BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Israeli terrorism in Lebanon

  
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)91011

 
 
Francine I
16:18 / 02.08.06
"No country I'm aware of, including the US, recognizes human shields as a reason not to attack. Those using human shields also use them for PR purposes to show how terrible the attackers are. They place no value on people, especially women and children, but recognize that others do."

That's interesting. That's almost verbatim what I've heard coming from right-wing U.S. commentators. They stop just short of saying "because the enemy is not human".

I also wonder if you can back this up. Why do they provide services in times of peace? Just savvy PR? Those Hezbollah hospitals are a token sort of thing?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:26 / 02.08.06
Don't forget, Frances:

Another thing, I don't think certain groups of people care as much about loss of life than others. The idea of martyrdom is part of the culture.

Muslims just don't get the preservation of life. That's why it's not really as bad as killing a white christian - or, hey, even a Jew - if you kill a Muslim civilian. They really don't mind that much. In fact, if you give them medical care, it will just confuse and annoy them.

"Why are you giving me medical care, Mister Hizbollah?" they will ask. "You know I love death, as I am a Muslim."

"We are giving you medical care, brothers in Islam," they will respond, "in order to make you more resilient human shields. Also, because we are so evil and amoral that we are prepared to violate even the twisted tenets of our own death-loving religion. You know. If we have time left over."
 
 
Quantum
17:46 / 02.08.06
News- Hezbollah retaliates with a record number of rockets, after the massive ground assault by Israel;

Police said at least 21 people were wounded in Wednesday's attacks, which brought the Israeli death toll in three weeks of fighting to 55, including 19 civilians. Israel's onslaught on Lebanon has killed at least 540, mostly civilians.

Let's look at those figures again, 19 civilian casualties versus over five hundred. Anyone seriously of the opinion that Israel isn't targeting civilians? Dragon, I'm looking your way dude.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:07 / 02.08.06
Are you not listening, dude? Certain groups of people don't value human life, and as such their human lives have a lower exchange rate.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:53 / 02.08.06
Ah, snark: the solution for every debate.

The idea of martyrdom is part of the culture.

Don't forget that our culture (namely: the Western culture) is ultimately based on a religion based on aguy nailed alive to a cross in the middle of the desert. Martydom is a multi-cultural concept
 
 
Quantum
18:58 / 02.08.06
I'm trying to engage as civilly as I can because I really want Dragon to seriously reconsider his opinion. It's seeming like received US right-wing rhetoric at the moment but I don't have access to dragon's brain so I believe him when he says it's his considered opinion. I want him to reconsider it and see if it changes.
Dragon; I think we can agree both sides of this conflict are acting appallingly by targeting civilians, these are terror tactics. I appreciate that this thread seems anti-Israel, but that's because Israel is killing ten times as many people and invaded for very little reason etc. and we're discussing what their motives might be (as what they say is totally at odds with what they do). If you want to start a Hezbollah terrorism thread feel free, but I warn you now the unexamined Islamophobia that seems to underly your opinions might not be received too well. Note Haus' sarcastic retorts, that's like a warning shot across the bows here on Barbelith.
 
 
Dragon
22:33 / 02.08.06
Example of staged PR, using children to upset people.
Another example of Middle Eastern maltreament.

Who else is going to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor or bus full of citizens?

I stand by my opinion that there is less value attributed to life by Middle Eastern cultures.
 
 
Dragon
22:40 / 02.08.06
Quantum, suppose for a second both sides had the same number of casualties. Would that change the way you view the situation? Is there any proof that Qana was the result of an Israeli attack and not a Hezbollah setup?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:41 / 02.08.06
Good luck with that. Do you actually know what the term "Middle Eastern" means?
 
 
The Falcon
22:51 / 02.08.06
Is there any proof that Qana was the result of an Israeli attack and not a Hezbollah setup?

In what way? I mean, given the Israeli govt. did actually apologise for it - instead of saying 'it was a setup' and then proceeded on its' merry way, which given overwhelming int'nl condemnation might've assisted their cause, such as it is - how can you pluck this nonsense from thin air? Yes, there is proof. There were American shells in the wreckage.

Given your continual happy sanctioning and making up no-prize winning stories to fill gaps, Dargon, I think it's perhaps you who devalues (brown-skinned, at any rate) human life.
 
 
Dragon
22:57 / 02.08.06
From a previously posted clip of interview with Nasrallah:

We love martyrdom. If we take precautions, this is because we do not want the Israelis to make achievements. As a personal plan and wish, every one of us hopes and wishes to be martyred at the hands of those murderers of prophets and messengers.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:59 / 02.08.06
What do you understand the term "Middle Eastern" to mean, Dragon?
 
 
Dragon
23:09 / 02.08.06
"I express deep regret, along with all of Israel and the IDF, for the civilian deaths in Qana," said Olmert. "Nothing could be further from our intentions and our interests than harming civilians - everyone understands that. When we do harm civilians, the whole world recognizes that it is an exceptional case that does not characterize us."

Is that acknowledging fault? If so, please enlighten me. Have there been any apologies from Hezbollah?
 
 
Dragon
23:14 / 02.08.06
A geographical area generally called Middle East. When I say cultures living in the Middle East sharing a certain culture, I admit that to being a general term, not a specific one since there are some areas which are different. Sorry for my imprecision. Would you use a different term or explain it differently?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:22 / 02.08.06
Hang on. Israel has said that it wants the population of Lebanon (or the parts closest to the border) to move. It has also said it doesn't want to kill them. Therefore it must be trying to frighten them into moving, through the threat of violence.

In what way is this not terrorism?
 
 
sleazenation
23:30 / 02.08.06
Dragon -
Part of me is genuinely interest in what you mean by "there is less value attributed to life by Middle Eastern cultures."

Attributed by whom?

Do you think this makes the killing of anyone from 'a middle eastern culture' more justified than the killing of anyone else.

Moreover, what the hell are 'middle eastern cultures'? Is it just a synonym for Muslims, or do Jews and Christrians, who both trace their cultures to the Middle East, also qualify? Is it just people with dark skin? What about white westerners? Do their lives become worth less once they convert to Islam?
 
 
Dragon
02:23 / 03.08.06
Sleaze, nope that's not what I meant. I just mean that the people in control -- the men who are following a weired form of Islam -- don't seem to mind giving up their lives a much as as others because they value their own lives less than other cultures. They value the lives of their women and children even less, so they don't feel as much of a loss, not as much of a sacrifice.
More later. I intend to satisfactorily support my position further, but I'll be a bit busy for a few days.
 
 
Slim
03:15 / 03.08.06
Some replies to sleaze's post...

Well this strikes me as slightly, but by no means perfectly, analagous to the situation in Northern Ireland with the various paramilitaries there, not least the IRA and the political party Sinn Fein.

I was wondering about that analogy myself. Without thinking it all the way through, I feel that the Israeli/Hezbollah situation is more complicated and therefore a more difficult matter to settle. It also seems to me that both the IRA and the British government were/are ready for peace a hell of a lot more than the Israeli government, Israeli citizens, Hezbollah, and Hezbollah's supporters.

I believe that a political solution is the only long term solution. The history of insurgencies has shown that a military solution rarely works, especially if the aggressor has any sort of moral compass. However, military engagements are sometimes a necessity for both sides to realize peace talks are preferable to getting blown up. If Israel did nothing in response, Hezbollah would keep pushing. The same goes for Israeli aggression towards Hezbollah. This is probably overly simple but if two sides resort to violence to solve their problems then they aren't going to stop until they're shown that their violence is useless. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a military engagement isn't the whole solution, just a part of it.

I have a bit of trouble with this phrase for a number of reasons, not least becauseI'm not sure the precise nature of Hizbollah's tactics have been established, but more importantly, because its use here seems to be implying that the shooting/bombing of Lebanese civilians on such a large scale by the Israeli army is a legitimate means of self defense.

I should have clarified what I meant by human shields. I don't believe that Hezbollah lines up childern and fires at the Israelis from behind them. But Hezbollah does place weapons and ammunition in populated areas where casualties are almost certainly to occur if Israel tries to destroy them. Similiarly, they have attacked Israeli forces in towns/villages where innocent casualties are again almost certain to occur. When I use the term "human shields" I am referring to Hezbollah's willingness to place the surrounding population in jeapordy in order to ensure its survival. Hezbollah's insistence on hiding amongst the population places it in danger, as Jan Egeland recently criticized the group for:
here

If you attack a nation as Hezbollah did to Israel a couple weeks ago, you can expect a military response. Hezbollah may not have expected the response it got this time around but it's involved in an ongoing conflict with Israel. This isn't the first time there's been violence and I doubt it will be the last. Despite this, Hezbollah insists on placing itself and its weaponry amongst the general population. Consequently, Lebanese citizens are placed in danger. Hiding from plain sight is obviously the best method for Hezbollah if it wants to engage Israel but it comes at the price of using the Lebanese to shield from/constrain Israeli offensives.

