Explanation please

[Show Me the Wire]

Someone, please explain to me the differing responses from the Democratic side regarding Israel's response and the security interest of the U.S. being threatened if Israel comes under attack and the stance these democrats view the Iraq conflict.

Please answer the second part of the question first. How is attacks on Israel more of a threat to U.S. security interests than an attack on U.S. soil killing U.S. citizens? What is given is that both attacks are carried out by terrorists groups and not by a sovereign nation. To reiterate I desire to understand why an attack on foreign soil, killing non citizens is viewed more of a threat to U.S. security interests than an actual attack on domestic soil killing U.S. citizens.

Secondly, why is it acceptable to the anti-Iraq war Democrats that Israel can strike at a sovereign nation's innocent civilians, when that nation's official government did not attack the terrorists? I understand the attack on Israel was provocative , however the attack was planned and carried out by a terrorist group and not the Lebanon government.

Once, again I ask the anti-Iraq war leadership to explain to me the difference in their views concerning the U.S. attacking a sovereign government, it believed harbored terrorists which threatened U.S. security, is immoral, while Israel is justified in attacking the Lebanese government and innocent civilians, especially when at least 40% of the innocent civilian population does not have an affiliation with radical Islamic beliefs?

I am especially interested in the justification of Israel's moral right, when it is acknowledged by Israel's own government it believes the Lebanese government and the innocent Lebanese civilians are not the cause of the attack, but squarely lay the blame on a terrorist group sponsored by different sovereign governments, namely Syria and Iran. If Israel believes this fact, then are they not immoral in their actions against Lebanon.? If Israel does have a right to defend itself should it not attack Syria and/or Iran?

Thank you in advance for your rationale explanations to my questions.

[Show Me the Wire]

The above question, in my first post, should be clarified and should have read:

Secondly, why is it acceptable to the anti-Iraq war Democrats that Israel can strike at a sovereign nation's innocent civilians, when that nation's official government did not attack Israel, when the attack was carried out by terrorists?

[Secretariat]

Good questions. I've left your questions in small case, and put my responses in upper case.

"Someone, please explain to me the differing responses from the Democratic side regarding Israel's response and the security interest of the U.S. being threatened if Israel comes under attack and the stance these democrats view the Iraq conflict.

Please answer the second part of the question first. How ARE attacks on Israel more of a threat to U.S. security interests than an attack on U.S. soil killing U.S. citizens? "

THEY AREN'T IMO..

"What is given is that both attacks are carried out by terrorists groups and not by a sovereign nation."

WELL, TECHNICALLY HAMAS IS NOW THE RULING PARTY IN PALESTINE, AND HEZBOLLAH HAS BEEN SPONSORED BY SYRIA AND ARE ALL OVER LEBANON.

"To reiterate I desire to understand why an attack on foreign soil, killing non citizens is viewed more of a threat to U.S. security interests than an actual attack on domestic soil killing U.S. citizens."

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ISRAEL DEFENDING ITSELF (BUT THIS ACTUALLY BEGAN AS A RESCUE MISSION). BUT LET'S GET ONE THING CLEAR. ISRAEL IS BEING FUNDED HEAVILY BY THE US IN TERMS OF MILITARY POWER. THE ISLAMIC WORLD SEES ISRAEL AS THE 51ST STATE OF THE US (IN OTHER WORDS PART OF THE US) BECAUSE WE ALMOST NEVER CHALLENGE THE ISRAELI GOVT.

I DO FIND IT PERHAPS AN OVERREACTION IN THE ESCALATION TO ALL OUT WAR BASED ON ONE SOLDIER, COMPARED TO THIS TYPE OF EVENT OCCURRING MANY TIMES BEFORE. IN OTHER WORDS IT WAS ORGINALLY THE PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS THAT SUPPOSEDLY SEIZED THE SOLDIER BUT HEZBOLLAH WAS TARGETED IN LEBANON. FRANKLY TO ME THEY ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME PACKAGE, BUT WE RARELY HEAR ANY PRESS FROM THE OTHER SIDE TO BALANCE WHAT IS HAPPENING.

"Secondly, why is it acceptable to the anti-Iraq war Democrats that Israel can strike at a sovereign nation's innocent civilians, when that nation's official government did not attack the terrorists? I understand the attack on Israel was provocative , however the attack was planned and carried out by a terrorist group and not the Lebanon government. "

I DON'T THINK ANYONE FINDS IT ACCEPTABLE TO STRIKE AT A NATION'S INNOCENT CIVILIANS. BASICALLY, ISRAEL WOULD USE THE SAME ARGUMENT WE DID, AND CLAIM THEY ARE MAKING SURGICAL STRIKES AT HEZBOLLAH OR HAMAS UNITS, AND SOME CIVILIANS GET KILLED ALONG THE WAY. COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

ONE COULD SAY THAT IF WE ATTACKED A POTENTIAL MISSLE IN NORTH KOREA THAT MANY INNOCENT CILVILIANS COULD BE KILLED. THAT'S TRUE, BUT ONE BALANCES THAT BY HOW MANY OF OUR OWN PEOPLE COULD BE KILLED. IT WAS THE SAME ARGUMENT ON THE INVASION OF JAPAN IN WW II VERSUS THE ATOMIC BOMB AT HIROSHIMA. HOW MANY AMERICAN SOLDERIS LIVES WERE SAVED VERSUS THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS BEING KILLED?

