• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Congratulations, Hizballah...

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
lol. It would help if Israel had a constructive presence in Lebanon. But Israel is too worried about short-term threats than long-term threats.
Of course, it's all Israel's fault.

It had a constructive presence for 18 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_conflict_(1982–2000)

UN demanded Israel to pull out. UN promised to disarm groups like Hezbollah in return.

UN didn't deliver, Hezbollah - which was founded to "expel the Israeli occupation - didn't disband, and instead only got more powerful.

Hezbollah no longer had a reason to exist, because Israel was no longer occupying Lebanon. So it invented new reasons..."liberate Jerusalem" and "Remove Zionist occupation of Palestine."

Sounds like grasping to me.

Israel goes after Hezbollah in 2006, of course the UN condemns it and not Syria.

The UN, EU, USA, the Arabs are to blame for Hezbollah. Next war Israel should bomb Syria. Don't fuck with Israel and Israel won't fuck with you.

We're bombing Afghanistan to exterminate an enemy that poses no threat to our country, certainly an attack on Syria/Lebanon would be far more morally and legally defendable.

Israel should adopt Obama's military policy. Lebanon would be on fire.

USA would never tolerate a terrorist group on our border with scud missiles. To think hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the North - 50% of whom are Arab - are forced to live in homes with 3 inches of concrete steal around their homes. Bomb shelters, sirens, all that shit.

We don't have that here. And Hezbollah is more powerful and deadly than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban combined.

I mean SCUD missiles, are fucking kidding me? Would we tolerate a terrorist group on are border with 60,000 rockets aimed at our cities? Hell fucking no. Not even Obama would.

But hey...if it's Israel, they must negotiate.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
IHV made his entire post into a laughable shamble, just by posting his wiki link that completely contradicts his statement that "Of course, it's all Israel's fault.

It had a constructive presence ( presumably in Lebanon ) for 18 years."

One glorious chapter of his link is labeled, "Israel's iron fist occupation."

It takes some powerful IHV selective reading of the following link to come up with anything other than Israel had a chance to do some good and instead acted like a jerk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_L...2%80%932000%29

As for Hezbollah, they don't have 60,000 missiles, much of what Hezbollah had and now has is short range and totally ineffectual, and if a very few Scuds can deter another Israel invasion of Lebanon, its probably a very good thing.

Having all sides being deterred from irrational violence and bully tactics keeps all sides safer.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
I really really hope I am wrong in making those likely predictions, but that seems to be where the trend lines are heading, especially if Israel loses it blank check from Uncle Sam. An Uncle Sam who can no longer afford to arm Israel for free and now sees that arming Israel to the teeth has not lead to the desired mid-east peace.
I thought we discussed it before. US can throw Israel to the dogs, but then one of three things would happen:

1) Israel being pushed to a corner and using WMDs;
2) Israel finding itself new allies which the US certainly doesn't want Israel finding (Russia, China);
3) Israel being overrun by the Arabs

I'd hardly call any of these scenarios "peaceful".

As history shows, there's not one issue that you can point at which prevents ME peace, other than the very existence of Israel.

And then there's the question of morality: is it moral to support the dark alliance of Muslims, which oppose human rights, democracy and any kind of freedom, over supporting Israel?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I thought we discussed it before. US can throw Israel to the dogs, but then one of three things would happen:

1) Israel being pushed to a corner and using WMDs;
2) Israel finding itself new allies which the US certainly doesn't want Israel finding (Russia, China);
3) Israel being overrun by the Arabs

I'd hardly call any of these scenarios "peaceful".

As history shows, there's not one issue that you can point at which prevents ME peace, other than the very existence of Israel.

And then there's the question of morality: is it moral to support the dark alliance of Muslims, which oppose human rights, democracy and any kind of freedom, over supporting Israel?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the big Samur delusions in this thread are.

1. If Israel gets cut off by the USA and thus can't sell US technology to Russia or China, Israel has no alliance value to China or Russia.

2. "And then there's the question of morality: is it moral to support the dark alliance of Muslims, which oppose human rights, democracy and any kind of freedom, over supporting Israel " who opposes Arab and Palestinian human rights, freedom. And in so supporting only Israel, the USA then loses any credibility in selling democracy and human rights to Arabs and Palestinians.

