Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
A good Arab is a dead Arab
A quick news roundup: Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah upped the ante and kidnapped two and killed eight more [update: and wounded three civilians in a diversionary attack]. Israel responded to Hezbollah the only way it knows - that is, indiscriminate attacks against civilians tangentially related to the perpetrators.
In particular, Israel bombed Beirut Airport, killing 52 civilians, and blockaded Lebanese ports. This was despite the fact that Hezbollah's attack was purely on military targets (one can't help but notice that when Hezbollah kills civilians, Israel responds more cautiously). Now Israel threatens further attacks on innocent civilians unless the Lebanese government cracks down on Hezbollah.
In certain contexts, it's legitimate to escalate a war to a neutral country that turns a blind eye to use of its territory by a belligerent. A classic case study would be Cambodia in the Vietnam War: the government of Cambodia deliberately let communist guerillas use its territory throughout the 1960s, so the US attacked Cambodia. In contrast, Lebanon has only had a truly independent government for a little over a year, and is not allied with Hezbollah at all.
The common Israeli notion that a good Arab is a dead Arab shines here. It doesn't matter who kidnapped the troops; all that matters is that they were Arabs, giving Israel license to find the most marginally related Arab civilians around to take its aggression out on.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A Shanda Alon
Is your family still in Israel Alon? How will you react when they are exterminated by the peaceful Palestinians after their successful overthrow Israel? Will you feel any shame when ALL the Jews of Israel are killed with a whoop and a holler as they say in the south?
My mizpacha in israel, the oldest of whom managed to live thru Hitler's attempts to wipe them out, are hiding in bomb shelters with their families in the north of Israel. Its a very small piece of real estate in a vast sea of sand and desert and nothingness. Who will take in million Jews to give back the land to anyone? You? Uganda? Should 500,000 of them go back to Morrocco? Will Morrocco let them in and give them back all their land and possessions?
Populations chnage location all over the earth. They migrate and merge. Your ancestors came from Iraq with Abraham. Want to go back to Iraq? i doubt it.
Some of them are
My immediate family isn't, but most of my extended family plus several good friends are still there.
How will you react when they are exterminated by the peaceful Palestinians after their successful overthrow Israel?
I will react in the same way as I will after hearing that the Pope has embraced Protestantism or that creationism has been proven scientifically. If you took the time to read my comments in this thread, you'd see that I've already addressed the myth that Palestinians want to kick all Jews out of Israel.
Populations chnage location all over the earth. They migrate and merge. Your ancestors came from Iraq with Abraham. Want to go back to Iraq? i doubt it.
I advise you to read more about anthropology and ancient history. You'll learn that Abraham never existed, and that the Israelites were simply a tribe that lived in Canaan. Ultimately we all came from Africa, so by your logic everyone should relocate there.
world destroying jews
hey asslon, i dont know about u but have u noticed how ALL of the fukin jews ruined the world? I mean they've came in our country corrupted it with their lies and moneysuking deceptions. For example jews are supposedly the "chosen people" of Jerusalem right? Why in 1929 before world war 1 and 2 was the population of jews in Palestine less than 20% which means that at least 80% were Palestinians. At that point in time the biggest population of the jews were corrupting Europe which lead to Hitlers so called holecaust. So the deceptive jews started thier deceptions of the world by having everyone feel sorry for them and start inviting themselves into countries all over the world including Palestine. Guess who ends up being the heroes, our friends the red coats and the US. So they help fuk up Palestine by bringing these uninvited parasites from screwing the european's lives to demolishing palestinian humanity. And now what do we have? We have billions upon billions of these little hittlers committing genocide of an original nation of decades of peace liveliness. What the jews have done in this point in time has far exceeded Hitler's holocaust, the difference is that the jews have taken it out on the wrong people. An example look at BEIRUT. The excuses for these massacres, TERRORISTS HAMAS HEZBOLLA, yet when i visited, the only terrorism i encountered was israelis harassing and terrorizing. My deepest sorrow to the Palestinians of whom deserve the utmost animosity and respect. I can only hate Hitler for one reason and bear in mind that we should learn from this, and that is "always finish what u start".
Mr. Levys' failure to cite instances of American atrocities.
1. Well Mr. Levy, I am still waiting for you to provide three instances of American atrocities in the Revolutionary War.
2. For your information, President Bush is the one who referred to homicide bombings
3. The notion that Japan was ready to surrender before the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima has been challanged. There is evidence that the military hierarchy was planning a coup to overthrow the Emperor and continue the war. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the prospect of more such attacks was the catalyst which reversed their thinking. Eisenhower (who by the way threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea if the other side did not agree to an armistice) was not aware of this information which has only surfaced recently.
4. As I pointed out earlier, John Paul Jones attacked and burned the English port of Whitehaven but did not run around wontonly killing civilians.
5. The notion that the strategic bombing campaign agains Germany in WW 2 was an atrocity is exceedingly naive. Hitler, who was agruably the most dangereous man who ever lived, had to be stopped and all means for doing so were legitimate. Had Roosevelt and Churchill concerned themselves with issues of collateral damage, it is quite possible that Mr. Hitlers' legions would have eventually conducted a triumphal march through the streets of Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
Get a grip, please
1. The Stamp Act riots, tar-and-feathering, property confiscation, proto-lynchings, mass deportations...
2. Bush's terminology is rhetorical and inaccurate, just like another loaded term he likes using, partial-birth abortion.
3. The generals' legitimacy relied on the Emperor's name; had there been a coup, the government would've collapsed. Indeed even after the bombs were dropped, the generals were opposed to a settlement, but grumblingly accepted one when the Emperor told them to.
4. Recall that Galbraith's study of strategic bombing concluded that it did nothing to hasten the end of the war. Also recall that 80% of bomb tonnage dropped was on civilian rather than military targets.
Responses to Mr. Levys' inept comments.
1. The stamp act riots an atrocity? Surly you jest! You equate tar and feathering with a homicide bonbing? You have got to be kidding! Property confiscation? The property that was confiscated was for the most part abandoned by loyalists who went to Canada after the victory of the rebels. Proto lynchings? Name a creditable source for this canard. Mass deportations? Didn't happen. Many loyalists fled the country after the rebel victory, just as many South Vietnamese fled Vietnam after the Communist takeover.
2. That's your opinion.
3. You are unbelieveably naive. In a military dictatorship, when the army tells you to go, you go!
4. Since when was the late John Kenneth Galbraith an expert on military history, military strategy, military tactics, etc. At best, he was a second rate economist. I would agree with you in part concerning the value of strategic bombing of non-military targets. However, most of those activities were carried out by the British RAF which concentrated on night bombing. The USAAF, which used more daylight raids, concentrated more on military targets (e.g. the ball bearing plants, synthetic oil plants, rail transport facilities, aircraft manufacturing plants, etc.). I would also point out the effectiveness of strategic bombing in putting the German battleships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Tirpitz out of action for various periods of time.
Projection?
Let's see... first you're moving up the goalposts about atrocities. Property confiscations were a real thing (yes, there were actual confiscations); the deportations weren't overt in the sense that the government told the loyalists to go, but there was plenty of pressure and the government let lynchings continue unabated. That's not very different from how the Nazis treated Jews before roughly 1938, or for that matter from any ethnic or political cleansing. I could name sources to you, but since you're just going to redefine "credible" to mean "a source I don't cite," there's no point.
"That's your opinion" is what people older than 13 substitute for the childish cry, "Is not!". I gave you evidence that outlets not trying to make political points used "suicide bombing"; it's up to you to concede my point or offer a rebuttal.
Ditto "You're naive!": in a fascist dictatorship the army carries a lot of weight, but when your entire legitimacy rests on one royal ruler, it's going to be awfully hard to get rid of the ruler. Evidently the Generals did not institute a coup after the US nuked Japan, even though they'd rather still fight.
Finally, Galbraith was the person officially charged with determining the effects of strategic bombing. As such, he was given all the facts, tools, and official documents he needed.
Bias all around
I must agree with SLC – Mr. Levy is quibbling over semantics instead of focusing on the main points.
As for Israel targeting civilians, I would say that dropping leaflets warning civilians to stay away from Hezbollah facilities is clearly an effort to avoid hurting civilians, as is their bombing the runways of Beirut’s airport instead of the terminal, which would have done far more damage to Lebanon in the long run. Further, Hezbollah is showing no such concern for civilian targets when they fire unguided missiles at cities and towns.
Mr. Levy, you condemn the revolutionaries when you said “if there were no attacks on Britain itself, it was because of the Atlantic Ocean rather than some internal moral compass.” So they would have if they could have, and that makes them worthy of blame. Hezbollah, however, lacks the capability to inflict civilian casualties on Israel (a technological Atlantic) and they are not to blame. If SLC is guilty of strong pro-Israel bias, you are most certainly guilty of a pro-Palestine bias.
You further accuse SLC of pro-Israeli thinking when you put the words “Someone else is even more murderous, so Israel's atrocities are justifiable” in his mouth. You apply the same logic to Hezbollah, however, when you condemn Israel for being more “murderous,” or as I have earlier put it in a somewhat less inflammatory tone, more competent.
Both sides are killing civilians, but Israel has made significant efforts to avoid this where possible. If their positions were reversed and Hezbollah had Israel’s military might, do you really expect they’d warn Israeli civilians before bombing Tel Aviv? Do you think they would hit a highway or an apartment building? You may condemn Israel’s occupation of Gaza or Southern Lebanon, but if Hezbollah occupied a large chunk of Israel, would you expect anything short of genocide?
Unguided missiles have one advantage:
They kill a lot fewer people than guided ones, in most cases. Israel used to assassinate terrorist leaders at no civilian casualties; lately its ratio of civilian to non-civilian dead ranges around 10:1 when assassinating and higher than that when attacking in retribution. In contrast, in World War Two the ratio was 5:4, and that's including the Holocaust. Even when you look only at people killed by the Axis, you get a 2:1 ratio. When using modern technology, you can reverse the ratio - I think the Iraq War was 1:2 (the occupation, of course, is something else).
About Hezbollah, you're wrong if you think I justify it. My main attack is on Israel's atrocities because I think they're worse and because criticizing Hezbollah is preaching to the choir, at least on the American blogosphere. The reason I criticize Israel more is the same reason why most liberal bloggers don't write posts criticizing Bin Laden in length.
I see the defense that Israel aims to defend civilians whenever possible a lot more than I should. When Israel can't even assassinate someone without killing a bunch of civilians, it moots any argument that Israel is trying. Attacking civilian targets such as civilian airports in neutral countries is criminal, and saying "But we were careful only to bomb the runways" smacks of an abuser's rationalization, "But I didn't hit you that hard!" It's not gym class. It's not how much you try, but how much you achieve; and Israel's achieved nothing but caused misery to everyone around it.
Finally, I don't criticize Washington for what might have happened. My bringing up distance was intended to show that in character, Hamas and Washington aren't very different. It does not legitimate Hamas, but does suggest that if given more power, it will not seek to destroy Israel, just like Sinn Féin isn't trying to destroy Britain.
You make a fair point...
...regarding the American blogosphere, I hadn't considered that. Still, your original post was indistinguishable from a Hezbollah press release. Perhaps a single line of condemnation?
Unguided missiles may kill less people, but that just means you have to fire more of them, which Hezbollah is doing. A sniper rifle can kill a lot more people than a land mine, but all things considered I'd rather have sniper rifles on a battlefield than land mines. At least Israel is targeting something more specific than "Lebanese people," in comparison to Hezbollah which is just targeting any Israelis it can.
As to the abuser's rationalization, we have to keep in mind who started this confrontation. Hezbollah deliberately did something to provoke Israel, and isn't returning their hostages. If I walk up to Arnold Schwarzennegar, grab him by the nuts and twist, I'm going to get hurt. He may be excessive in breaking my nose, but it's my fault if I started it and refuse to stop twisting even as he beats me. If Hezbollah lets the prisoners go and Israel still hits airports, then they've gone to far, but as it stands, it's almost as if Hezbollah is being masochistic.
-CR (I finally bothered to login)
Again, it's all about priorities
When talking about 9/11, I don't have to explicitly condemn the attack, because there's exactly one person marginally relevant in the blogosphere, Ward Churchill, who apologizes for it, and the blogosphere rose in one voice to condemn him. It's the same here: nobody in the West supports shelling Israeli towns. Pro-Palestinian Westerners tend to be dovish in much the same way some pro-Israeli liberals are (i.e. they think that overall Israel is acting more irrationally but that political violence isn't justified).
Your Schwarzenegger analogy is bad in two ways. First, the Lebanese government isn't Hezbollah; Israel's retaliation is morally equivalent to a hypothetical case in which in response to Baruch Goldstein's attack, Jordan bombed targets in Jerusalem. And second, Lebanese civilians aren't the government. The analogy here would be if you hit Schwarzenegger, and in return he tickled you and proceeded to beat the living crap out of your family and friends.
Hezbollah, I should add, isn't masochistic at all. Israel's retributions have failed to hurt Hezbollah; for example, the attack on Nasrallah's home of course failed to kill him. In the past, Israel's assassinations generally hit the intended target at no damage to bystanders. Now they hit the bystanders without hitting the target.
Lebanese Govt
If the Lebanese govterment is unwilling to control Hezbollah then they are responsible for the devistation that brought upon their people. Do you think that the United State goverment would stand by as a radical group stockpiled an arsenal of rockets and then proceed to fire them into the populated areas of Canada? Why does the Lebanese goverment get a free pass to let these groups to use their teritories to stage atacks on another nation. The argument that they are unable to control Hezbollah does not hold weight either. The Lebanese goverment could have called for help from the US among other to help them combat Hezbollah before these attacks began.
Hezbollah is also proxy of Iran and supplied through Syria. In all legitamcy Isreal should have a right to strike back at both these states and have not.
Unwilling?
Did you miss the part in my post, "Lebanon has only had a truly independent government for a little over a year"? Israel tried to root out Hezbollah for 18 years and didn't succeed. I don't remember anyone justifying terrorism against Israel on that grounds back when Israel controlled southern Lebanon.
Israel bashing
1. Mr. Levys' quibbling over the use of the term "homicide bomber" is an example of his shallow thinking. The object of the homicide bombers is to commit homicide by killing as many civilians as possible. The fact that they choose to perform this act by committing sucide at the same time is irrelevent. In this regard, they are no different then Baruch Goldstein, who in effect committed sucide when he shot 29 Moslim worshipers in the back and ran out of ammunition.
2. The so-called prisoners document included a provision that all refugees and their decendents be allowed to return to their (now non-existant) homes in Palestine, a complete non-starter. This is as inane as a proposal to allow the decendents of native Americans to regain the homes stolen from them by European colonists in the 19th century.
3. Mr. Levy makes an accusation that atrocities were committed by American Revolutionaries during the US War of Independence. I challenge him to name three such incidents. The closest act, in that war, to a war crime was committed by British Colonel Tarleton when he had prisoners of war shot after they had surrendered.
4. Mr. Levy accuses the Israeli military of committing atrocites. So far, the death toll on the Palestinian and Lebanese side don't even add up to each of several of the homicide bombings committed against her.
5. Apparently, Mr. Levy considers the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima an atrocity. Well I have news for him. War is hell and can't be civilized. Japan sowed the wind with the attack on Pearl Harbor and reaped the whirlwind with the bombing of Hiroshima. That act, which forced Japans' surrender, saved the lives of several hundred thousand American troops who would have died if an invasion of Japan had been required.
You're bad at this
Really, you're bad. You could concede and moot my point about homicide and move on, but now you've decided the term has any relevance outside right-wing talking points.
Homicide doesn't mean all murder. Homicide is a criminal act; for evidence, the FBI excludes terrorist attacks, most prominently 9/11, from its Uniform Crime Report. Similarly, if you ask an Israeli, "What's Israel's murder rate?" he'll give you the rate that excludes bombings, even though Hebrew has the same word for murder and homicide.
It's telling that in Israel nobody ever says "homicide bombing." The idea that it's murder is obvious, so why emphasize it? People talk of terrorist attacks in general, of suicide bombings, or of shootings. The Israeli media never says, "pigúa rétsakh" (pigúa = terrorist attack; rétsakh = murder/homicide). Right-wing propagandists never say pigúa rétsakh when speaking Hebrew. They all just use the coverterm pigúa or specify whether it's a pigúa hit'abdút (hit'abdút = suicide) or a pigúa yéri (yéri = shooting).
The only remaining part of your post that doesn't smack of "Is not! La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!" is your assertion that the death toll in Lebanon is dwarfed by terrorist attacks in Israel. In fact, that assertion is false; the attacks on Lebanon have killed several tens of people - the airport bombing killed 52 civilians and the village bombing 34 - whereas Israel's worst terrorist attack killed 20-something people, if I remember correctly (I know for a fact that the bus #5 bombing that began it all in the mid-90s killed 21).
Oh, and read what Eisenhower said about nuking Japan. Even at the time he believed it was unnecessary, and the final report showed that it indeed was. Japan was ready to surrender even before, on the condition that the Emperor stay in power.
For the most part
For the most part I'm staying out of this back and forth because I don't know much about it. I do, however, have one quibble w/ your point in #5.
The estimate of losses for an invasion of Japan stood at 2 million...a million on either side.
The point that I see that's debatable in that old argument is whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered w/out the use of the bomb as they were on the brink anyway.
Finally Alon's at least partially correct in saying that it was an atrocity...as were the European fire bombing campaigns. But that was the technology we had. We now have the capability to hit targets more or less strategically, limiting civilian casualties...carpet bombing is obviously a bit different. But we did attack and destroy major CIVILIAN centers in WWII..and that can be considered atrocious.
Hezbollah's word vs Israel
Hezbollah threatens to bomb Haifa, Haifa gets bombed, Hezbollah denies bombing Haifa... Are we going to take the word of a terrorist organization? Hezbollah has everything to gain from playing victim, it makes the Israelis look bad when they fight back. Besides, why would Israel fake it? Their troops are tied up in another campaign, but why not invade a country they pulled out of? They can't have anything better to do. These terrorist groups are goading Israel, then crying for help when Israel fights back. Let's not forgot who started both of these confrontations.
You still haven't said a word about the Katyushas Hezbollah fired into the Israeli town as a diversion to their abduction, but you were commendably thorough on everything else.
On the other hand...
...Hezbollah has a lot to lose from not looking powerful enough. Hezbollah wants everyone to know that when it says it'll do something, it means it. It could easily say, "We warned Israel not to bomb southern Beirut" and still take the high road. It's not as if Israel doesn't threaten to retaliate against civilians and then carries out threats.
Israel has one motive to lie: it can make it look like the victim. And, of course, it doesn't have to lie. It's perfectly possible Israel thought Hezbollah did it based on its earlier threat. Absent a denial I wouldn't doubt that Hezbollah did it, either. It's possible another organization, or rogue elements within Hezbollah, committed the attack. I simply want to withhold judgment for afew days, until the matter becomes clearer.
About the Hezbollah katyushas, I should've mentioned them, you're right. But they don't detract too much from my point that Hezbollah attacked military targets. The katyusha is comparable not to Israel's retaliation, which targeted civilians, but to countless smart bombs gone awry, for example in both Iraq wars.
Equally Telling
"This was despite the fact that Hezbollah's attack was purely on military targets"
I would hardly call indiscriminate rocket attacks on Askelon (Hamas) and now Haifa (Hezbollah) “purely military targets.” Nor would I call the Katyusha rockets Hezbollah fired into Israeli towns as a diversion for their abduction a military target, especially since three civilians were injured. Nor has either group restricted itself to civilians in the past – it’s not that Hezbollah isn’t trying, it’s that they’re not very competent. And as to your reply to TLC, I find it equally telling that you failed to mention Askelon or the Katyushas in your own post but did a marvelous job of detailing Israel’s attacks.
Is no one else more concerned with how, when Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel, the Bush administration instantly holds Syria and Iran accountable? Granted, they support these groups, but this stinks of pretext.
I failed to mention it...
...because it was in response to Israel's attack. When I wrote this post, Hezbollah had only threatened to attack Haifa should Israel bomb Beirut; Israel hadn't even bombed Beirut then. I can't mention things that haven't happened yet. Plus, Hezbollah is now denying that it fired the rockets, so now it's Israel's word against its (at least, that's what CNN said about two hours ago).
As for the Ashkelon katyusha, I didn't focus on Hamas; note how I didn't talk about Israel's attack on Gaza, either.
Israel Bashing.
In response to the kneejerk Israel bashers on this blog, let's look at the facts here. Both the current PA government of Hamas and Hezbollah have stated in writing on numerous occasions that their goal is the elimination of the State of Israel. In furtherence of this goal, they have committed homicide bombings, fired missiles across the border and engaged in kidnapping. Unfortunately, like their predecessors in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, there is only one language that they understand, which is the mailed fist. The Lebanese Government is entirely responsible for the latest cross border activities as it has refused to disarm the Hezbollah terrorist organization or place Lebanese army units on the border, as they have been requested to do on numerous occasions by the US Government. Therefore, they have no leg to stand on when the agrieved party,Israel, retaliates. The Israeli actions thus far are rather timid and mild, in comparison to actions which might actually have some affect (such as using low yield tactical nuclear weapons against Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon). The restrained actions of the Israeli Government in the past are responsible for the Hamas and Hezbollah notions that they can engage in such terrorist activities at will with little fear of adverse consequences.
First, it's "basher"
Second, "numerous occasions" is a bit of a hyperbole. The Hamas government is in negotiations about whether to recognize Israel, and the center position in Palestine seems to be that Israel has a right to exist but the PA should not renounce the use of force to achieve independence. This brings them more in line with normal nationalist terrorists, such as Israel's own Irgun and Lehi, the Tamil Tigers, the old PLO, the IRA, and the American patriots in the 1770s.
Making 52 innocent civilians responsible for a fringe organization smacks of the same atrocities knee-jerk Arab haters complain about. The Nazis generally killed a hundred civilians every time the resistance assassinated a Nazi officer, but if that's your standard for "cautious," you're seriously deranged. The US is far from a civilian-protecting country, and even it was more cautious toward Cambodia than Israel is toward Lebanon; I find it telling that you choose to ignore my Cambodian analogy.
Israel bashing
I am afraid that Mr. Levy is seriously in error on a number of fronts.
1. The US, the UN, and the European Union have all called for the Lebanese Government to disarm Hizbollah and station Lebanese army troops on the border to prevent cross border flarups. This has been repeated numerous times since the Israeli withdrawel from Lebanon to no avail.
2. If he thinks that the Hamas terrorists are considering recognizing Israel, he is living in a dream world. Their entire reason d'etre is the elimination of Israel.
3. To coimpare Hamas with the American Revolutionaries of the US war of Independence is blasphemous. George Washington never sent homicide bombers to blow up civilians in occupied New York or Philadelphia. John Paul Jones burned the docks of Whitehaven; he didn't send homicide bombers into the town to blow up English civilians.
4. The Palestinians could have had an independent state in 2000 on 100% of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. Contrary to the lies perpertrated by the Palestinian apologists, the result would have been contiguous states, not cantons. This is testified to by Dennis Ross who was there and who can hardly be characterized as someone who thinks that the only good Arab is a dead one. The fact of the matter is that this proposal was rejected because the only solution the Palestinians will accept is one in which the current State of Israel goes out of business.
5. The actions of the US in VietNam and Iraq are extremely timid in comparison to the actions carried out during WW 2, i.e. the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan (remember Hiroshima). The actions of Israel so far in Gaza and Lebanon are even more timid.
6. Apparently the purveyors of this blog are convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is an Arab hater who favors an Eichmann solution for the Palestinian problem.
7. For any readers of this blog who might want another perspective, I would recommend visiting the Washington Post web site for todays' (7/14/2006) column by Charles Krauthammer (who will undoubtetly be called an Arab hater by Mr. Levy).
Homicide bombing?
For some reason you expect to be taken seriously when you use the term "homicide bombing" for a specific kind of attack that is based on suicide but not homicide. Strictly speaking, a homicide bombing is a non-political killing that uses a bomb; for example, if the mafia puts dynamite in the gas tank of a state witness and he subsequently ignites his car and blows up, that's a homicide bombing. Acts of terrorism aren't considered homicides - don't believe me, look at Israel's homicide statistics - so the term homicide bombing is inaccurate.
I also find it telling that the most pertinent points I bring up are also the ones you dismiss with a sneer rather than facts. There was in fact a debate within the Hamas - a party that rules Palestine because of a) an electoral fuck-up and b) the Fatah's corruption - about whether to recognize Israel. Several high-level political prisoners in Israel wanted to, whereas other political and spiritual leaders wanted not to. I have links for you if you don't believe me. The center and left already want to recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders; this was purely an intra-right debate.
As for Hamas vs. Washington, you're deluding yourself if you think the patriots didn't engage in terrorism. In fact there were plenty of atrocities committed against loyalists; if there were no attacks on Britain itself, it was because of the Atlantic Ocean rather than some internal moral compass. Evidently, nationalist terrorism does spill over into the colonial power's territory when distance permits, as we have seen in the cases of Ireland and Sri Lanka. There's certainly nothing else that separates the US, Bangladesh, and Cuba from Ireland, Sri Lanka, and Palestine.
When you say Israel is more timid than the US at Hiroshima, you showcase exactly what is wrong with pro-Israeli thinking. Someone else is even more murderous, so Israel's atrocities are justifiable. Never mind that in its wars in the Cold War, the US never violated a country's neutrality as blatantly as Israel just has; never mind that even in Vietnam the US did not engage in retributions as lopsided and disproportionate as Israel's until Nixon started bombing Hanoi. The Nazis were worse, and Stalin was worse, so the IDF is the most moral army in the world. Netanyahu said so, so it must be true.
The news reports I heard
The news reports I heard kept repeating the Israeli claim that they hold the government of Lebanon responsible because Hezbollah is part of it. Can anyone state here how much control Hezbollah has over the Lebanese government? It seems to be a policy to keep its neighbors in disarray, disheartened, with non-working governments, and very angry.
Very little
Axel_621 posted a link to Wikipedia stating Hezbollah has 2 ministries in the Lebanese government and 23 seats out of 128 in the legislature. But the same page claims that Hezbollah as a party is marginalized in the government and is planning to run against the ruling party. This suggests that Hezbollah's power is analogous to this of a party in the US that gets two cabinet posts as a show of bipartisanship even though the other controls Congress and the White House.
A quick fact check
In contrast, Lebanon has only had a truly independent government for a little over a year, and is not allied with Hezbollah at all.
Whoopsies, seems that's not true at all.
Hezbollah
They hold 23 seats in the parliment, and have 2 ministers in the government (with a third that is Hezbollah-endorsed).
23 Seats?
I could produce a similar or higher proportion than that of legislators affiliated with unsavory organizations in many other countries - Ireland, India, Austria, and Israel come to mind.
Goat Boy
Mohammad is a late commer 500 AD. He was created in the mind of a confused Arab who didnt know any better. Mohammad was a town drunkard and he could not keep a job. Mohammad was better known at the time as GOAT BOY- sodomising the gentile furry little creatures. This is another reason the arabs love to eat goat. I heard he tried to start the first convenience store in Mecca, but unfortunately he drank the wine stock constantly wich ran him out of business. While in a drunken state, He wrote a book the quran wich the arab nation who didnt have a god thought mmmmmm now this allah, here is a guy I can relate to (Mohammad) we like goat and wine too. I bought a copy of the quran read it, and now I use the pages to wipe my ass. You can buy the used pages on ebay.
Anonymous Coward
ur not only an uneducated
ur not only an uneducated coward also it sounds like ur a typical american inbred sex offender whose life is worthless and should do everyone a favor including urself and slit your wrist ;)