"Once, again I ask the anti-Iraq war leadership to explain to me the difference in their views concerning the U.S. attacking a sovereign government, it believed harbored terrorists which threatened U.S. security, is immoral, while Israel is justified in attacking the Lebanese government and innocent civilians, especially when at least 40% of the innocent civilian population does not have an affiliation with radical Islamic beliefs? "

PERSONALLY, I THINK ISRAEL OVERREACTED IN THE LEBANON ATTACKS, AND HENCE WE SEE AN ESCALATION TO WAR WITH HEZBOLLAH. I AM NOT A BIG SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL, AND DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ESCALATION INTO LEBANON, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT. I CAN IMAGINE BEING A MINORTY CULTURE SURROUNDED BY NATIONS THAT REFUSE TO EVEN ACCEPT YOUR RIGHT TO EXIST THAT CAUSES ISRAELI LEADERS TO HAVE THIER FINGERS ON THE BUTTON AT ALL TIME. THAT AND THE CONTINUAL AND ACCEPTED SUICIDE BOMBINGS CLAIMED BY HEZBOLLAH ON ISRAELI SOIL AND THE FACT THEY HAVE A STRONG US SUPPLIED TECHNOLGICALLY SUPERIOR MILITARY ARMAMENTS MAKES THEM WILLING TO USE THEM. ISRAEL BOMBED IRAQ YEARS AGO BASED ON THE THREAT OF WMD'S. THE MOSSAD IS A POWERFUL ORGANIZATION THAT IS DEDICATED TO PRESERVING ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS. . ALL COSTS.

IRAQ IS PRIMARILY AN AMERICAN INVASION WHICH WAS BASED ON WMD NONSENSE. IT WAS THEN SPUN INTO NATION BUILDING DEMOCRACY WHEN NO SIGNIFICANT WMD'S WERE FOUND. WE'RE NOW ENTRENCHED IN A RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR AND ARE TRYING TO GET OUT WITHOUT LOSING FACE. IRAQ NEVER INVADED US.

IRAQ DID NOT PROVIDE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE US AS GW HAS FINALLY ADMITED ("I NEVER SAID IMMINENT. JUST GRAVE.") THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS PROVIDE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO ISRAEL. ONE COULD ARGUE THAT, BUT ONE CANNOT DENY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SUICIDE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL'S SOIL, AND THAT MEMBERS OF THEIR CITIZENRY (ARMED FORCES) HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE AND TORTURED.

"I am especially interested in the justification of Israel's moral right, when it is acknowledged by Israel's own government it believes the Lebanese government and the innocent Lebanese civilians are not the cause of the attack, but squarely lay the blame on a terrorist group sponsored by different sovereign governments, namely Syria and Iran. If Israel believes this fact, then are they not immoral in their actions against Lebanon.? If Israel does have a right to defend itself should it not attack Syria and/or Iran?"

WELL, ISRAEL IS PRETTY MUCH PROPPED UP BY US AND THE WORLD KNOWS IT. ISRAEL HAS BEEN KILLING INNOCENT PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS FOR YEARS AS PART OF THEIR NEVER ENDING BATTLE TO STOP THE SUICIDE BOMBINGS. ISRAEL TOOK THE GOLAN HEIGHTS, THE GAZA STRIP, BUILT A WALL SEPERATING PALESTINANS FROM THEIR OWN FARMS. BULLDOZED HOUSES. IT ILLUSTRATES THAT WHEN A PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE WHEN YOU'VE TAKE EVERYTHING FROM THEM, THEY WILL RESORT TO ANY MEANS TO STRIKE BACK AT WHOM THEY BELEIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. THAT IS WHY HAMAS WILL ALWAYS HAVE PLENTY OF NEW RECRUITS.

"Secondly, why is it acceptable to the anti-Iraq war Democrats that Israel can strike at a sovereign nation's innocent civilians, when that nation's official government did not attack Israel, when the attack was carried out by terrorists? "

I THINK IF A NATION SPONSORS A TERRORIST GROUP (SUCH AS THE TALIBAN SPONSORED AL QUEDA) OR SYRIA DOES HEZBOLLAH OR PALESTINE DOES HAMAS THEN THAT NATION MUST ACEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF HARBORING THOSE GROUPS. YOU RAISE A GOOD QUESTION THOUGH BECAUSE IF A TERRORIST SIMPLY VISITS A NATION AND TALKS TO A LEADER SUCH AS THE TALIBAN TALKING TO GW BUSH BEFORE 911, DOES IT MEAN THAT NATION IS SPONSORING TERRORISTS. I THINK NOT. THE OTHER ISSUE IS IF A NATION SPONSORS A TERRORIST ACT VIA AN INTERMEDIARY GROUP, BUT THAT TERRORISM DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR NATION BUT AN ALLY'S NATION, DOES THAT JUSTIFY A NATION SUPPORTING THAT ALLY BY ATTACKING A NATION THAT HAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED YOURSELF VIA THAT INTERMEDIARY GROUP?

