Israel vs Hezbollah Thread #3

[feederband]

About 20 minutes ago, CNBC reported Oil prices had dropped after rumors that the 2 Israeli soldiers have been released. No one else has reported this yet.

Hmmmmm....I can't find anything on it...That's how rumors go...I would really be surprised if they were really still alive...

[angelwing]

I've been looking too, can't find it either, only that it dropped to under $74/barrell on rumors of a ceasefire (CNN money)

[Stephanie]

It's really amazing I haven't seen a thread get this way in along time...The thread isn't the issue...What's happening here?

It NEEDS to get back on track or it will be locked. First and last warning people.

[feederband]

The middle east problem is the biggest thing going on right now...Athough I support Israel on this ...That doesn't mean I like it...I hope the thread doesn't get locked..Can't we just post what is going on and keep our personal comments to people to PM'S...I just want to discuss what is happening..We all know what started it.

[fwbbreeze]

Its time to keep this thread on track and banish those posters that are here to cause trouble. This thread is sock full of GREAT information and discussion and just doesnt need inflamatory posts. I havent posted in a while in this discussion but I contiune to read and stay informed. Please dont lock the thread just boot the problems!!

Thanks
fwbbreeze

[Janice]

I agree 100%. Kick the problem people and keep the post open. Everyone has been warned enough. They can discuss it in a pm if they have a problem agreeing.

This is the biggest issue in our news now. People are concerned. Our troops may end up there. This is very serious and we need to discuss and vent our views.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Regit wrote:
YES! It was the original point.

Regit wrote:

the destruction of Israel is a political end.

Your response was:

Audrey2Katrina wrote:

Now I really gave you credit for better than this, Regit, honestly I did.

Nice try, Regit... but while you make a valiant effort at quoting bits and pieces of a discussion that evolved after the attempt to get the issue side-tracked, that is NOT an accurate depiction of the contextual sequence of events, and you well know it. You are not going to get away with that kind of selective ommission. NO! It was NOT, the "originial" point... because I can take you all the way back to EXACTLY where you started us down this yellow brick road of non-sequitur issues.

Derek Ortt made the following statement:

I've said it before, people are supposed to die in war. That is one of the main objectives of war. Kill your enemy so that they cannot fight.

Now I was writing a series of retorts to earlier posts before I could even get around to this little gem; but I did note how what Derek had stated was “one” of the main objectives of war, was suddenly morphed into “THE” main objective, in an effort to lessen the original point (that killing the enemy was AN objective)—albeit transparent, and non-sequitur.

MY response was to cite the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the definition of the word “WAR”—NOT politics--but for the original contention, WAR.. And the very first one in the list was “A state of usually open ARMED AND HOSTILE conflict.” And THAT, Regit was the “original” bone of contention, before you started this attempt at saving face by winning a semantic argument in light of a no-win scenario over the “original” point. So you began this little trip down tangent road. Your Ally’s response to Derek's post was this bit of enlightened reasoning:

NBC Intern wrote:
Umm, knock, knock. The essence of war is to serve a political end. The means in getting their is to defeat your foe with power. Kiling is one of the objectives, but not the main objective. The main objective is to serve a political end.

So suddenly “one of the main objectives of war” became: “the essence of war”.. and that “one” objective, was morphed into the “main” objective… all of which was utterly irrelevant, for all your efforts at apologetics. He mentions the means of getting their [sic] as defeating with power, and then states that kiling [sic] is one of the objectives, but not “The MAIN” objective. (I found it odd that in one of your own posts you refuted this statement inasmuch as killing is a means, and not the objective--which I would say is correct depending on how you look at it--sometimes this means is an objective in and of itself--but that is yet another issue.) This was a completely illogical refutation as Derek had not made any claim as to what the “main” objective was; but only what “one” objective was—hence the above retort presented a superfluous and pointless argument.

Now when Feederband wrote the following:

What world are you living in? There will never be a political end to this issue...NEver! These are terrorist they are fighting,not politicians..

He was clearly referring to one of the many aspects of this complex issue, but in defense of the indefensible, the gauntlet had been thrown out, and the tangential bait had been taken up.

Hence, NBC Intern wrote this little cheap shot (which you seem to bemoan when it appears that others are guilty of similar shoddily hidden ad-hominems).

NBCintern wrote:
It is apparently clear, that you do not know what WAR is besides toy soldiers. War is Political. No two ways about it. All terrorists fight for a political purpose.