Israel is in no way a democracy by present definition, because Israeli human rights and property rights only go to people who are born into the politically correct religion. Our US founding fathers rejected that bullshit in our initial constitution over 200 years ago and quite properly so. So we should support the Apartheid State of Israel why?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,293
0
0
I wish this was the state of things, but unfortunately, in the Muslim world (with the sole exception of Iran, possibly), its the people that are more radical than the governments, and its only getting worse with the rise of extremism.

In both Egypt and Jordan, if the power got back to the people, there is a very good chance the peace agreements with Israel would be thrown out the window.
That's the thing, power makes people responsible. WHen people are out of power or have no power, they say and do as they please.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
1. If Israel gets cut off by the USA and thus can't sell US technology to Russia or China, Israel has no alliance value to China or Russia.
US technology like the the Phalcon, which US didn't want Israel selling to China simply because it's superior to the US systems? Or the UAVs Israel sells to the US? Or the Python 5 which is a superior air-air missile to anything US possesses? Or the Israeli Merkava tank? Or TROPHY protection system which US wanted to buy but the Military-Industrial mafia stopped dead for an American system (which is not ready, nor anyone knows when it will be). Even the armor for the HUMVEEs in Iraq and Afghanistan is made by Israel (Palsan). You can say many things about Israel, but they surely have very advanced technologies in their possession.

2. "And then there's the question of morality: is it moral to support the dark alliance of Muslims, which oppose human rights, democracy and any kind of freedom, over supporting Israel " who opposes Arab and Palestinian human rights, freedom. And in so supporting only Israel, the USA then loses any credibility in selling democracy and human rights to Arabs and Palestinians.
How does Israel oppose Arab rights? By just being there?

Israel is in no way a democracy by present definition, because Israeli human rights and property rights only go to people who are born into the politically correct religion. Our US founding fathers rejected that bullshit in our initial constitution over 200 years ago and quite properly so. So we should support the Apartheid State of Israel why?
More than 1/4 of the Israeli population are Muslims, that enjoy full rights, including those - such as the freedom of speech - they would never get in ANY Muslim country. Go tell made-up stories of Apartheid to the idiots at Berkley, not to those in the know.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The Sammy deceptions are so numerous, but maybe no more than "More than 1/4 of the Israeli population are Muslims, that enjoy full rights, including those - such as the freedom of speech - they would never get in ANY Muslim country. Go tell made-up stories of Apartheid to the idiots at Berkley, not to those in the know."

Maybe a partial point, the Arab Muslims get to be only second class Israeli citizens, and now are being mass displaced from their East Jerusalem homes, as for the few remaining Palestinians, they are totally third class citizens in the land of the own birth. Tell me again how Israeli is a democracy? Especially when there is a totally separate and
totally unequal education system for Jews and Muslims in Israel.

Then Sammy has the unmitigated gall to say that Israel only offends its neighbor, "How does Israel oppose Arab rights? By just being there?"

Has it ever occurred to you Sammy, even as however Abysmal most surrounding Arab nations are, they are not quite as bad as the total pigs that the present Netanyuhu government demonstrates.

I sure do not want to defend past Muslim governments, but I can't defend Israel either.

Both can do better, much better.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Maybe a partial point, the Arab Muslims get to be only second class Israeli citizens, and now are being mass displaced from their East Jerusalem homes, as for the few remaining Palestinians, they are totally third class citizens in the land of the own birth. Tell me again how Israeli is a democracy? Especially when there is a totally separate and
totally unequal education system for Jews and Muslims in Israel.
Whats your point? The Hassidic Jews have an education system of their own, too. I thought providing a special education systems to minorities that require it is "pluralism", not denial of rights. Let me guess: if the Israeli-Arabs were forced to study the same program like Jewish kids, you'd say it's Imperialism, right? :D

Then Sammy has the unmitigated gall to say that Israel only offends its neighbor, "How does Israel oppose Arab rights? By just being there?"

Has it ever occurred to you Sammy, even as however Abysmal most surrounding Arab nations are, they are not quite as bad as the total pigs that the present Netanyuhu government demonstrates.
What does Nethanyahu's government have to do with anything in this discussion? Was he in power in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 or during any other period of unrestrained offensive from the Arab nations?

And say what you will about Nethanyahu's government, at least they were elected. That is not the case with any other country around Israel.