INTERESTING QUESTIONS.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

I appreciate your honest response. I understand about U.S. funding of Israel. And I specifically tried to discuss Lebanon, as I am in agreement that Hamas is the official government in Palestine.

My question is directed at the democratic spokespersons and leadership. From what I heard from the above-referenced group that Israel being attacked is a serious threat to U.S. security. My question to the powers that be in the democratic leadership is how they can believe an attack on an ally is more of a threat to U.S. security than an actual attack on the U.S., when both attacks being perpetrated by terrorist organizations.

Making the argument it is an attack on the U.S., by proxy, because we support Israel is an argument I can accept. I cannot accept the argument an attack on an ally is more of a concern to U.S. security than an actual attack that took place on U.S. soil.

And that is what I am hearing from the democratic part brain thrust publicly stating an attack on Israel is a security concern, yet the refuse to acknowledge the security concerns from an actual attack on U.S. soil. I want to hear how the democratic leadership reconciles Israel's actions, while condeming U.S. actions.

Additionally, I believe the democratic partys' leadership's silence regarding Israel's continuing strikes in Lebanon against innocent civilians is giving approval to Israel for its actions against the innocent civilians. I say innocent especially, since 40% of the country has no religious affiliation with the Islamic terrorist group firing missles at Irael.

To me this is not an issue of a country's right to protect its citizens and its borders. I believe the democratic leadership will concede a country has a right to protect its borders and its citizens.

My issue is how does the democratic leadership view Israel trying to protect itself from terrorist, sponsered by Syria and/or Iran, by attacking the innocent people of Lebanon against the backdrop of simliar U.S. actions. As we all heard the democratic leadership pretty much condem any U.S. military action taken against possible innocent civilians while the U.S. is attempting to protect its people and its borders. To my disappointment, from the comments I have heard and read, so far the democratic leadership has no problem with the killing of innocent Lebanese.

All I ask is for consistency. If it is morally wrong as stated by the democratic leadership for the U.S. to kill innocent citizens it is morally wrong for Israel to do the same. I am waiting for the strong condemnations from the democratic leadership or the explaination why an attack on Israel should be treated as a catastrophic event and the attack on 9-11 as a minor criminal matter.

Please, democratic leadership explain to me the lowly unwashed how you, democratic leadership, differentiate between the two attacks carried out by terrorist groups and the subsequent reprisals by the attacked country.

I am waiting anxiously to hear the two Senators from New York remarks about Israel's actions.

As I said Sec, I understand your individual position, but I am waiting for the democratic leadership to explain the differences in their current stances on U.S. actions against terrorist enemies and Irael's actions against terrorists in a sovereign country with an innocent civilian population and non-hostile official government.

If democratic leadership believes in its previous stances there should be aloud outcry from the party's leadership condeming the actions of Israel. However, the silence from Dean and others is confusing.

[Show Me the Wire]

This is not good. I am answering my own question.

Duhhhh! The difference is the belief the U.S.sttacked Iraq was for oil and profit or the other notion President Bush wanted revenge for his father's election loss.

Silly me the U.S. had immoral covert reasons to attack Iraq, the terrorist theory was only a cover. The democratic leadership truly does not believe the U.S. acted to protect its citizens and secure its borders.

Well maybe the Democratic leadership's eyes have been opened by the blatant border violation of Israel, and the killing of some of its soldiers and kidnapping of its soldiers.

Hopefully, these recent events will pull the U.S. together so we can effectively deal with these radical terrorists, bent on mass destruction.

[Secretariat]

SMTW,

I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS A PARTISAN ISSUE WHEN IT ISN'T.

"My question is directed at the democratic spokespersons and leadership. From what I heard from the above-referenced group that Israel being attacked is a serious threat to U.S. security. My question to the powers that be in the democratic leadership is how they can believe an attack on an ally is more of a threat to U.S. security than an actual attack on the U.S., when both attacks being perpetrated by terrorist organizations.

Making the argument it is an attack on the U.S., by proxy, because we support Israel is an argument I can accept. I cannot accept the argument an attack on an ally is more of a concern to U.S. security than an actual attack that took place on U.S. soil.

And that is what I am hearing from the democratic part brain thrust publicly stating an attack on Israel is a security concern, yet the refuse to acknowledge the security concerns from an actual attack on U.S. soil. I want to hear how the democratic leadership reconciles Israel's actions, while condeming U.S. actions. "

I DON'T BELEIVE AN ATTACK ON ISRAEL IS A DIRECT NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, BUT NEITHER PARTY IS GOING TO STAND BY AND ALLOW HAMAS OR HEZBOLLAH TO OVERRUN ISRAEL, AND I THINK THAT THE WORDS "DIRECT NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN" COMMENTS HAVE BEEN OVERUSED TO CREATE FEAR AND A NEED FOR ACTION, OR A LOOKING THE OTHER WAY BY BOTH PARTIES. REMEMBER IRAQ?

"Additionally, I believe the democratic partys' leadership's silence regarding Israel's continuing strikes in Lebanon against innocent civilians is giving approval to Israel for its actions against the innocent civilians. I say innocent especially, since 40% of the country has no religious affiliation with the Islamic terrorist group firing missles at Irael."