Now after your ally in tangentials gave you a resounding “Bravo”, which I have no doubt did little to quell this unnecessary side-step; I responded to the aforementioned cheap shot with this post:

Aside from this being an utterly non-sequitur flame retort; the one who seems to be lacking in their wisdom of what WAR is ... is you! Now if you want to call the complete annihilation of Israel a "political purpose"... well perhaps there is some validity to the specious argument you present; but then again, that would be a huge semantic stretch.

A2K

Now anyone, even remotely familiar with logic, sequence, context and semantics, can see it was an effort to bring the discussion back to the original point, being what “WAR” was, and NOT what “Politics” was. I even provided some wiggle room for a graceful retreat from the playing of this semantic card. Instead, you chose to pick up the gauntlet, and take us down the rosy path of what “politics” is and isn’t… which I said back then, and have CLEARLY shown was NEVER the original point. In other words, it seems that in the lack of a winnable disputation over whether or not war constituted “killing” people as “one” of its objectives, it was decided to ponder this possibility: "hey let's make this an argument over what politics is instead of what war is!" (My emphasis/quotes)

Regit wrote:
I don't know what world he's living in, but in this one, we've all agreed on the English language. Politics is simply social relations involving power. To terrorists, the destruction of Israel is a political end. To Israel, living in peace and the continuation of the state is their political end. Killing is the means, not the end.

And it was from THERE, that we began this senseless pursuit of what politics is and/or isn’t--NOT from the snippets you'd provided above; and while I concede accepting the bait only long enough to attempt to get you back to the central point (WAR=killing), it was equally obvious you were going to beat the dead horse of whether or not it was politics for as long as humanly possible. Didn’t work. Above is the ENTIRE proper context of the sequence of events leading to this silly “political” fray… as opposed to your convenient selective omission of proper context in attempting to make a semantic silk purse out of a contextual sow’s ear.

Apologies to all for the lengthy aside; but this effort at diversion HAD to be exposed for what it was. I reiterate… Israel is guilty of doing what it feels it must simply to assure its survival as a nation. Hezbollah has ALWAYS held that Israel has no right to even exist. This leaves NO room for doubt in my mind as to which is in the right, and which has clearly embraced EVIL as its cause. Killing IS a part of war, an undeniable part of it; and while civilian casualties are always to be lamented, they have equally always been part of such conflicts and if one should, in trying to win a “hot” war, eliminate any/all civilian casualties, they would be fighting with both hands literally tied behind their backs, particularly in the clear light that their enemy is PERFECTLY willing to kill civilians, and this scenario is EXACTLY what the terrorists want—to hamstring Israel with an ill-informed public view of what war, tragically and historically is. Thank God, Israel, thus far, has not succumbed to this narrow and badly skewed viewpoint.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Hitler's main objective was the destruction of all other races

We could argue the validity of this contention forever; but I'm simply not going to allow yet another side-bar. The "topic" is Israel vs Hezbollah, and I'd prefer to stick to that one.

A2K

[Stratosphere747]

So much for staying on topic....


Janice, I doubt we will see any of our boots on the ground in Southern Lebanon..

Also a problem with any UN force on the ground, is actually finding any nation willing to commit.

[Audrey2Katrina]

So much for staying on topic....

Okay, I have seen a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) suggestions about those "posters" who are "problem people"... I don't know if this reference includes me or not; but when something I state, which was decidedly related to the topic at hand, is hijacked into something I did not state, then I feel compelled to respond. Actually, the killing of civilians is an integral part of the Israel-vs-Hezbollah discussion, and a discussion of same should logically be fair; the occasional attempt to make a point with a side issue is not usually (certainly not supposed to be) a complete hijack of the entire thread. I've actually tried to return the discussion to the central issue on numerous occassions but if by defending my position I have become one of the "problem people"... Hey... I'll respectfully bow out. By the topic of the thread itself I assumed it fair to discuss the issues central to the conflict involved... apparently I've misinterpreted it as it seems it should be rendered strictly an "update" thread of what's going on, as opposed to a discussion forum of those central issues.

PAX

A2K

[feederband]

So much for staying on topic....