I sure do not want to defend past Muslim governments, but I can't defend Israel either.

Both can do better, much better.
You know, I'm usually very cautious with the Antisemitism card. I too think it's pulled way too often instead of getting into real debates. Obviously all sides have flaws, and Israel too. However, when I see someone like you, fighting the propaganda war for regimes which the word "oppressive" doesn't even begin to describe, I start questioning myself. I don't see you rooting for Kim Jong Ill, but you'll rush to defend Ahmadinejad.
I'm sure you don't like him more than the next guy, but you do seem to sympathize with his cause.

Wouldn't mind seeing the Jews going back to their natural, defenseless position, eh buddy?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Sammy, Kim Jong ILL and Ahmadinejad are totally different questions that amount to only irrelevant deflections on this thread. But still, even if Netanyhu is an idiot, Kim Jong Ill is an idiot, and Ahmadinejad is a total idiot, it still leaves me no reason to hate the people of Israel, North Korea, or Iran.

As you only seem to endorse the past mistakes and assume they must be perpetual and I hope that all sides can all do better in future.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Don't bother responding to Lemon Law.

The debate will eventually descend into analogies of Israel=Nazi Germany.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
Why is Israel allowed to have it and Hezbullah isn't? Who's going to stop them from getting it? If the answer is Israel, then go ahead and stop them. As long as American soldiers don't die, I couldn't care less.
Bingo. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

There are seldom sane Americans like yourself but most Americans are hypocritical terrorists if I ever saw one. I'm just witnessing from the side lines as I'm not hezbullah nor really an American.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Another Sammy delusion is, "Wouldn't mind seeing the Jews going back to their natural, defenseless position, eh buddy?"

The point being, if you define the legitimate 1948 borders as defenseless, what Israel captured in the 1967& 73 wars are not enough to elevate Israel from still being defenseless. A tiny buffer zone is little better than no buffer zone at all. In such cases, nations with brains make peace with their neighbors rather than continually antagonizing their neighbors. Tell me all about the huge standing armies tiny countries like Monaco need to repel invasion.

But by not making any concessions, refusing to give back illegally captured land, and continual Israeli settlement on land they do not own has gone past angering just Arabs and Palestinians, and now greatly endangers Israel because they lose most of their support from the rest of the world.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Funny that only the borders that have been expanded as trip wires after the '73 conflict have proven to work against the other Arab nations.

The borders in '48 were not enough to protect Israel.
Neither were the borders in '67

Trip wires in Gaza when taken down only encouraged problems from that end.
Trip wires and the wall in the West Bank have removed problems from that side.

So apparently, setting trip wires out far enough, shows that what Israel is doing has protected themselves.

In Lebanon; those trip wires were given over to the UN. That did not work.

The Arab groups have not honored borders allotted to Israel and attacked when ever they wanted to.
The truces signed apparently hold no honor.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Maybe the error Common Courtesy makes is in assuming because the 1948&67 borders of Israel did not do enough to protect Israel, it was the land added in the 1973 war that did the trick.

Sadly coincidence does not demonstrate causality. Because the 1973 war was the point at which total mid-east military hegemony became clearly on the Israeli side. And in the intervening years, that total Israeli military hegemony has become much more one sided.

But still it has not protected Israel from terrorism that has been its maybe just lot in its entire 62 year history, and even if the Arab threat is removed, new and greater threats replace it.

The greatest among them being, a world tired of Israel not returning land it can not own. And to a certain extent, Netanyuhu, who plays and replays the same ole strategy previous Israeli leaders have used to drag out returning the Israel still illegally occupies,
Netanyuhu is likely to be the unlucky smuck in charge when the music stops and the jig is up. Because the world has basically had it with Israel, and maybe the Annapolis conference was Israel's last chance. This time as the game of Musical chairs still plays out, and when the music stops, Israel is not going to be able to sit down in the same old chair. And hence Israel will either have to get real or lose the game.

Because the world realizes that there are only two ways to solve the mid-east problems. (1) Form a viable Palestinian State out of the land captured in the 1967&73 wars. (2) Assimilate Palestinians and Arabs into a greater Israeli State with full voting rights.

And by Israel playing the game of musical chairs too long, may not leave enough land left for Israel to give back now to thus form a viable Palestinian state. Thus tipping the balance to option 2 as the only just solution.