INNOCENT PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY YEARS BY ISRAELIS' IN THEIR PURSUIT OF ARAFAT. ISRAEL WILL NOT WORRY ABOUT WORLD OPINION WHEN IT COMES TO PURSUING HEZBOLLAH IN LEBANON. AGAIN, COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

"To me this is not an issue of a country's right to protect its citizens and its borders. I believe the democratic leadership will concede a country has a right to protect its borders and its citizens.

My issue is how does the democratic leadership view Israel trying to protect itself from terrorist, sponsered by Syria and/or Iran, by attacking the innocent people of Lebanon against the backdrop of simliar U.S. actions. As we all heard the democratic leadership pretty much condem any U.S. military action taken against possible innocent civilians while the U.S. is attempting to protect its people and its borders. "

BOTH PARTIES HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH KILLING INNOCENT LEBANONESE CIVILIANS. JEWISH LOBBYISTS PAY GOOD MOENY TO HAVE ISRAEL'S VOICE HEARD ON CAPITOL HILL. TO POINT AT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP HERE IS UNFAIR. THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL'S ACTIONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. AS I SAID, I PERSONALLY THINK iT WAS AN OVERREACTION BY ISRAEL CONSIDERING THESE TERRORIST GROUPS HAVE BEEN TAKING HOSTAGES AND RANSOMING THEM FOR CONCESSIONS FOR DECADES. IF ISRAEL HAS DONE ANYTHING HERE THEY HAVE INSURED THE DEATH AND TORTURE OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CAPTURED.

"To my disappointment, from the comments I have heard and read, so far the democratic leadership has no problem with the killing of innocent Lebanese."

AGAIN, NO ONE WANTS TO SEE INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED. BOTH PARTIES ARE SIMPLY ALLOWING ISRAEL TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES ITS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. FRANKLY, THIS IS THE CORRECT COURSE IMO. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CANNOT CONDEMN THE ACTION IN A UN RESOLUTION OF THE DEATH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND URGE ISRAEL AND THE GROUPS TO A CEASE FIRE AND THE RETURN OF THE HOSTAGES.

"All I ask is for consistency. If it is morally wrong as stated by the democratic leadership for the U.S. to kill innocent citizens it is morally wrong for Israel to do the same. I am waiting for the strong condemnations from the democratic leadership or the explaination why an attack on Israel should be treated as a catastrophic event and the attack on 9-11 as a minor criminal matter."

THIS DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP THING HERE IS BUGGING ME A BIT. ANYONE FROM EITHER PARTY WOULD SAY IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS. THAT IS NOT THE INTENT. THE INTENT IS TO RESCUE THOSE HELD RANSOM. WHILE I DON'T AGREE WITH ISRAEL'S APPROACH, THEIR INTENT IS NOT TO KILL INNOCENT CILVILANS. I DON'T KNOW ANYONE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP OR THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WHO WOULD REFER TO 911 AS A MINOR CRIMINAL EVENT.

"Please, democratic leadership explain to me the lowly unwashed how you, democratic leadership, differentiate between the two attacks carried out by terrorist groups and the subsequent reprisals by the attacked country.

I am waiting anxiously to hear the two Senators from New York remarks about Israel's actions."

THE JEWISH LOBBY IN NY IS QUITE POWERFUL AND ANY SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE FROM NY REGARDLESS OF PARTY - CLINTON, SCHUMER OR EVEN OF WHEN D'AMATO WAS STILL THERE WOULD BE WIDELY SUPPORTING ISRAELS ACTIONS. IT GOES BEYOND PARTY. I DON'T EVEN SEE MANY SOUTHERN CONGRESSMEN CRITICIZING ISRAEL.

"As I said Sec, I understand your individual position, but I am waiting for the democratic leadership to explain the differences in their current stances on U.S. actions against terrorist enemies and Irael's actions against terrorists in a sovereign country with an innocent civilian population and non-hostile official government."

AS YOU SAID YOU'VE NO PROBLEM WITH HAMAS SINCE THEY ARE NOW THE GOVT. OF PALESTINE, BUT AS RESTRICTING YOUR ARGUMENT TO LEBANON. THERE HAVE BEEN WEAPONS FIRED AT ISRAEL FROM LEBANON SOIL. THE LEBANESE ARMY HAS DONE NOHING TO STOP HEZBOLLAH ROCKETS. NOW IMAGINE THAT A TERRORIST GROUP WAS FIRING ROCKETS FROM MEXICO INTO TEXAS, AND THE MEXICAN ARMY CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WOULD THE US SAY, WELL, THE TERORRIST GROUP IS NOT PART OF MEXICIO'S SOVERIGN NATION SO WE CAN'T RETAILIATE ON MEXICO SOIL? NONSENSE. WE'D BE IN MEXICO AFTER THOSE TERORRISTS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT MEXICAN APPROVAL IF NEED BE, AND WE MAY KILL SOME INNOCENT CILVIANS IN THE PROCESS. AS RUMMY SAID "STUFF HAPPENS"

"If democratic leadership believes in its previous stances there should be aloud outcry from the party's leadership condeming the actions of Israel. However, the silence from Dean and others is confusing. "

YOU WON'T AT THIS STAGE HEAR CONDEMNATION FROM EITHER PARTY BECAUSE OF THE STONG JEWISH LOBBY, AND BECAUSE WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF WHAT IS TOTALLY HAPPENING YET. I'VE HEARD NO AL JAZEERA REPORTS ON THIS BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS WON'T REPORT THE OTHER SIDE, ONLY ISRAEL'S SIDE WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING. THAT'S NOT TO SAY ISRAEL'S SIDE ISN'T TOTALLY JUSTIFIED BUT THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS TENDS TO ALWAYS PAINT A PRO-ISRAEL SIDE.

"The difference is the belief the U.S.sttacked Iraq was for oil and profit or the other notion President Bush wanted revenge for his father's election loss."

THE PRIMARY REASON GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONGRESS WAS WMDS AND THEY POSED A "GRAVE THREAT" TO THE SECURITY OF THE US.

"Silly me the U.S. had immoral covert reasons to attack Iraq, the terrorist theory was only a cover. The democratic leadership truly does not believe the U.S. acted to protect its citizens and secure its borders.

Well maybe the Democratic leadership's eyes have been opened by the blatant border violation of Israel, and the killing of some of its soldiers and kidnapping of its soldiers.

Hopefully, these recent events will pull the U.S. together so we can effectively deal with these radical terrorists, bent on mass destruction. "

TERRORISM IS WORLD WIDE. WE DID LITTLE TO DEAL WITH CHECHNYA TERRORISTS WHE NTHEY STRUCK AT RUSSIA. WE ACTIVELY SUPPROTED THE MUJHADEIN AND BIN LADEN WHICH WAS A TERORRIST GROUP. THE ISSUE IS MUSLIM TERRORISM, NOT JUST TERRORISTS. THE KLAN HERE WAS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION FOR YEARS AND GOVT. LOOKED THE OTHER WAY UNTIL IT COULDN'T ANYMORE.

ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN'S PATRIOT. THE THROWING OF TEA INTO BOSTON HARBOR WAS A TERRORIST ACT AGAISNT ENGLAND. WHICH HElPED LEAD TO THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

THE ISSUE HERE I SIMPLE IMO. ISRAEL IS A SOVERIGN NATION ALLOWED TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS AS AFFECT ITS NATIONAL SECURITY. THEY CHOSE TO ESCALATE THE KIDNAPPING OF THEIR SOLDIER INTO AN AGRESSIVE RESPONSE EXPANDING INTO LEBANON WHICH WAS MET BY ATTACKS LEADING TO MORE ATTACKS BACK ,ETC. ISRAEL IS AN ALLY OF OURS, AND WHILE WE MAY NOT SUPPORT EVERY ACTION THEY TAKE, THE INITIATOR IN THIS ACTION WAS THE KIDNAPPING OF ISRAELI SOLDIERS WHICH WERE TAKEN INTO LEBANON.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD CONDEMN THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP AT THIS POINT OR EVEN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP AT THIS POINT SINCE IT IS STILL UNFOLDING. IT WAS BOLTON WHO CAST THE VETO AT THE UN NOT CONDEMNING THE ISRAELI ACTION. I'M A DEMOCRAT BUT I DON'T SEE AT THIS POINT ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT VETO VOTE AT THIS POINT.

I DO THINK A CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT BASED ON THE RETURN OF THE ISRAELI SOLDIERS IS WARRANTED.

[Show Me the Wire]

THE THROWING OF TEA INTO BOSTON HARBOR WAS A TERRORIST ACT AGAISNT ENGLAND. WHICH HElPED LEAD TO THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.


An act of rebellion, yes; an act of terrorism, no.

[Show Me the Wire]

To me it is a partisan issue, over the last few years I have heard the democratic leadership condemn the U.S. actions as being unilateral without support of the world community.

Israel is acting unilaterally without the support of the world community and I do not hear any democratic leadership condemning Israel's unilateral actions.

Also, the democratic leadership constantly talks about the innocent lives lost in Iraq. Innocent lives are being lost in Lebanon. There is no condemnation of Israeli attacks targeting civilians and civilian targets. Israel does not need to attack central Beirut or water facilities to attack Hazbollah.

Your right the national media does not inform the public about theses attacks, because it want s to protect Israel from backlash. However, the national media widely reported any incident involving the U.S. killing civilians in an attack.

We have seen in-depth coverage of the carnage caused by alleged U.S. missiles going astray and hitting civilian areas. The media showed the people moaning and groaning in hospitals while waiting to be treated for injuries from the attack.

I do not see any media coverage of wounded Lebanese. Additionally, it is speculated Israel is using vicious weapons in civilian areas, such as incendiary bombs and vacuum bombs (bombs that suck the oxygen out of the air). All of this is designed to buttress the image of Israel.

To clarify, in no way I am suggesting Israel does not have the right to protect its borders and people, as it sees fit, against a terror attack.

Israel has the same right as the U.S. to retaliate against a regime it feels is aiding and abetting terrorist groups .

What is different than Iraq, Iraq had the ability to aid and abet Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In this current situation is widely acknowledged Syria and Iran are financing Hazbollah, not Lebanon and Lebanon is being held hostage by Hazbollah. This is akin to the killing the hostage, in order to protect the hostage from harm perpetrated by the hostage- taker

[Suff]

?

I am especially interested in the justification of Israel's moral right, when it is acknowledged by Israel's own government it believes the Lebanese government and the innocent Lebanese civilians are not the cause of the attack, but squarely lay the blame on a terrorist group sponsored by different sovereign governments, namely Syria and Iran. If Israel believes this fact, then are they not immoral in their actions against Lebanon.? If Israel does have a right to defend itself should it not attack Syria and/or Iran?

.

"Israel must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."
Moshe Dayan


Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism"
Quoted in In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries,1955

[Tom]

Give it up SMTW...you pose a legitimate, honest question and look at the busllshit you get back. THIS is your democratic leadership????

BTW......the "Boston Teas Party was an act of terrorism" really explains a lot. If this is what they believe, then they are in serious trouble.
I cannot speak for the left, and wouldn't even try, but from my point of view, this is a great opportunity for the US and Israel to once and for all obliterate Hezbolah - call on the arab nation, Lebanon in particulal, to join together to rid them of the tyranny that infects their southern regions.
Drive a wedge between those moderate, peace loving arabs I keep hearing about ( time to step up to the plates, boys - yer up!) and help them get rid of the mad dogs that supposedly have hijacked their religion. If Light is right, then now is the time to take your sides.

But if it plays as I am pretty sure it will, then we need to capitalize on the situation and deal with Syrai and Iran swiftly and effectively.

But caution is needed, for even though the dems might be cooperting in this now, thier mettle is shallow, their resolve weak, their focus unstable, and they will politicize this at first chance. Sounding right is more important then being right.

I sincerely hope I am dead wrong, and a peaceful solution can be reached,
and this terrible thing can be stopped, but I don't think that is the case, and as bad as war is, sometimes it is the only course of action.

Hats off to your attempt at civil discussion.

[Secretariat]

To me it is a partisan issue, over the last few years I have heard the democratic leadership condemn the U.S. actions as being unilateral without support of the world community.

Israel is acting unilaterally without the support of the world community and I do not hear any democratic leadership condemning Israel's unilateral actions.

Also, the democratic leadership constantly talks about the innocent lives lost in Iraq. Innocent lives are being lost in Lebanon. There is no condemnation of Israeli attacks targeting civilians and civilian targets. Israel does not need to attack central Beirut or water facilities to attack Hazbollah.

Your right the national media does not inform the public about theses attacks, because it want s to protect Israel from backlash. However, the national media widely reported any incident involving the U.S. killing civilians in an attack.

We have seen in-depth coverage of the carnage caused by alleged U.S. missiles going astray and hitting civilian areas. The media showed the people moaning and groaning in hospitals while waiting to be treated for injuries from the attack.

I do not see any media coverage of wounded Lebanese. Additionally, it is speculated Israel is using vicious weapons in civilian areas, such as incendiary bombs and vacuum bombs (bombs that suck the oxygen out of the air). All of this is designed to buttress the image of Israel.

To clarify, in no way I am suggesting Israel does not have the right to protect its borders and people, as it sees fit, against a terror attack.

Israel has the same right as the U.S. to retaliate against a regime it feels is aiding and abetting terrorist groups .

What is different than Iraq, Iraq had the ability to aid and abet Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In this current situation is widely acknowledged Syria and Iran are financing Hazbollah, not Lebanon and Lebanon is being held hostage by Hazbollah. This is akin to the killing the hostage, in order to protect the hostage from harm perpetrated by the hostage- taker

Good quote by Suff.

A few comments.

1. I agree the media should be reporting on civilian casualties in Lebanon, and today it ws reproted 8 innocent Canadians were killed by bombs in Lebanon, so I think the other side will be told, but slowly. Just as american msitakes in Iraq shoudl be shown, so should Israeli mistakes be shown here. And so should atrocities of Hezbollah or whatever group be shown. We're after the same thing which is an actual balanced reporrt of what is occurring. It is tough to get this early.

2. You are wrong when you say no democratic leadership comdemns Israel at this point. Madeline Albright went on record almost immediately condemning the action. It was Bolton who vetoed the cease fire at the UN Security Council because the Repubs didn't want to look like they were tyng Israel's hand. Not the democratic leadership. But really this is not a partisan issue IMO, and trying to create a division between Repubs and Dems on this one is a mistake. Israel is playing out their right as a nation to maintain thier own security measures. If they invade Syria though the escalation will then include Iran in the actions, and the ramificiations are the actual beginning of WW 3.

3. Iraq was completely different in the administration reasons for going into Iraq was primarily WMD's, not the kidnanpping of american citizens or soldiers. It was to stop a threat GW described as "grave". No one from Iraq had invaded us, and Al Queda presense in Iraq at that time was minimal at best. It is widely acknoweldged that there is no proof Hussein had anything to do with 911 which was the terrorist act committed on "our nation." Even if Hussein paid suicide bombers families to go to Israel, it was not an action made on United States soil.

It seems to me that the crux of your argument is to (a) criticize Israel for overreacting in Lebanon. I agree. (b) criticize the democratic leadership for not condemning the act. Some have, and it is still very early in terms of information out there. I think you're trying to make a partisan issue out of something at a time when we're still trying to get al lthe information as to what is occurring. (c). Finally, I think you're trying to justify the debacle of US involvement in Iraq somehow through the Israeli action.

I hope I am wrong, but if so, they are stretches.

