Israel vs Hezbollah Thread #3

[Audrey2Katrina]

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.

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

[Audrey2Katrina]

the destruction of Israel is a political end.

Now I really gave you credit for better than this, Regit, honestly I did. Your posts are generally insightful and well thought; but, and I don't mean this as a flame at all, this one smacks of playing semantic games. I could equally call "the destruction of Israel" as a form of genocide and claim equal validity... and we all know what genocide is. Yes.. killing IS the means... which is what was the original implied meaning of what war is....it involves "killing", and anyone attempting to syntactically wriggle and writhe more than Uriah Heap in morphing it into a "political" phenomena, is doing just that-- distorting meanings by playing word games. That there is often a "political end" somewhere in the offing at the conclusion of MOST wars, is practically indisputable... but that is where the diversionary tack was first employed, and the semantic games began. The original premise was that wars involve fighting and killing... which in about 99% of the cases is perfectly true. And THEN came the attempt to redefine!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

And what of the ones that can't afford to leave? Or the ones killed as they were driving north?

They were given more than 2 days of warnings to clear the "buffer" area.. we're talking about an area that was at most 20 miles wide at its widest... I know of no reported "killings" of people evacuating north. This sounds like you're buying into the Hezbollah propaganda hook line and sinker. Frankly, if I weren't openly sympathetic to terrorists living in MY town, and I KNEW that it was about to be bombed to oblivion by the people determined to root them out, and that I could at least enhance my chances by moving 15-20 miles... I'd walk if I had to.

Ever give the thought to the possibility that Hezbollah is NOT allowing some of them to leave? They DO need those civilian shields so they can keep up the anti-Israeli sentiment about those poor civilians that, indirectly, HEZBOLLAH and nobody else, is responsible for causing.

A2K

[Regit]

the destruction of Israel is a political end.

Now I really gave you credit for better than this, Regit, honestly I did. Your posts are generally insightful and well thought; but, and I don't mean this as a flame at all, this one smacks of playing semantic games. I could equally call "the destruction of Israel" as a form of genocide and claim equal validity... and we all know what genocide is. Yes.. killing IS the means... which is what was the original implied meaning of what war is....it involves "killing", and anyone attempting to syntactically wriggle and writhe more than Uriah Heap in morphing it into a "political" phenomena, is doing just that-- distorting meanings by playing word games. That there is often a "political end" somewhere in the offing at the conclusion of MOST wars, is practically indisputable... but that is where the diversionary tack was first employed, and the semantic games began. The original premise was that wars involve fighting and killing... which in about 99% of the cases is perfectly true. And THEN came the attempt to redefine!

A2K

I don't understand what you think their desired end is then. Hezbollah also wants a genocide of Jews, but that doesn't change the fact that the destruction of Israel is what Hezbollah wants. What else do you think they're trying to get?

Why are we arguing over the word "polticial?" Politics is very simply the interaction between people. It doesn't have to involve government at all. The very basic definition is "social relations involving authority or power."

Israel v. Hezbollah is a relation between two groups of people who hate each other and are using their power to try to reach their goals. Thus, it's their "political end."

Arguing over the word "political" is silly. Go to any university website, choose any Political Science professor and ask what the political end is for Hezbollah.

[Derek Ortt]

can we please have an ignore feature. I am tired of reading posts of those who side with terrorists and would like to just skip over them and just ahve the info and real debate

[Regit]

can we please have an ignore feature. I am tired of reading posts of those who side with terrorists and would like to just skip over them and just ahve the info and real debate

There is another thread for this. So we can avoid disguised insults in the future.

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=85562

[Audrey2Katrina]

But if you pick sides in any issue, no matter how one sided it seems, you risk the proverbial "slippery slope." The media as a whole has a responsibility to present only the facts.

Thank GOD this mentality was not prevailing during WWII... I honestly mean that.

People in America should support Israel because they believe it is morally right and in our best interest. They shouldn't do it simply because the media ignores the other side.

I fully agree with this statement. And I DO support them for exactly that reason.

The same is true of ANY news story. When the media reports about a child being murdered, they shouldn't have to say it's wrong. We should recognize that it is.

Another great point, Regit, and I agree again; sadly we live in a world, however, where the demarcation between "right and wrong" has been so completely MUDDIED by moral relativism... that people are often led around by propagandists and confuse clearly right from clearly wrong.

Right and wrong is still opinion, no matter how dearly you hold that position and it's not for the media to decide for us.

Here we completely disagree... right is exactly that when it comes to universal principles of human decency and respect for life...play all the rhetorical games you or anyone else wants... right is right, and wrong is wrong. Do you think the media was "neutral" in the Civil Rights struggle? Did it strictly report the "facts"--giving equal time to all the adherents in favor of hatred, isolation, and racism? Or do you suppose it depicted bigotry as the evil it was? There's little doubt in my mind which "side" the media clearly espoused there. Would you say calling Hitler's holocaust "wrong"...simply an opinion? Perhaps you might, (and one which you consider was wrong)... which would show consistency; but I'd still disagree... the holocaust was flat-out, undeniably WRONG--PERIOD--END OF STORY! I feel much the same about the tactics being employed by Hezbollah. Where "opinion" CAN enter an opinion of right-vs-wrong would be on less clear-cut issues of just human decency and respect for the right of a human race to exist in peace.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Politics is very simply the interaction between people.

Ohhh, that is a gross oversimplification... and sorry, but a simple attempt at "victory by definition" wherein one applies parameters around which they can not lose a semantic discussion. Such debates/discussions are a waste of time by the very illogical employment of this tack.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Arguing over the word "political" is silly. Go to any university website, choose any Political Science professor and ask what the political end is for Hezbollah.

This is an attempted "shift" of the discussion and I'm not going to allow you, or anyone else to succeed here. The original contention was that "one" of the main objectives of war involved "killing" the enemy; but it was artfully morphed into a discussion of what was the "MAIN" objective and the concept of "politics" were drawn into the picture. Since that original contention, some have attempted to to shift the discussion over to what a "political end" is and isn't... this was not, is not, and will never be the "bone of contention." It was that "killing" is a principle facet of fighting a war... which is, undeniably, a FACT... all this shift-of-meaning notwithstanding, the original premise was correct, and the attempt at redefining little more than a poor attempt at diversion.

A2K

[Regit]

Politics is very simply the interaction between people.

Ohhh, that is a gross oversimplification... and sorry, but a simple attempt at "victory by definition" wherein one applies parameters around which they can not lose a semantic discussion. Such debates/discussions are a waste of time by the very illogical employment of this tack.

A2K

Sorry. But you'll find it to be the first sentence out of some professor's mouths in Poli Sci 101. That's not my fault.

More specifically, it's the interaction between people that leads to organization, from which power inevitably results. Hezbollah is a political organization. Just as Exxon is a political organization.

You're using the common American definition of politics which is intertwined with a state. That's not politics, that's government. The term has been so misused, that it's now considered an acceptable alternate definition. But the old definition hasn't disappeared. I didn't make this up. People like Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, and Plato did.

Claiming that Hezbollah is not acting politically is in NO way correct. It can't even be bent to seem correct.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Sorry. But you'll find it to be the first sentence out of some professor's mouths in Poli Sci 101. That's not my fault.

Sorry, but you'll find that just because some professor in some class of Poli-Sci 101 states it, does NOT a definition make--no matter whose fault it is.

You're using the common American definition of politics which is intertwined with a state. That's not politics, that's government. The term has been so misused, that it's now considered an acceptable alternate definition. But the old definition hasn't disappeared. I didn't make this up. People like Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, and Plato did.

Claiming that Hezbollah is not acting politically is in NO way correct. It can't even be bent to seem correct.

I didn't specifically use any "definition" of politics.. I used a definition of "War"--which was decidedly the topic on hand. You're attempting to take us on a tangential disputation over something completely off-topic... and as I said above Non-sequitur... ain't gonna work. The statement that one of war's objectives involves killing was 100% correct, and the attempt to drag it into this diversionary fantasyland a dismal failure.

A2K

[Regit]

Sorry. But you'll find it to be the first sentence out of some professor's mouths in Poli Sci 101. That's not my fault.

Sorry, but you'll find that just because some professor in some class of Poli-Sci 101 states it, does NOT a definition make--no matter whose fault it is.

You're using the common American definition of politics which is intertwined with a state. That's not politics, that's government. The term has been so misused, that it's now considered an acceptable alternate definition. But the old definition hasn't disappeared. I didn't make this up. People like Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, and Plato did.

Claiming that Hezbollah is not acting politically is in NO way correct. It can't even be bent to seem correct.

I didn't specifically use any "definition" of politics.. I used a definition of "War"--which was decidedly the topic on hand. You're attempting to take us on a tangential disputation over something completely off-topic... and as I said above Non-sequitur... ain't gonna work. The statement that one of war's objectives involves killing was 100% correct, and the attempt to drag it into this diversionary fantasyland a dismal failure.

A2K

Ok. Well explain why Hezbollah's political end is not the destruction of Israel. I'd love to hear this.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Ok. Well explain why Hezbollah's political end is not the destruction of Israel. I'd love to hear this.

I'm sure you would; but that was not the original point, now was it? It was about whether or not "killing" was an objective of war....someone for whom you became something of an apologist, seems to have suggested this was decidedly NOT the case. Please explaine to me how this is untrue... I'd love to hear that--and it'd actually address the original issue brought forth.

But it is getting late early... so I'll have to probably address your response on the morrow!

A2K

[Regit]

Ok. Well explain why Hezbollah's political end is not the destruction of Israel. I'd love to hear this.

I'm sure you would; but that was not the original point, now was it? It was about whether or not "killing" was an objective of war....someone for whom you became something of an apologist, seems to have suggested this was decidedly NOT the case. Please explaine to me how this is untrue... I'd love to hear that--and it'd actually address the original issue brought forth.

But it is getting late early... so I'll have to probably address your response on the morrow!

A2K

YES! It was the original point.

the destruction of Israel is a political end.

Your response was:

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

And as for killing being the objective of a war, let's discuss Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has long stated that its objective is for Israel to cease existence. Killing Israelis is the means to the end. If every single Jew in Israel up and moved to Canada, I don't think Hezbollah would go to Canada to kill them. Now there are some organizations that would move to Canada, but Hezbollah's biggest concern is for the state of Israel to become the state of Palestine.

As for war overall, different wars have different objectives. For instance, in WW2, Hitler's main objective was the destruction of all other races. His means was conquering the world. Now as a result he had a goal of genocide for which war was the means (if he won the war, he got to complete the genocide) and he had a war for which genocide was the means (if he completed the genocide, he won the war).

[rainstorm]

just look at the butchery going on in african nations. guess what? its islamic based.

to me, its a no-brainer who any rational person would support
the england bombings? muslim
spain? muslim
bali? muslim
9/11? muslim
the list is endless

hitlerian naziism is growing, and its not israel i fear

Oklahoma City? Atlanta Olympics bombing? Abortion clinic bombings and sniper incidents? Were Muslims behind those as well?

I agree that terrorism needs to be dealt with, but that doesn't give a nation a carte blanche to target civilians. The IRA got support from people in the USA to help it out with its terrorist activities. Does that give the British the authority to level Boston?

Let me be realistic, I also support Israel. But I don't believe any nation has the right to target civilians. I don't believe Israel is targetting civilians, but I find the utter lack of care for human life exhibited by many on this board frightning. The idea that someone is expendable because they are Muslim reminds me of the Nazi attitude towards the Jews in the late 1930s and early 1940s...

you make my point for me, thanks. none of those caused or sponored by israel. the nazi's of today must be killed

[rainstorm]

again, the bottom line is simple. 98% of terrorism is muslim. genocide on earth is muslim. the new nazi's are muslim. muslims are the ones who take school kids off buses, line them up, and blow out their brains. muslims film beheadings.

islamo-facism has to be stamped out. it cant be negogiated with or talked to death

[j]

Good points Helen. Bill O made a few remarks last night that I thought were right on the money as well. He insists we are in WW111, and that the terrorists are winning (in the early stages), just like the Germans, and the Japanese were winning in the early days of WW11. Why are they winning (and why were the Germans and Japs winning early in WW11?)?? .. because the world (including portions of the US population -- and you know who you are) are not united in the war against terrorism. You have the terrorist sympathizers out there, you have the left over Jane Fonda crowd from the 60's, and you have the crowd that completely ignores the fact that Israel is targeting miltary targets with their bombings. If the terrorists choose to put missiles in their corner bedrooms, they have now become military targets.

It's interesting how it was OK for JFK to make a stance during the Cuban missile crisis, but its not ok for Israel to defend themselves.

[feederband]

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?

[nystate]

Would you like to make a wager, just for the "heck" of it, that 90% of terrorist deaths over the last 20 years, have had Islamo-fascists somehow or other involved? Bringing in the Atlanta bombing (1 death) Abortin clinic bombings (VERY isolated... maybe 5-10 at most over a 10 year period).. sniper incidents ..(...mmm perhaps on a liberal guess, as much as maybe 50 or so over the past 10 years)... are your REALLY going to compare this to 9//11--(3,000 dead)... Spain (over 300 dead)... Indonesia (at least 500 deaths)... not to even mention the literally countelss deaths in places like Darfur, and other places where living with terror is quite frankly a way of life.... do you not think this analogy is rather "weak"? Seriously!

I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that we don't exactly have clean hands when it comes to these things.

Bottom line: Israel is NOT TARGETING civilians.

Right, and I said that in my post. What concerns me is the suggestions that they should be targeting civilians and the utter disregard for civilian life expressed by some on this board.

[Brent]

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.