Maybe I am right and maybe am wrong about my read of the tea leaves, and time will tell. But Israel will not be the first and probably will not be the last State to greatly overplay their hand, but the handwriting is already on the wall and the much larger world has likely decided a just mid-east peace is far more important than a just 7 million people nation that is clearly obstructing world hopes.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
And by Israel playing the game of musical chairs too long, may not leave enough land left for Israel to give back now to thus form a viable Palestinian state.
Good, I'm glad. Israel would be stupid to agree to a Palestinian state, especially with Hamas and the Fatah hawks in play.

They are the last people on the planet that are entitled to a state.

Kurds deserve a state. Jews deserve a state. Dinkas deserve a state.

Arabs have 23 states.

Ball is in their court. Israel won't tolerate 6 more pointless decades of violence and aggression.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
IHV comes back with, "Ball is in their court. Israel won't tolerate 6 more pointless decades of violence and aggression. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the real problem with that is that thus far, anti- Israeli terrorist violence has been ineffectual and thus maybe pointless. But technology is somewhat on the side of stateless terrorists who may very soon acquire the means to drive the point home to Israel and really make a point with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

And Stateless terrorists can strike at Israel in a 360 degree arc around Israel, with 180 degrees of the arc being the Mediterranean sea.

I hope it does not happen but its difficult to assume it will not within 15 to 20 years if major steps are not made to defuse the hatreds Israel still keeps building. Just a single successful Stateless terrorist attack could deeply wound the State of Israel yet the same size strike could be shrugged off by a larger sized state in the Spain, Poland, or Vietnam size of nation.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
IHV comes back with, "Ball is in their court. Israel won't tolerate 6 more pointless decades of violence and aggression. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the real problem with that is that thus far, anti- Israeli terrorist violence has been ineffectual and thus maybe pointless.
Yes, a real problem :rolleyes:

But technology is somewhat on the side of stateless terrorists who may very soon acquire the means to drive the point home to Israel and really make a point with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Technology is the reason Israel today is stronger than it ever been, and the reason you don't hear of suicide bombings anymore (I hate to break you the news but it's not that Hamas stopped trying), and the reason the Kassam rockets will soon become ineffective.
There's nothing better to diffuse terror than technology.

And Stateless terrorists can strike at Israel in a 360 degree arc around Israel, with 180 degrees of the arc being the Mediterranean sea.
Have you ever given thought to why Israel was never attacked by Al Qaeda, while US and Europe burned? Israel is a much, much more difficult target. There is a much bigger chance of a nuke going off in the naive, unsuspecting, defenseless and clueless Stockholm than in Tel Aviv, as the last 10 years of global terrorism show us.

I hope it does not happen but its difficult to assume it will not within 15 to 20 years if major steps are not made to defuse the hatreds Israel still keeps building.
It's not hatred to Israel, it's hatred to Jews, or in fact, to non-Muslims. You can only diffuse it by making them all Muslim. Whatever Israel does or doesn't do has nothing to do with it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
But the real problem with that is that thus far, anti- Israeli terrorist violence has been ineffectual and thus maybe pointless. But technology is somewhat on the side of stateless terrorists who may very soon acquire the means to drive the point home to Israel and really make a point with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

And Stateless terrorists can strike at Israel in a 360 degree arc around Israel, with 180 degrees of the arc being the Mediterranean sea.

I hope it does not happen but its difficult to assume it will not within 15 to 20 years if major steps are not made to defuse the hatreds Israel still keeps building. Just a single successful Stateless terrorist attack could deeply wound the State of Israel yet the same size strike could be shrugged off by a larger sized state in the Spain, Poland, or Vietnam size of nation.
Realize that every time Israel has attempted to clean up the terrorist nests; the peaceful opponents that triggered the issue have run to the UN asking for protection.

As more and more dangerous weapons exist; Israel may have less desire to tolerate such hit & hid tactics.

The opponents have played a dangerous game of seeing how far they can poke Israel without retaliation.

The tolerance may decrease and the level of retaliation may increase.

And it is the civilians that get hurt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Realize that every time Israel has attempted to clean up the terrorist nests; the peaceful opponents that triggered the issue have run to the UN asking for protection.