[Light]

why is it acceptable to the anti-Iraq war Democrats that Israel can strike at a sovereign nation's innocent civilians

This is something I noticed back in the sixties. As an admirer of people like Abbie Hoffman,who spoke out against atrocities in Vietnam and corruption at home, and much more to the left than today's democrats,I found people like him eerily silent when it came to the Israeli abuses of Palestinians and the U.S. support for those abuses.It was not in vogue back then as I found most Americans lumped all middle eaterners as Arab and never even heard of "Palestinians" or "soccer" or "yogurt". The only answer I've been able to come up with is that Hoffman was Jewish and may have found it hard to turn a critical eye towards his own heritage.Today many Democrats have Jewish campaign contributors or are Jewish themselves.There is also the Jewish lobbying factor which is even stronger today as when they lobbied the British for control of Palestine.Plus U.S. foreign policy is 99% pro Israeli. Why speak out against Israel and look stupid since we give billions in Economic aid to Israel?

On the other hand there are Jews right now in Israel who are demonstrating against the atrocities in Lebanon that is not reported by American media.There are also Jews who refuse to shoot Palestinians who break imposed curfews or bulldoze their homes or bomb them from airplanes on moral ground and are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. But these are about as much in the minority as Democrats who who have balls to criticize Israel. I think very few Democrats would want to risk losing their seat to support the Palestinians who are looked upon as nothing more than disposable nuiscances to Israel. Politics has nothing to do with right or wrong. So don't look for Democrats to speak against Israeli abuses. Politics is power. No power,no support. The question is can the Palestinians avoid ethnic cleansing by the Jews before attaining some sort of homeland without Israeli occupation, or subjucation.

[JustRalph]

Israel understands the environment in which they reside. And they understand the only thing respected by the Arabs is strength.

I only wish our country could adopt the same posture towards our enemies.

[Show Me the Wire]

Light:

Thank you for your insightful answer.

Sec:

I am already on record saying I believe it is a partisan issue for the reasons I listed in prior posts. Light's answer answered why anti-war democratic leaders accept the unilateral action taken by Israel.

I expected Bolton to support Israel's actions.

Good for Madeline Albright consistency, but I am waiting for the top players, such as, Dean, Gore, Kerry, etc. I suspect Light is right these politicians will not bite the hand that feeds them.

[Suff]

All Together Now



Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 2001.

[Tom]

Do you ever actually READ any theads before you throw out stupid, unrealted posts?

[PaceAdvantage]

Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 2001.

Who are you relying on for this conclusive information? The current administration which you distrust so much? Or the exhaustive, independent investigation that was performed (NOT)!

Seriously, how do you know this? How do you know they had NOTHING to do with 9/11? How do you know they didn't provide ANY training or MONEY over the years between the first WTC attack and the 9/11 attacks?

I think it's just plain silly and closed minded to state this as fact, when in reality, nobody really knows what kind of involvement Iraq may or may not have had with 9/11. In fact, I would venture a guess that our intelligence abilities when it comes to these murky, terrorist "organizations" is, even today, limited at best. So I can't see how you can state the above with such certainty.

[ljb]

Actually recent data is starting to point to Iran as possibly helping the Saudi dudes that caused 9/11. And, it is also starting to look like Iran is the big winner in the neocons ill advised invasion of Iraq.

[Suff]

Do you ever actually READ any theads before you throw out stupid, unrealted posts?

yea... it has everything to do with the post. Because the question raised is based on falsehood. That Both Lebanon's indirect relationship to Hezbollah, and The Iraq war as the central front on terror are some how analogous.

They are not. So the question is pointless. It's a political question. Ill timed I might add. As many Americans, other innocent civilians, and peaceful Christians are trapped there, and being subjected to bombings......and the death of innocent people. The posters main concern is why Democrats say supportive things about Israel's action.....and not about the illegal Iraq war.

It is like Pat Robertson screaming into the TV that a GODLESS society was responsible for New Orleans, as dead bodies floated all over town.

Even if he had a point ( which he didn't), very immoral timing.

[Suff]

information? The current administration which you distrust so much?

.

Under your thinking, which is surprisingly open minded every country in the world is suspect. Including our own.
...........Your getting warmer.:eek:

[Tom]

All I have to do these days is look at a thread and see SUFF as the last poster and know right away it has gone OFF TOPIC and no longer makes any sense. If you have nothing to offer a thread, do us all a favor and STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT.

If you want to showcase stupidity, get a job as a friggin mime or a clown! Mime would be preferred! You have done nothing for a week but attack people, here and in Horse Racing, call people names and throw out pot shots to take threads away. ITM_ATW and Amazin offered more than you have lately.

Off to IGNORE with you.

[Suff]

All I have to do these days is look at a thread and see SUFF as the last poster and know right away it has gone OFF TOPIC and no longer makes any sense. If you have nothing to offer a thread, do us all a favor and STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT.

If you want to showcase stupidity, get a job as a friggin mime or a clown! Mime would be preferred! You have done nothing for a week but attack people, here and in Horse Racing, call people names and throw out pot shots to take threads away. ITM_ATW and Amazin offered more than you have lately.

Off to IGNORE with you.


hey.. not only are both post on topic... even if they aint. STFU

[Snag]

Way to kill a good thread Suff. Thanks for nothing.