I'd have thought the obvious reaction to the hostage crisis that 'provoked'* this currant crisis was to send Mossad operative across the border to rescue their military personnel.

I'm making the assumption that Israel didn't have information on the soldiers' location or if it did, it knew that a Mossad extraction would be impossible.

One of the possible goals in the offing is to create a wider buffer zone between The Lebanon and Israel.

That may be the case. If true, an international force would arrive to maintain the buffer zone and possibly prevent Hezbollah from returning. It could mean a key victory for Israel.



I feel the need to point out that I have no sympathy for either side. Because of what it did to U.S. Marines I would be pleased if Hezbollah was reduced to nothing but a footnote in history. Similarly, I find Israel's bombing campaign to be disgusting. I only brought up the leniency point (and perhaps leniency isn't the best term) because I felt something needed to be added to make the discussion more even-handed. Hezbollah exists as a governmental and non-governmental organization at the same time and I'm not convinced that the rules of international engagement adequately cover this sort of situation. Israel doesn't have many good options and unfortunately has chosen a very poor one.

In the end, I see pictures of dead children and grieving adults in Der Spiegel and I get so angry that I could break something...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
04:43 / 03.08.06
Quantum, suppose for a second both sides had the same number of casualties.

And now imagine that Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo.

Woooooooooooo...


Woooooooooooo...

Mon dieu! Nous sommes soudainement Francais!

Seriously, Dragon, even for desperate, ill-informed appologies for Islamophobia this is desperate and ill-informed. Hitting the books might be a bit much to ask, but maybe you could hit the pamphlets? Right now, you are placing a lower value on human life than is acceptable in a civilised society.

For example, I notice that you quote Nasrallah saying:

We love martyrdom. If we take precautions, this is because we do not want the Israelis to make achievements. As a personal plan and wish, every one of us hopes and wishes to be martyred at the hands of those murderers of prophets and messengers.

As proof that brown people don't place the same value on human life as white people. Oddly enough, elsewhere, talking about the stated readiness of the US to cause vast loss of life through the use of nuclear weapons, you say:

I think the attitudes reflected in some of the comments in Barbelith means that what we are 'supposed to think' is what we are thinking. In that respect, the message given has been successful, especially since the nuclear program is intended to be a deterrent. The United States likes to flex its muscles now and then to make a point. Otherwise why say anything?

While insisting that the US would never use nuclear weapons. White people get rhetoric. Brown people's statements must always be taken entirely at face value. Of course Nasrallah's going to claim that they are ready to use what most terrifies their opponents - their appparent disregard for human life. Otherwise, why say anything?

Or, let's put it another way. In March 1775, Patrick Henry said to the Virginia House of Burgesses:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Don't tell me - white fella, right? As such, not a suicidal extremist, but a noble freedom fighter?

You need to look at what you are saying and what you are reading, Dragon. Linking to articles produced by right-wing blogs is not necessarily convincing - if you look a little bit down that list of bloglinks, one of his chums runs something called "Islamophobic blog". That's what we in the business call a hint. Wandering off onto prostitution in Iran simply suggests that you do not wish to stay on topic, but rather wish only to indulge a hate-on against Islam. You might want to consider both the focus and the quality of the sources you are citing. You might want, further, to ask yourself, even if you are unwilling or unable to tell us, when exactly you heard the name "Nasrallah" for the first time. About a fortnight ago, right? As such, why not just sit back and listen for a while? See if you can get a better understanding of what's going on? Look at some non-Fox news sources? That kind of thing. At the moment you are forcng people to respond to your egregious prejudice, which is taking effort and energy away from actually talking about what is going on.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
07:03 / 03.08.06
Dragon? You know that bit quoted up there by Quantum? The bit which says:

Police said at least 21 people were wounded in Wednesday's attacks, which brought the Israeli death toll in three weeks of fighting to 55, including 19 civilians. Israel's onslaught on Lebanon has killed at least 540, mostly civilians.

You might note that not only have Israel's attacks been somewhat more deadly than Hizbollah's - which is kind of to be expected, given that they have extremely advanced and expensive weaponry courtesy of the USA - but the proportions are also a bit messed up: doing some simple maths, just over a third of Israelis killed were civilians. While the article's a bit vague on precise numbers on the Lebanese side (perhaps because as in Iraq, well, why bother counting those worthless brown lives? Or, alternatively, because a common tactic in these sort of engagements is to blow everything up and then claim, "They were terrorist fighters, really!"), it's at least clear that a significantly higher percentage are civilians.

So, how exactly does this fit with:

I stand by my opinion that there is less value attributed to life by Middle Eastern cultures.

and

Who else is going to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor or bus full of citizens?

Is, say, blowing up milk factories and ambulances, both as mentioned above, a grade lower on the atrocity scale to blowing up pizza huts and buses, or is it that blowing yourself up as well - which I might suggest is due to its being one of the most effective weapons at Hizbollah's disposal, compared to Israel who have rather more efficient means of killing lots of people, rather than some bizarre love of death inherent in Islam - doubles your evil points?

(Incidentally, with regards to your "staged PR" link, it's notable that the child had already been killed by indiscriminate Israeli airstrikes; to be honest, if I was living in Lebanon and thought there was any possibility it might help stop Israel from blowing the country to pieces and chasing hundreds of thousands from there homes, I'd quite seriously consider doing my best to make sure the press were fully aware of such atrocities. And, to boot, are you seriously suggesting that Israel is beyond manipulating war images for PR purposes?)
 
 
Quantum
09:43 / 03.08.06
I'm unable to share a thread with Dragon, g'bye. Sorry everyone else, let's hope it ends soon.
 
 
Triplets
09:47 / 03.08.06
The conflict or Dragon's posting?
 
 
sleazenation
11:08 / 03.08.06
Dragon - I don't think you realise how deeply vile and abhorant what you have said really is and your inability to express yourself with any great degree of precision or articulacy really just makes matters worse.

Who do you mean by, the ' the people in control'? And what do you mean by 'a weird form of Islam?' All Shia? All Sunnis? A subset of either or both? Do you even know the difference?

This is before we even get to the degree by which you think individuals such as Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah are able to speak for the universal value of the lives of others.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:10 / 03.08.06
A geographical area generally called Middle East. When I say cultures living in the Middle East sharing a certain culture, I admit that to being a general term, not a specific one since there are some areas which are different. Sorry for my imprecision. Would you use a different term or explain it differently?

Well, your choice of terminology is so confused and (perhaps wilfully) ill-informed that it's still not entirely clear to me what you are trying to "explain" here, Dragon. I'm sure I'm not the only one to whom it seems obvious that you are unable to keep separate in your head geographical areas, nation states with different structures of government, religions and factions within those religions, ethnic groups, and how these and other factors influence each other and form different cultures within the (broad and far from clearly defined) area known as the "Middle East".

Moreover, you're trying to suggest your choice of terms is just unfortunately a little inaccurate, but in fact I think it reveals a lot about the way you see the Middle East. To take the most obvious example, Israel, the state which you are so keen to exculpate, is located in the Middle East. The fact that it does not occur to you that "Middle Eastern cultures" is a term that includes Israel is actually very telling: Israel's apologists in the USA and Europe often have a tendency to see Israel as an outpost of civilisation, democracy and liberal "Western" values, surrounded by barbarians. Having decided this, it therefore follows that whatever Israel does must be at worst a necessary if unfortunate evil, at best a brave and noble fight for "freedom" against overwhelming numbers of "terrorists". This is one of the advantages of being a colonial power: rather than being defined by your actions, your actions are defined by you, because you are the good guys, and could never do anything actually evil, merely "regrettable".
 
 
The Falcon
12:10 / 03.08.06
Well, exactly; I just saw Netanyahu on News24 pursuing this exact line. The other fave differentiation in my household is: "they cheer at the death of our children, where we weep for the deaths of theirs." Not so distressed as to not do the same thing the next day, of course, but grievously upset.
 
 
sleazenation
12:41 / 03.08.06
Some replies to Slim’s post...

I’d have to agree with you that, based on the evidence of their actions, the Israeli government does not appear interested in a negotiated peace. I am sure that this is also true of some members of Hezbollah, but the political wing of that organization at least has a proven track record of democratic engagement in the form of their participation in the democratic Lebanese government. (there is of course the difficulty of identifying how analogous the political Hezbollah are with the social and paramilitary organization which shares its name).

On the subject of military engagement and its part in the solution, I think this largely rests on proportionality and the military goals.

I should have clarified what I meant by human shields. I don't believe that Hezbollah lines up childern and fires at the Israelis from behind them. But Hezbollah does place weapons and ammunition in populated areas where casualties are almost certainly to occur if Israel tries to destroy them.

I’m not sure that it has been established with any great degree of reliability what are the details of Hezbollah’s fighting tactics, how and where they position their kaytusha rocket batteries etc. actually are. The best description I have found is this Guardian article by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad.

Based on this it remains uncertain to any extent whether or not Hezbollah are firing rockets from civilian population centres. But even if it is the case, it seems that the launching aparatus are abandoned immediately at the point of firing. Which means that bombing launch sites is a completely ineffectual means of preventing the launch of further rockets. Hezbollah may well be storing ordinance in their homes, which tend to be located close to the homes of other people. Does this make those homes legitimate targets? Even if there are no launchers or rockets being stored in the homes of Hezbollah operatives are the fighters themselves legitimate targets?


If you attack a nation as Hezbollah did to Israel a couple weeks ago, you can expect a military response.

Which does kind of miss the point that it is largely Lebanese civilians, not Hezbollah, that are facing the brunt of Israeli reprisals. The Lebanese people are not responsible for Hezbollah's action and yet they are being attacked. The extent that The Lebanese government is culpable for the actions of Hezbollah is considered by some to be debatable. One argument is that by including Hezbollah in the democratic process the government of Lebanon becomes culpable for the actions of Hezbollah, through its inability to stop them. Personally, I don’t think this position is defensible, but some are arguing it.

I'm making the assumption that Israel didn't have information on the soldiers' location or if it did, it knew that a Mossad extraction would be impossible.

The quality of Israeli intelligence does seem to be incredibly poor – as the recent Israeli raid on the Lebanese town of Baalbek appears to have borne out. It seems that the goal was to capture/kill Hezbollah’s leadership, but it seems that one of the men captured was not Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah the Hezbollah leader, but a 50 year old civilian of the same name. Which makes the decision for such widespread military action look even more ill-advised.

Again, I would have thought that using Mossad for intelligence gathering purposes would have lead ultimately to efficient and effective extraction of the abducted soldiers. Perhaps I am overestimating their abilities. Israel probably has the same problem recruiting undercover operatives that the US faces.

That may be the case. If true, an international force would arrive to maintain the buffer zone and possibly prevent Hezbollah from returning. It could mean a key victory for Israel.

Olmert has been saying that it is not just Hezbollah they want to clear away from the South but the Shia population that he characterizes as Hezbollah sympathizers. This strikes me again as ethnic cleansing.

Hezbollah needs to stop killing civilians and actively engage in a constructive political process, as does Israel.
 
 
Future Perfect
13:42 / 03.08.06
Dragon, when you say "Another thing, I don't think certain groups of people care as much about loss of life than others. The idea of martyrdom is part of the culture", as others have pointed out, this is both offensive and incredibly inaccurate.

It's true, of course, that our popular cultural understanding of 'martyrdom' is largely based on what we see (or at least are shown) happening in the Middle East, but you make these claims as if the people of this region and this region alone behave and have always behaved in this manner. There are plenty of examples through history of people of all faiths and geography and colour killing themselves to inflict damage on people they consider to be their enemies. Japanese Kamikaze in WW2 (not from the Middle East, not Muslim), Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (again, not from the Middle East, not Muslim), Viet Minh fighting French colonials (see the pattern) and more and more. You might be surprised to know that the earliest recorded examples of these sorts of acts are white, European and Christian - Knights Templar during the Crusades destroyed their own ship, sacrificing 140 Christian lives to inflict more deaths on their Muslim enemy, Czar Alexander II was killed by a Polish suicide bomber in 1881 and even closer to home (for me at least) Jan van Speijk, a Dutch lieutenant, detonated his own ship in conflict with the Belgians in the 1830s.

In fact this terribly sad and depressing form of warfare is only 20-something years old in the region, not embedded in 'their' culture as you suggest. If muslims had been blowing themselves up week in, week out for the last 1500 years I might be tempted to believe you, but they haven't.

And, for God's sake, grow some empathy. When you talk about the leaders of movements like Hezbollah expressing their views on martyrdom, think a bit about what they might be up to. How many leaders of these organisations are you aware of that have actually strapped dynamite to their own chests and pulled the triggers? Might be something in it being younger, disenfranchised members of those communities, don't you think? These aren't inhuman monsters these are very, very unfortunate kids that have been persuaded/compelled by the mess of horrid forces around them (on both sides) to do these terribly, terribly sad things.
 
 
grant
14:39 / 03.08.06
There's a thread elsewhere that gets into suicide bombing, but the fun fact for the day is the suicide attack of Baruch Goldstein took place before the first Hamas suicide bombing (and may well have inspired it).

Admittedly, Hezbollah had used suicide bombing against Israel before, but that was in Argentina -- they attacked the embassy there.

Another fun fact: first recorded suicide bombing was by a Polish Nihilist against Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. But life is cheap in Poland....
 
 
Ticker
15:15 / 03.08.06
Being bombed is not part of the American cultural awareness. There was Pearl Harbor, and a few other WWII events but the soul searing terror just isn't there.

As an American if you hear a large 'BOOM' and a flash of light your first thought tends towards fireworks and only since 9/11 has the idea of a bombings/explosions where you live been really considered. In general it is a rare experience and not one parents are able to share with their children.

What does that mean? Sadly I suspect it explains a huge chunk of missing empathy for the horrors of war as everything is filtered through the media and the same mediums as Hollywood entertainment. It's just not real on the same level as seeing shelled ruins and meeting people missing limbs or having parents and grand parents recount the anguish of searching under rubble for their siblings and parents.

I have often spent the 4th of July inside comforting my cats as the sound of the expensive fireworks go off over head (I'm around the corner from where the town ignites them). I sit in my tiny bedroom and listen to the screams and watch the reflections of explosions in the night sky play across my ceiling. I imagine the terror of walking outside and finding everything laid to waste. But I haven't experienced it no matter how rich my imagination is.

I try to keep this mind when viewing events in the Middle East. These are people who have within living memory had the shit bombed out of their homes or those of their neighbors. These are people who have experienced the grief of their elders mourning their lost family members if not had the pain themselves.

It's not a matter of life being cheaper, it's about a realism of the effects of mass destruction. If you live everyday with the probablity of a gruesome death in your face it is reasonable to want to have it at least be productive in some way. There is a difference in the experience we need to honor as we are trying to hold up the possibilty of evolving out of it.
 
 
elene
15:32 / 03.08.06
Concerning Hezbollah's suicide bombers, there's an article by Robert A. Pape in the International Herald Tribune today that contains this, among other things.

While writing a book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has been proved to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.
 
 
Char Aina
17:01 / 03.08.06

When I use the term "human shields" I am referring to Hezbollah's willingness to place the surrounding population in jeapordy in order to ensure its survival.


israel seems willing to place the surrounding population in jeopardy in order to ensure its survival too.
 
 
grime
17:53 / 03.08.06
instead of picking on dragon for being too stupid and wrong, why not just ban him?
 
 
Char Aina
18:09 / 03.08.06
(
who was picking on hir?
as opposed to picking apart hir views, i mean?

do you realy think ze should be banned?
if so i suggest you start a thread in policy where the pros and cons of doing so can be debated fully.

i am unconvinced banning is necessary, but am willing to listen to you if you think so.
)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:39 / 03.08.06
who was picking on hir?
as opposed to picking apart hir views, i mean?

Quite.

Mod hat- I haven't seen any "picking on" in this thread. If people, say toksik for example, think someone's views are wrong, then arguing against them is the whole point of partaking in a discussion. If you don't think this is the case, then yes, Policy it is.

Otherwise, I kinda sorta had the idea we were discussing Israel. Should we have a go at doing that?
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:45 / 03.08.06
Dragon, I've been thinking about your affirmation that Muslims place a lesser value in human life because they are willing to "blow themselves up in pizza parlors to hit civilian targets" or something. But, if you think about it, there are many Western terrorist group who have target such places as pubs and pizza partlor and movie houses (it comes to my mind IRA, ETA, several Latin American left-wing groups from the 70s like Sendero Luminoso, Timothy McVeigh, etc etc.). The only difference is that they seem to be more prone to walk away before the bomb they placed explodes (which could be due purely to logistic reasons, btw) than the current stream of terrorists

I do admit, though, that Muslim terrorists* may be a bit more prone to martyrdom than Christian terrorists (or Israeli terrorists) due to cultural reasons (with suicide being a "mortal sin" - I'll ignore the irony in that for a moment - and all), but the will to kill - which, let's face it, is what makes the difference - is pretty much the same, isn't it?

And, so that I have your rationale clear in my head, here's a theoretical question: We all have heard of Samurai warriors commiting ritual suicide for several different reasons (failure, to protect their masters, etc.). Would you say, then, that Far Asian people place less value in life than Werterners?

* not Muslims in general, mind you
 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)91011

 
  
Add Your Reply