As more and more dangerous weapons exist; Israel may have less desire to tolerate such hit & hid tactics.

The opponents have played a dangerous game of seeing how far they can poke Israel without retaliation.

The tolerance may decrease and the level of retaliation may increase.

And it is the civilians that get hurt.
On both sides
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Maybe the Sammy delusion are best contained in, "There's nothing better to diffuse terror than technology."

Perhaps the biggest super power myth in world history. Did it work for Uncle Sam in Vietnam, did it work for the Russians in Afghanistan, did it work for GWB in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama, by still overusing US technology in Afghanistan, is having very the same GWB results in Afghanistan.

What little better results the last part of the GWB administration had in Iraq was obtained by driving a wedge between the minority Sunni's and Al-Quida terrorists, because Al-Quida tactics made the bulk of the ethnic cleansing fall on the Sunni's. Which took no high tech and some human good ole common sense.

But when a high tech nation substitutes even more high tech for missing common sense and compassion, they are gonna lose in the end almost every time. Human being are very stubborn critters.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Maybe the Sammy delusion are best contained in, "There's nothing better to diffuse terror than technology."

Perhaps the biggest super power myth in world history. Did it work for Uncle Sam in Vietnam, did it work for the Russians in Afghanistan, did it work for GWB in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama, by still overusing US technology in Afghanistan, is having very the same GWB results in Afghanistan.

What little better results the last part of the GWB administration had in Iraq was obtained by driving a wedge between the minority Sunni's and Al-Quida terrorists, because Al-Quida tactics made the bulk of the ethnic cleansing fall on the Sunni's. Which took no high tech and some human good ole common sense.

But when a high tech nation substitutes even more high tech for missing common sense and compassion, they are gonna lose in the end almost every time. Human being are very stubborn critters.
Oh of course, technology in itself is not enough, you need to know what to do with it. Israel has a much bigger technological lead today when dealing with Hizbullah compared to what the US had when it dealt with the Vietcong. These things are exponential, not linear.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Realize that every time Israel has attempted to clean up the terrorist nests; the peaceful opponents that triggered the issue have run to the UN asking for protection.

As more and more dangerous weapons exist; Israel may have less desire to tolerate such hit & hid tactics.

The opponents have played a dangerous game of seeing how far they can poke Israel without retaliation.

The tolerance may decrease and the level of retaliation may increase.

And it is the civilians that get hurt.
Not really.

Palestinians know how Israel works and know it spends a lot of time developing new technologies to avoid civilian casualties.

Vast majority of Palestinian casualties, about 89%, are combat-age males.

In fact, males outnumber females by a factor of 9.

This is impressive considering the average age in Gaza and the West Bank is 17.

And since Palestinians have no problem arming teenagers, they can't really bitch about "dead children."

Whereas with Israel', civilians outnumber combatant casualties by a factor of 3.

It's hard to take Palestinian whining about civilian casualties when they're paying children to harass soldiers on the border and provoke a reaction.

When they're closing down all the schools (payed for by US tax dollars) and sending all the buses to the settlements and border towns to protest, throw rocks, grenades, etc...

I remember during OCL, Israel developed this new "weapon" that sends loud bursts of sound.

Apache helicopters shoot it at civilian roofs, because Hamas sends up women and children on top of homes that store weapons or used as training sites for hamas militants.

The sound is supposed to clear civilians out of the way.

Fuck, IDF literally phones homes of combatants and tells them to GTFO.

Israel drops leaflets.

Israel agrees to controlled cease-fires just so civilians can get treatment.

I can't think of another country that spends so much time obsessing over civilian casualties.

They have to. Every time someone is killed, or is accused of being killed, ends up on BBC headlines and the UN.

More bitching by our government telling them to end the "disproportionate use of force."

Meanwhile, USAF kills another 100 civies after bombing a wedding in Kabul to take out a taliban druglord.

aren't we such hypocrites.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
All the people that oppose the Israeli presence (either completely or post '67) feel that the civilians are the ones that get punished.

The fact that the militants hide among the civilians and also make it difficult to tell who is a militant vs a true civilian is not considered important.

If the Palestinians state that a civilian was injured/killed (even though they may have a smoking AK47); then the tally sheet says civilian.

As indicated; a weapon has no knowledge or concern about the age/sex of a person using it. But the media does.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY