. Polls during wartime are even more problematic. So we must gingerly absorb the implications of the poll conducted this week among a national sample of Lebanese citizens, by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, to assess attitudes toward Hizbullah, the US and the Lebanese government.
Stressful conditions no doubt generate skewed and dramatic results. Some of the poll's findings - e.g., that 80 percent of Christians support Hizbullah's ongoing resistance against Israel, and that 89 percent of all Lebanese believe the US has not reacted positively to Lebanon and is not a fair mediator in this conflict - will be questioned as distorted by wartime angst. Fair enough.
When the fighting stops and we revert to political contests inside Lebanon and around the region, some of these sentiments will revert to their normal proportions. Nevertheless we should consider important lessons that can be gleaned from the trends in the polling data. One is that Lebanon sinks or swims according to its ability to foster national unity, and the capacity of its citizens to work together in the interests of their collective sovereignty, security and well-being.
Higher support for Hizbullah across the board while Lebanon is under Israeli attack suggests that a similar rallying around the common good can be achieved in times of peace, if political leaders stop putting their narrow sectarian interests before all else.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Another lesson is that we must be vigilant in how we engage foreign powers that we want to assist us in our legitimate national aims. Growing disappointment in the United States for supporting Israel's attacks against Lebanon, so soon after Washington trumpeted Lebanon as a beacon of American-aided democracy and freedom, suggests to all that foreign friends in the Middle East are often fickle friends.
We are reminded again about what brings us together, and what sends us scattering to separate fates. We need to learn these lessons well. A time will come soon when political reconciliations will stare us in the face, and we will have to respond more effectively than we have done in the last quarter-century.
Lebanese newspaper "Daily Star" report
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74334
Poll finds support for Hizbullah's retaliation
Opinions diverge on sectarian lines - but not completely
Editor's note: In an attempt to gauge the mood of the country after nearly two weeks of Israel's latest assault on Lebanon, the Beirut Center for Research and Information queried 800 citizens regarding Hizbullah's July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers, the resistance's military operations against Israel and the American position on the crisis. Respondents were also asked to assess the Lebanese government's performance on the diplomatic front and its handling of relief efforts. This survey was conducted by Lebanese statistician Abdo Saad between July 24 and July 26 according to confessional and regional distribution, including the opinion of the displaced in the regions of emigration.
The survey consisted of direct questions concerning respondents' position regarding Hizbullah's role in the conflict. The answers to the first question showed a relatively high level of support for Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, contrasting the positions of some local political forces' condemnation of the operation. Such support was based on a belief that Israel and the US intended to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 by force, regardless of whether Hizbullah carried out the July 12 raid.
Moreover, the results show the majority of Lebanese believe the only way to liberate Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons is through the capture of Israeli soldiers and a prisoner swap, as was the case in 2000. The survey showed near-identical numbers as an earlier survey, published by As-Safir on March 2. That survey showed 70.9 percent support for Hizbullah operations to capture Israeli soldiers.http://www.dailystar.com.lb
However, while 59 percent of the Druze community in March supported such operations, only 40 percent now express such support. Christian support for capture operations rose from 48 percent to 55 percent, due likely to the Free Patriotic Movement's memorandum of understanding signed with Hizbullah.
The survey showed 87 percent support for Hizbullah's retaliatory attacks on northern Israel. Such a high level of support must be attributed to Hizbullah's political and military performance, in addition to a national consensus identifying Israel as Lebanon's main enemy. The survey suggests that Hizbullah's military performance has bolstered confidence in the resistance's abilities as 63 percent of respondents expected a Hizbullah victory over Israel.
The survey showed that a large majority of Lebanese do not consider the US to be an honest mediator (89.5 percent). A similar survey conducted by the Beirut Center for Research and Information published in As-Safir on January 31 showed 38.2 percent support for the US role in Lebanon. This drop is due to the close political cooperation between the US and Israel.
Meanwhile, the majority of respondents were unsatisfied with their government's performance on the diplomatic level (64.3 percent) and relief efforts (54 percent). However, the rates varied according to sect, as 82.1 percent of Shiites polled and 64.8 percent of Sunnis polled said they were dissatisfied with the government, while 50.1 percent of Druze polled and 61.9 percent of Christians polled said the government had done a good job with humanitarian relief.
Lessons from wartime, to be applied on a better day
Editorial
Polls are a controversial way to assess the public's mood. Polls during wartime are even more problematic. So we must gingerly absorb the implications of the poll conducted this week among a national sample of Lebanese citizens, by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, to assess attitudes toward Hizbullah, the US and the Lebanese government.
Stressful conditions no doubt generate skewed and dramatic results. Some of the poll's findings - e.g., that 80 percent of Christians support Hizbullah's ongoing resistance against Israel, and that 89 percent of all Lebanese believe the US has not reacted positively to Lebanon and is not a fair mediator in this conflict - will be questioned as distorted by wartime angst. Fair enough.
When the fighting stops and we revert to political contests inside Lebanon and around the region, some of these sentiments will revert to their normal proportions. Nevertheless we should consider important lessons that can be gleaned from the trends in the polling data. One is that Lebanon sinks or swims according to its ability to foster national unity, and the capacity of its citizens to work together in the interests of their collective sovereignty, security and well-being.
Higher support for Hizbullah across the board while Lebanon is under Israeli attack suggests that a similar rallying around the common good can be achieved in times of peace, if political leaders stop putting their narrow sectarian interests before all else.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Another lesson is that we must be vigilant in how we engage foreign powers that we want to assist us in our legitimate national aims. Growing disappointment in the United States for supporting Israel's attacks against Lebanon, so soon after Washington trumpeted Lebanon as a beacon of American-aided democracy and freedom, suggests to all that foreign friends in the Middle East are often fickle friends.
We are reminded again about what brings us together, and what sends us scattering to separate fates. We need to learn these lessons well. A time will come soon when political reconciliations will stare us in the face, and we will have to respond more effectively than we have done in the last quarter-century.
Zeb_Carter
.-- - ..-.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 20,584
I did respond to that one, it's just you smart people can't seem to read the English language. Or only read what you want when you want. No skin off my nose. 'Cuz I don't give a crap what you think.wazhazhe said:
Oh and Cloudy, you read too much into things that aren't even about you. The world does not revolve around you no matter how much you want it too. You are an tiny speck on the windshield of the world, no more than a bug that has gone splat as the world speeds by.
SweetPrettyAss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Posts
- 892
Pure said:
After reading the wording of the articles, I am quite sure the questions being asked were equally skewed. The writer says: "In an attempt to gauge the mood of the country after nearly two weeks of Israel's latest assault on Lebanon," and later they say: "The survey showed 87 percent support for Hizbullah's retaliatory attacks on northern Israel. Such a high level of support must be attributed to Hizbullah's political and military performance, in addition to a national consensus identifying Israel as Lebanon's main enemy." And later, they say: "Higher support for Hizbullah across the board while Lebanon is under Israeli attack suggests that a similar rallying around the common good can be achieved in times of peace"
It is obvious that the writer is extremely anti-Israel and pro-Hezbollah. They probably asked questions such as: Do you think it's okay for our loyal defenders to fight back against Jewish murderers?" or wording like that. I would place no credence in the polls.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
Pure said:
Really?
Israel plans deeper push into Lebanon
JERUSALEM - In a major expansion of its ground offensive, Israel has decided to send troops deeper into Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah fighters and secure the territory until a multinational force is deployed there, senior officials said Tuesday
Israel hopes to complete the new push to the Litani River nearly 20 miles from the Israeli border in the next two weeks, Cabinet ministers said following a late Monday meeting.
The meeting came amid a 48-hour suspension of most airstrikes by Israel, which was imposed after an airstrike over the weekend in the southern Lebanese town of Qana killed 56 Lebanese, more than half of them children. The attack sparked international outrage.
Hezbollah also drastically cut back rocket attacks Monday, after firing an average of more than 100 rockets a day in three weeks of fighting.
Of course I am not sure that bombing will stop the rocket attacks. It does appear that the ground offensive is doing some good, however.Pure said:as to your expectations:
rr The bombing may or may not stop the rocket attacks,
you're sure about that?
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
SweetPrettyAss said:
Maybe I'm just imaginative or something, or you might have a peculiar rigidity of mind, but I have no difficulty imagining myself in the position of the people polled. You don't seem to be making that leap very well. Try again.
You're being invaded by an army, and their air force is bombing your country to bits. One group of civilians is fighting the invader; reports of that reach you all the time. (Say the invasion was coming through Texas and some Texans were having marked success.)
I don't find it particularly biased to refer to the troops fighting against an invader as "the common good." (Even if the Texans were PETA, or some group like that whom you ordinarily didn't support, when you heard the news reports that PETA militias were halting the invasion in its tracks, wouldn't you be capable of going, "Yay for PETA! Kick ass, you nutcases!"??)
Unless the invaders had promised you a seat in the new cabinet or something, so that you were a fifth columnist or a quisling, you would certainly have an easy time supporting them. From a distance. During the war. And they would get general support from everyone, wouldn't they? The article characterizes this as rallying around the common good. That makes sense to me. It doesn't indicate bias against Israel at all, or support for PETA, to call it that. I consequently don't find the polls to be unbelievable, at all. You can quibble about the numbers, but wait tilla quarter of the population of the country is displaced, homeless because their homes or neighborhoods or cities have been shelled, and I can imagine an 85% proportion of "Yay for PETA."
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
cantdog said:
OK, I'll play your game.
1) The Mexicans have invaded Texas with the intention of taking it back because they feel that it is still part of their country. The Mexican army is pouring over the border and the Texans are doing the best they can. You check the news reports for one area where the Mexican army is having a really hard time you can strongly suspect ol' R. Richard done got a militia together.
2) The Mexicans have invaded Texas with the intention of taking it back because Texans are "killin' Meskins" for no real reason. I will still resist the Mexican army. However, I will resist only because I don't think the Mexican army can do a proper job of stringing up the rogue Texans. Ol' R. Richard knows how to string up people who kill other humans for free because of the other human's race/national origin.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
Hezbollah fired just 10 rockets across the border Tuesday, well below an average of about 100 a day since the fighting began 21 days ago, Israel said.
Either the Israeli air war, the ground war or a combination of the two seems to be having an effect on the number of rockets that Hizb'Allah is launching at Israeli civilian targets.
JMHO.
Either the Israeli air war, the ground war or a combination of the two seems to be having an effect on the number of rockets that Hizb'Allah is launching at Israeli civilian targets.
JMHO.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
So where does the poll come in? Is there a Part II to this post?R. Richard said:
edited to add: It also seems that you have cast the R.Richard militia in the role of Hizb'Allah, the civilians who are slowing the invasion. So you, the R.Richard militia, would doubt a poll which showed widespread support? Or what?
Last edited:
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
cantdog said:
Yeah, after you tell me which of my scenarios is the correct one or the actual scenario if neither of my scenarios is correct. I don't automatically assume that people are guilty of a crime because someone tells me that they are. I like to get facts first.
The facts that I have is that military forces from the nation [???] of Lebanon attacked an Israeli military unit for no real cause and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Israel is now using military force to try to get its captured soldiers back and, not so incidently, to stop Hizb'Allah from firing rockets at Israeli civilian sites.
The fact that Hizb'Allah has essentially admitted to the facts means that I would not support Hizb'Allah if I were a Lebanese. If I were Lebanese and I did suport Hizb'Aallah, I would be prepared to make reasoned arguments to support my position. I have heard no such reasoned arguments.
Matadore
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Posts
- 391
Well, since you asked, RR
Hello RR,
War is war.
Even though the USA has military personnel being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and occasionally Korea, we are not really “at war.”
A majority of the ancestors of the people involved in the conflicts in the Middle East have been at each others throats for thousands of years. Plenty of children have been killed over this time.
To the point of your posting, the Israelis were provoked into defending their borders. There have been several opportunities even since the government withdrew from prior occupied territories for reprisals. It has only been since the current Palestinian government proved unable to control the militant faction of the Hezbollah that Israel has taken action against them.
Anyone who doubts that if the Hezbollah would use aircraft or artillery against the Israelis if these weapons were available needs to rethink and review past situations.
The Israeli military is one of the best-trained and most well equipped forces in the world. (Thanks to the USA.) Even so, mistakes will be made in the confusion and heat of combat when the difference between success and failure, between death and survival are matters of a fraction of a second. In such an environment some of these mistakes will result in the death of innocents.
In Viet Nam, we had our “free fire” zones.
As to your comment regarding the execution of suspected disarmed combatants...that is a war crime and is tried as murder. If you have cut an unarmed persons throat that was under your control, you are culpable of murder, and as such should be relieved of command until you can receive a fair trial.
It is also not a good policy nor practice from an operational viewpoint to engage in such actions as torture and murder. Further, the USA military is trained to follow certain Rules of Engagement, which in every instance that I have ever known, does not include murder of unarmed and defenseless people and other atrocities no matter how convenient or tempting it may seem.
And in the army that I served, given the choice, the preferred method for quickly and quietly dispatching an armed enemy was to slice through the kidney with a twisting motion. This induced shock, assured bleed out in seconds, rendered near instant paralyses, and even without crushing the larynx, stifled vocalization. The bleed out is mostly internal into the body cavity and leaves little blood trail. But maybe that has all changed since when I trained.
As for the appropriateness of the level and intensity of the Israeli offensive, the “best” war is the quickest. It usually results in the fewest collateral casualties as well.
And one other item that I would have to challenge you on are the number of and quality of weapons that are in the hands of civilians in the USA. By most any standard used, including the NRA’s, this country not only has more, but also has better weapons, military or otherwise. That would include explosives, small arms, semi-automatic, and full automatic personal weapons up to .50 cal. What would be lacking are higher-level weapons such as heavy mortars, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-vehicular mines. Ammunitions for these arms are in general supply. Many of these are licensed and legal, BTW.
As far as what is "right" or not? All killing is basicly wrong. The death of innocents is never acceptable. Putting non-combatants into harms way is equatable to pulling the trigger. But these are moot questions in any armed conflict. Still, the stance of "kill them all and let God sort out the innocent ones" is best avoided.
Hello RR,
War is war.
Even though the USA has military personnel being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and occasionally Korea, we are not really “at war.”
A majority of the ancestors of the people involved in the conflicts in the Middle East have been at each others throats for thousands of years. Plenty of children have been killed over this time.
To the point of your posting, the Israelis were provoked into defending their borders. There have been several opportunities even since the government withdrew from prior occupied territories for reprisals. It has only been since the current Palestinian government proved unable to control the militant faction of the Hezbollah that Israel has taken action against them.
Anyone who doubts that if the Hezbollah would use aircraft or artillery against the Israelis if these weapons were available needs to rethink and review past situations.
The Israeli military is one of the best-trained and most well equipped forces in the world. (Thanks to the USA.) Even so, mistakes will be made in the confusion and heat of combat when the difference between success and failure, between death and survival are matters of a fraction of a second. In such an environment some of these mistakes will result in the death of innocents.
In Viet Nam, we had our “free fire” zones.
As to your comment regarding the execution of suspected disarmed combatants...that is a war crime and is tried as murder. If you have cut an unarmed persons throat that was under your control, you are culpable of murder, and as such should be relieved of command until you can receive a fair trial.
It is also not a good policy nor practice from an operational viewpoint to engage in such actions as torture and murder. Further, the USA military is trained to follow certain Rules of Engagement, which in every instance that I have ever known, does not include murder of unarmed and defenseless people and other atrocities no matter how convenient or tempting it may seem.
And in the army that I served, given the choice, the preferred method for quickly and quietly dispatching an armed enemy was to slice through the kidney with a twisting motion. This induced shock, assured bleed out in seconds, rendered near instant paralyses, and even without crushing the larynx, stifled vocalization. The bleed out is mostly internal into the body cavity and leaves little blood trail. But maybe that has all changed since when I trained.
As for the appropriateness of the level and intensity of the Israeli offensive, the “best” war is the quickest. It usually results in the fewest collateral casualties as well.
And one other item that I would have to challenge you on are the number of and quality of weapons that are in the hands of civilians in the USA. By most any standard used, including the NRA’s, this country not only has more, but also has better weapons, military or otherwise. That would include explosives, small arms, semi-automatic, and full automatic personal weapons up to .50 cal. What would be lacking are higher-level weapons such as heavy mortars, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-vehicular mines. Ammunitions for these arms are in general supply. Many of these are licensed and legal, BTW.
As far as what is "right" or not? All killing is basicly wrong. The death of innocents is never acceptable. Putting non-combatants into harms way is equatable to pulling the trigger. But these are moot questions in any armed conflict. Still, the stance of "kill them all and let God sort out the innocent ones" is best avoided.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
No, Matadore, there is war conducted according to rules and law and there is war conducted outside rules and law.Matadore said:
Matadore, there are two kinds of suspected disarmed combatants. A suspected disarmed combatant who is fighting on a battlefield while wearing recognizable insignia is a prisoner of war and is to be treated within the laws and rules of war. A suspected disarmed combatant who is fighting among woman and children while wearing civilian clothing a bandit and has been for some time. A bandit is to be treated within the laws and rules of war. The recognized treatment for a bandit, caught in a war situation, is execution without trial. If you were to do other than execute a bandit, YOU are engaging in vigilante justice.Matadore said:
I have never been a member of the USA military, although I have worked for them. I don't know what you classify as torture. I suspect that what you might classify as torture, I would classify as education. Under the Geneva Convention a captured combatant is REQUIRED to furnish name, rank serial number and date of birth. ["Abu abu abu" is NOT a name. "Soldier" is NOT a rank. "I don't know what a serial number is" is NOT a serial number. "1985 or 1986" is NOT a date of birth.] If you are not obtaining name, rank, serial number and date of birth from a captive, then that captive falls under the banditry rules. If you don't follow the Geneva Convention,then I state that you are a lawless vigilante operating under your own rules and have no position to critcize me. A bandit is, under the laws of war, an outlaw. An outlaw is a creature with NO rights. It is not possible to murder an outlaw.Matadore said:
Your stated technique [for what I presume is sentry go] is not too bad! I myself do prefer to pull the knife out with a Sicilian twist.
Similar threads