Okay, I have seen a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) suggestions about those "posters" who are "problem people"... I don't know if this reference includes me or not; but when something I state, which was decidedly related to the topic at hand, is hijacked into something I did not state, then I feel compelled to respond. Actually, the killing of civilians is an integral part of the Israel-vs-Hezbollah discussion, and a discussion of same should logically be fair; the occasional attempt to make a point with a side issue is not usually (certainly not supposed to be) a complete hijack of the entire thread. I've actually tried to return the discussion to the central issue on numerous occassions but if by defending my position I have become one of the "problem people"... Hey... I'll respectfully bow out. By the topic of the thread itself I assumed it fair to discuss the issues central to the conflict involved... apparently I've misinterpreted it as it seems it should be rendered strictly an "update" thread of what's going on, as opposed to a discussion forum of those central issues.

PAX

A2K

No you were just responding...But by default you were feeding the "problem people"..

There are signs up all over the place that say don't feed the "problem people...

[Stephanie]

I like that feederband!

Debate is always good, but when people feel provoked to defend their posts and positions then it becomes a problem. It would be great if people could just post their opinions as to what and why they think something is happening and then get a simple "I agree" or "I disagree" comments from others with THEIR reasons why.

This has the potential to become a powder keg and none of us want to see this locked (meaning mods and admins). All and all it's been going very well.

[Janice]

U.S. suggests force for Lebanon, sources say
Turkish, Egyptian troops could be deployed
Israel seizes Hezbollah stronghold, military says
U.S. ships medical supplies to Beirut
More than 400 dead in 14-day-old conflict

[stormtruth]

Hmmm... Saudi is offering $1.5 billion to Lebanon. Hopefully they just mean for this money to go towards reconstruction. The Saudis also gave $250 million to the Palestianians, which I would imagine has to go through Hamas now since they are in charge there. So, our oil money is possibly funding Hamas. Weird.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5214354.stm

[Cookiely]

I have a question. Who thinks the kidnapping of the two soldiers was instigated by the leaders of Hezbollah? Who thinks some dumb cell of Hezbollah decided to do this on their own and stirred up a hornet's nest? I also think Israel gave them every chance to return the soldiers to prevent this from escalating in the event it wasn't planned by the leadership of Hezbollah. What I don't understand is why Hezbollah took the hard line that they did. Do they really think they can win, bomb for bomb, building for building and body for body.

[Cookiely]

When Terror Becomes Error.
Good Article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 88,00.html

[Derek Ortt]

Kofi Annan is whining about a bombing on a UN observing post (or I should say watching as they were not doing anything to keep the peace), but has conveniently not said anything about Hezbollah's new threat to start bombing deeper into Israel indiscriminately (i.e. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem).

Glad to know whose side the UN is on... dependable as usual

[stormtruth]

Kofi Annan is whining about a bombing on a UN observing post (or I should say watching as they were not doing anything to keep the peace), but has conveniently not said anything about Hezbollah's new threat to start bombing deeper into Israel indiscriminately (i.e. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem).

Glad to know whose side the UN is on... dependable as usual

Kofi called for a ceasefire and for Hezbollah to return the Israeli soldiers which Hezbollah rejected. He would be crazy not to complain about a UN post being bombed since he is the chief of the UN.

Hezbollah said Friday it rejected a plan by UN chief Kofi Annan proposing a ceasefire with Israel and calling for the release of two Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese Shiite militant group.

'It is normal that we reject this plan. The only thing accepted for us is an unconditional ceasefire followed by indirect negotiations on a prisoners' swap,' Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan told AFP.

[Brent]

NABATIYEH, Lebanon - An Israeli bomb destroyed a U.N. observer post on the border in southern Lebanon, killing two peacekeepers and leaving two others feared dead in what appeared to be a deliberate strike, U.N. chief Kofi Annan said.

The bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the observer post in the town of Khiyam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.

Annan issued a statement saying two U.N. military observers were killed with two more feared dead. Earlier, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Security Council was informed that four officers were killed, but he had no other information.

Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing "continued even during the rescue operation," Struger said.

As reports of the attack emerged, Annan rushed out of a hotel in Rome following a dinner with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a U.N. observer post in southern Lebanon," Annan said in the statement.

Annan said in his statement that the post had been there for a long time and was marked clearly, and was hit despite assurances from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would not be attacked.

"I call on the goverment of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on U.N. positions and personnel must stop," Annan said in the statement.

U.N. officials said four observers were in the post when the bomb hit, and the building had been destroyed. Two bodies had been recovered and two were unaccounted for, apparently still in the rubble. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/

[Janice]

U.N. says 2 observers die, 2 missing in bombing
Attack "apparently deliberate," U.N. head says
Israel says it has killed senior Hezbollah leader
U.S. ships medical supplies to Beirut