OT Bush calls Lebanon A new front for global war on terror

[subterFUSE]

Why is it so hard to believe that Israel is maybe not fighting for its life, but is an aggressive criminal nation?

There are forces in this world which want nothing short of the destruction of EVERY jewish life in existence. Not just the ones in Israel, but everywhere in the world.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of your so-called "legitimate resistance group", has called for this himself.

[Cryptic UK]

Hello

[forge]

What I am saying is that Hizbolla are a militant force that has infiltrated and now partly controls Lebanon.

No, Hizbollah, with the exception of the rocket attacks into Israel, is a legitimate resistance group under international law.

And it's easy to post pictures of children posing as martyrs, but if you want to be fair you would post the pictures of young Israeli children decorating artillery shells and missiles before they are fired into populated civilian areas.

And maybe you should put things into perspective. Of-course it is a terrible tragedy when a young person blows him or herself up in a crowded cafe killing a bunch of civilians but is it not tragic when an American made Israeli helicopter or fighter jet levels an apartment block or refugee camp and kills a bunch of innocent people? PLO, Hamas, Hizbollah, PFLP, whatever, these people do not have the luxury of Abrams tanks, Apache Helicopter gun-ships, remote controlled armed drone planes, 105 mm howitzers, F-16 fighter planes, cluster bombs, or white phosphorus.

it does not mean that I think it is "justified" to blow up a crowded passenger bus, it is no more justified then it is to bomb a convoy of refugees after you have granted them passage. it means I have taken the time to consider the situation from both angles.

Why is it so hard to believe that Israel is maybe not fighting for its life, but is an aggressive criminal nation? You know, recognizing that or believing that does not automatically mean that you think hizbollah or whatever other resistance group are saints and it does not mean you are calling for the destruction of israel. it really doesn't, trust me. I know.

It means maybe you understand that the real reason people out there, in the third world, are so pissed off is not because they "hate freedom" (like my President is so quick to tell you) but maybe because they just want a little bit of freedom of their own. it means maybe you undertand the hypocritical, racist policies that are affecting people in the third world.

it means maybe you understand that there is a difference between the people and the policies, between the culture and the power center.

Trust me, it's just as ok to question the policies of the United States and Israel as it is to question the policies of iran or Syria. it doesn't mean you support "terrorism" or hate "the jews" it means you don't see the world in this bullshit black and white, epic struggle of good vs. evil that so many others do. it means you've taken the time to research not only the atrocities committed by "the enemy" that is printed in every American paper, but that you've also taken the time to investigate the atrocities committed by the "good guys" as well.

If more people would take the time to do that, rather than regurgitating what is fed to them by, forgive my rhetoric, the state/corporate sponsored propaganda machine( because that is exactly what it is, free press my ass), then maybe more people would begin to question these policies and then maybe we would see a real change.

Then maybe what the elite fears more than anything else would happen, "the great beast" (the people) would wake up from their sofas, couches, and easy chairs and not just call for, but demand a change.

Whoa, well said. Thank you. With that, i'm out on this thread. And so should everybody else.

cheers

totally.

Smoo - that is probably the best and most poignant post I've read in all of these politicial threads

[subterFUSE]

Smoo - that is probably the best and most poignant post I've read in all of these politicial threads

And I think it is totally insane.

[forge]

Smoo - that is probably the best and most poignant post I've read in all of these politicial threads

And I think it is totally insane.

And I cant see how any intelligent person could read and understand that and see it as insane.

[elemental]

...You must understand there is really no such thing as evil or good in this situation. There are extremists on both sides, both have a set agenda and both will use violence to impose their agenda on the world around them. Who is actually 'wrong' or 'right' or 'good' or 'evil' really depends on what side your on, or at least what you believe.

Well, I disagree. There is good and evil. But I won't argue with you on that, since neither of us will convince the other. BUT...

In which case, the whole 'war on terror' is absolutely insane, there is no wrong or right and there will be no winners or losers in it, just more violence, death, suffering and destruction.

But this point I shall challenge. The war on terror is not insane. Let's pretend that you are right (which you are not) and that there is no good and evil, but that it is only competing interests and that good and evil are relative. Well, I'll say that since Jihadists and radical muslims are my enemy, then anybody who opposes them are on my side. Therefore, it is in my best interest to aggressively target radical Islam as often and as violently as possible.

Israel poses no threat to me. The United States poses no threat to me. In fact, the continued economic superiority and overwhelming military might of the United States directly serves my interest by keeping me safe, and continuing my afluent lifestyle. Since you have access to the internet, you are almost automatically better off than the majority of the world's population who don't have any access. If you're a North American or a European, it is SELF DESTRUCTIVE to oppose the United States and its allies (including Israel). It is counter to your own safety, affluence and comfort.

...Let's assume that the war on terror is actually only "for oil" or to militarily / culturally dominate the globe. A steady supply of oil and overwhelming military force are good for any people to have, and since I'm a North American, the current war benefits my society.

Therefore, supporting the war on terror is perfectly sane.

I am nobody's Dhimmi, and I will gladly let my nation (and my nation's allies) kill as many people as necessary to keep it that way. Those who threaten my security must be eliminated, and thank goodness that my side has the economy, and technology to make it happen. All we lack is the cohesive willpower.

Do you not think that your views are a little bit selfish?
It is this US and THEM mentality that gets the world into the horrible mess it is in now.

I think basically it comes down to this: some of us are stuck in the delusion that we are all seperate beings, and therefore must defend ourselves against the evil outside.
The truth is, that we are basically all brothers and sisters sharing a planet, and we are all basically ONE. Most of this crazy reality is fabricated by us. Its your choice to take the easy route and go along with it, or to actually stop and think about whats going, question the world views and reality tunnel in which you live, and try and actually seek the TRUTH.

[subterFUSE]

And I cant see how any intelligent person could read and understand that and see it as insane.

For several reasons:


1. He called Hizbollah a legitimate resistance group. Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, with state sponsorship from Iran and Syria.

2. While he claims not to, he is effectively drawing moral equivalency between Israel and terrorists.

3. He says that Israel is not fighting for their lives. It is a simple fact that there are multiple forces in the middle east which have openly called for the complete destruction of not only Israel, but every Jewish life on the planet. And if they can't get them in Israel, then they will seek them out worldwide. This is exactly what Hassan Nasrallah called for. If the USA did not support Israel, then they would all die. It's that simple. They are fighting for their lives, and have been for a long, long time.

4. While he is correct in saying that most people in these countries simply want freedom, he seems to be making the assumption that we are fighting "most people." We all know these people want freedom.... just look at how many people voted in Iraq, despite the dangers. But the forces we are fighting are not the majority.... they are extremists in the minority, trying to impose fascist rule over the majority. This minority does not want freedom, and will stop at nothing to prevent it.

[andydes]

I'd like to thank to M. Breqs on his brutal honesty about his reasons for supporting this war. Not a lot of people are prepared to admit that they're thinking of their own interests.

However, even if I pretend that I don't give a crap about anyone else, I'd still believe that this war on terror is putting us at greater risk.

In both the Tube bombings last year and the latest airline plot, British born muslims were the ones prepared to die. Even if those ultimately behind the attacks truely hate freedom, capitalism etc. how the hell do you recruit young westernised muslims?

Do you try to convince them that the glories of shia law are worth killing yourself for? Hell no, they'd tell you to f*ck right off, put their ipods on and walk out.

No, they show them tapes of deformed babies and flattened villages and tell them how the evil western world is killing and exploiting their muslim brothers. This is obviously one sided propagander, but they're using our actions in the middle east to their own adavntage.

I don't know about the states, but in parts of London, you can almost feel the rising level of righteous anger. If you can't convince the members of the ableton forum that what we're doing is right, how the hell do you convince these people?

Personnally, I'm very worried about the terror threat.

In the early days of the Iraq conflict, Tony Blair was always talking about the battle of hearts and minds. At least he knew that the only way to win would be to convince the iraqi people that we weren't the enemy. He doesn't even talk about this anymore. But we face a similar battle in our own countries.

[M. Bréqs]

Do you not think that your views are a little bit selfish?
It is this US and THEM mentality that gets the world into the horrible mess it is in now.

I think basically it comes down to this: some of us are stuck in the delusion that we are all seperate beings, and therefore must defend ourselves against the evil outside.
The truth is, that we are basically all brothers and sisters sharing a planet, and we are all basically ONE. Most of this crazy reality is fabricated by us. Its your choice to take the easy route and go along with it, or to actually stop and think about whats going, question the world views and reality tunnel in which you live, and try and actually seek the TRUTH.

Yes, I am selfish. My response was to a claim that good and evil were irrelevant. Therefore, in the absence of good/evil, all that is left is conflict between opposed interest. In that case, I'll take my interest over somebody elses.

HOWEVER

I do believe strongly in good and evil. In my original post I addressed a situation where good and evil didn't exist. That is the source of my selfish view. But that is not the case, I am on the good side. The Islamofascists are on the evil side. The United States and Israel are on the good side, Iran and Hizbollah are evil.

So, ultimately I am only selfish if I am deprived of my sense of good vs evil.

What I think Smutek and others need to do is really question what they define as good and evil. Democratic principles, freedom and stability are good. Sharia, genocide, Jihad and antisemitism are evil.

[andydes]

Sounds a little simplistic to me. I'd imagine those willing to blow themselves up for their cause, equally see things in black and white. We need people to acknoledge the huge grey area between these viewpoints, or we're all screwed.

[M. Bréqs]

Why is it so hard to believe that Israel is maybe not fighting for its life, but is an aggressive criminal nation?

Why is it so hard to believe that Israel is actually fighting for its life, and is not an aggressive criminal nation?

It means maybe you understand that the real reason people out there, in the third world, are so pissed off is not because they "hate freedom" (like my President is so quick to tell you) but maybe because they just want a little bit of freedom of their own.

It means maybe you understand that the real reason people out there, in the third world, are so pissed off is not because they "hate freedom" (like your presdient is so quick to tell you) but maybe because they blame their lack of freedom on external sources (Jews and America) rather than their own leadership and their religion's inheirently midevil set of values?

[M. Bréqs]

I'd like to thank to M. Breqs on his brutal honesty about his reasons for supporting this war. Not a lot of people are prepared to admit that they're thinking of their own interests.

However, even if I pretend that I don't give a crap about anyone else, I'd still believe that this war on terror is putting us at greater risk.

Thanks.

I see that ultimately, the difference between your position and mine is this;

1. One side thinks that a global conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable, unavoidable, and will only end once massive casualties have been inflicted. We see the appeasement of the 1930s as the model, and to hold back our mlitary response only deferrs the inevitable. The longer we wait, the worse the conflict will be, thus costing more lives as our enemies get better technology and are continuously emboldened by our vascilating response. Negotiated resolutions are only temporary pauses, which our enemies will use to rearm, train, equip and plot.

2. The other side sees a a global conflict between Islam and the West as avoidable, and believe that with different foreign policy, we could peacefully coexist. The historical precedent of appeasement as either irrelevant, or not applicable to the current situation. The longer we fight, the more lives will be lost, and that we should cease immediately regardless of the consequences to our own stability. These people think that negotiated resolutions will be honoured by the radicals who believe killing infidels gets them into Paradise.

I side with the first view. I think that we would be at greater risk if we did nothing... It would be a longer-term risk, and with the second view we might achieve a measure of piece for a short period, but at what cost to the future?

I think that the cost to the future would be the end of humanity. We must deal with the problem of Jihadist aggression decisively before they outgun us.

Each year we wait, they catch up technologically. Each year the price of oil goes up, they become richer. Each year that more of their children are indoctrinated to kill and hate the Kuffar, they grow in numbers.

Appeasement and pacificsm are suicide.

[elemental]

Do you not think that your views are a little bit selfish?
It is this US and THEM mentality that gets the world into the horrible mess it is in now.

I think basically it comes down to this: some of us are stuck in the delusion that we are all seperate beings, and therefore must defend ourselves against the evil outside.
The truth is, that we are basically all brothers and sisters sharing a planet, and we are all basically ONE. Most of this crazy reality is fabricated by us. Its your choice to take the easy route and go along with it, or to actually stop and think about whats going, question the world views and reality tunnel in which you live, and try and actually seek the TRUTH.

Yes, I am selfish. My response was to a claim that good and evil were irrelevant. Therefore, in the absence of good/evil, all that is left is conflict between opposed interest. In that case, I'll take my interest over somebody elses.

HOWEVER

I do believe strongly in good and evil. In my original post I addressed a situation where good and evil didn't exist. That is the source of my selfish view. But that is not the case, I am on the good side. The Islamofascists are on the evil side. The United States and Israel are on the good side, Iran and Hizbollah are evil.

So, ultimately I am only selfish if I am deprived of my sense of good vs evil.

What I think Smutek and others need to do is really question what they define as good and evil. Democratic principles, freedom and stability are good. Sharia, genocide, Jihad and antisemitism are evil.

Well it looks like you are set in your views and not much is going to change that. Oh well. The world is not black and white as you see it.

As I stated before, I am half Isreali, and am regularly disgusted by the policies of the isreali government. I dont watch much news these days, mainly because I used to get so wound up about things I cannot control, and am ashamed of part of my heritage. My mother cannot talk to her family in isreal openly about these issues for fear of being called a traitor. You say anti-semitism is evil, I agree... but all racism is evil, and israel is a racist state, no two ways about it. I dont see how in your right mind you can see Isreal as "good".

[andydes]

It means maybe you understand that the real reason people out there, in the third world, are so pissed off is not because they "hate freedom" (like your presdient is so quick to tell you) but maybe because they blame their lack of freedom on external sources (Jews and America) rather than their own leadership and their religion's inheirently midevil set of values?

Now that's proably the smartest thing you've said so far. But how do we address this? A quick round of bombing should make them change their minds.

You obviously know a bit about the history of the region, so as an obviously smart man, I don't see how you can look at such a messy, f*cked up situation and say "yep, this side's right, this side's wrong. These people are my enemy, let's go to war."

I seem to remmber a time, not so long ago after Oslo accord when Israel and the palastinians had a ceasefire in place. They came very close to reaching an agreement on a 2 state solution. Then, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), the Iraeli governments started a new wave of settlement building in gaza and the west bank, which kicked of the latest palestinian uprising.

Mind, you there were plently of other times when Arrafat screwed up the chances of peace.

My point is negotiation is posible, even with terrorists. Hell, we had to let a load of evil bastards of jail to progress the northern ireland peace process. It was a sacrifice, but one worth making for the greater good.

[dj superflat]

a question for those who oppose how israel is handling the current situation, not a rhetorical question, actually interested:

how should nations handle asymetrical warfare? if a nation is attacked by an organization (regardless of whether labelled freedom fighters, insurgents, terroriests) that is embedded in a civilian population (no uniforms, etc.) how should the nation respond?

no response? because of the risk of harming civilians? do those civilians have any responsibility for the organization they harbor or permit to remain among them?

only measured response? intended to do as little harm to the civilian population as possible?

or response designed to have most impact on the organization, while trying to limit harm to civilians?

or full out genghiskhan/nazi hang the civilians so that they turn on the organization?

does it really matter if you can pin down who started it? that is, if israel could identify it's own actions across the decades as the root cause of the current strife, should it just sit back and take the rockets? does proportionality matter? can there be any form of rules of engagement in asymetrical warfare, where one side by definition would likely lose if they played by the rules?