[Suff]

Way to kill a good thread Suff. Thanks for nothing.

Listen close.... the post (s) I made to this thread are directly and precisely related to the topic. Ok.

So go ahead...make your contribution.

[Suff]

Way to kill a good thread Suff. Thanks for nothing.

I know your just being a needle because it is safe to be...and that is human nature ..but to humor you... My post (s) specifically address this paragraph...and I might add, The entire thesis of the thread...


Once, again I ask the anti-Iraq war leadership to explain to me the difference in their views concerning the U.S. attacking a sovereign government, it believed harbored terrorists which threatened U.S. security, is immoral, while Israel is justified in attacking the Lebanese government and innocent civilians, especially when at least 40% of the innocent civilian population does not have an affiliation with radical Islamic beliefs?



Now go ahead....what were your thoughts on the subject?

[Secretariat]

An act of rebellion, yes; an act of terrorism, no.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/terrorism

The definition of terrorism is:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I still contend the British certainly viewed the Boston Tea Party as an act of terorrism. The destruction of property by an organized group to affect the tea tax imposed on the colonies. Meets the definition.

Actually a formal rebellion had not yet begun, but this terrorist act against British property - tea. Most settlers would have paid the tax and been done with it.

Now, the next statement is I'm comparing the Boston Tea Party with suicide bombers, and Al Queda. Of course I'm not because it deals with people and is a much more insidious use of terrorism.

The Klan also committed numerous acts of terrorism.

....

The person behind 911 (not Hussein)

"I don't know where he [Bin Laden] is. I don't think that much about it."

- GW.....

[Tom]

So does ALLGORE's global warming hoax qualify as terrorism?

[Show Me the Wire]

According to Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:

Terrorism is defined as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Further clarification:

Rebellion as defined by the same source: opposition to one in authority or dominance

The Boston Tea party was not part of systematic use of terror by the colonists, it was a single act of opposition to the authority of Great Britain.

I stand by my statement: act of rebellion, not terrorism.

[ljb]

smtw,
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you ?
This sounds a bit like, depends on what you definition of is is. :D

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb wrote about my response:

smtw,
This sounds a bit like, depends on what you definition of is is. :D

One man's terrorists is another's hero.

And I ask the following about Sec's above statement:
Does it really sound like what your definition is?



BTW I believe the Mirriam - Webster dictionary is a better source.

[ljb]

smtw,
You appear to have missed the point of my message. And your parsed quote doesn't help either.
I was suggesting that you are splitting hairs here. In days gone by pirates sailed the open seas. Some countries considered them heroes others called them pirates. It just depends on what side of the glass you are looking through.
Personally I always thought a terrorist was someone whose actions struck fear in the hearts and minds of those s/he terrorized. Whether dumping tea in the ocean struck fear in the hearts and minds of those loyal to the crown or not will never be known. But it would be safe to say it did get their attention.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Did not miss your point.

It is not splitting hairs to a have less encompassing definition of a word.


A terrorist is a terrorist due to his activities, he may be hailed as a hero by a specific group, that does not change the fact he is a terrorist by definition.

Sec, was splitting hairs with the hero statement.

Additionally, the definition he quoted was too broad almost any activity could be catorgorized as a terrorist act, resulting in the delution of meaning. Words to be meaningful need to be descriptive and limiting, or otherwise we have miscommunication.

If I want a specific ball for a game I ask for a baseball, a football, etc. not any ball. Limiting the word ball with a specific description and definition acurately defines the type of ball I want and prevents the clerk from giving me a tennis ball when I desired a soccer ball.

The Mirriam-Webster dictionary's definition is better as it specificallly defines the word to include systematic behavior. This definition makes the word more specific and applicable resulting in a more meaningfull use of the word.

So when I use the word terrorism every knows it means it includes systematic behavior and does not include almost every act of violence towards property or people.

BTW America's founding fathers are really guilty of high treason against the Crown and not terrorism.

[Suff]

Killing innocent Lebanese civilians in order to change Lebanon's & Syria's policies is called "terrorism."

[Secretariat]

ljb wrote about my response:


One man's terrorists is another's hero.

And I ask the following about Sec's above statement:
Does it really sound like what your definition is?


BTW I believe the Mirriam - Webster dictionary is a better source.

For shame, you don't like the American Heritage Dictionary. It is American and it has Heritage in it.

Actually, there is great debate on the definition of terrorism, and the UN is struggling at this time with an agreed definition of it. The differences on terrorism between the Oxford English Dictionary are quite varied from other reputabel dictionaries as well.

I'll stick with the American Heritage Dictionary. Including property is an important part of the definition. If Timonthy McVeigh has blown up that building in Oklahoma City when no one was in it, it still would have been a terrorist act. What exactly constitutes systematic behaviour in your definition? I find that weak becasue it requries speculation on what that is. The terrorist act is judged by the "result" of the act, not necessarily by sytematic motives. If it involves willful destruction of people or property it may pass the mustard as comprising a terrorist act.

I'm in favor of those guys who threw the tea overbaord in Boston Harbor. THey are my heros, but they committed a terrorist act to do so. You prefer to use the term rebellious, because you look at the term terrorism through 21st century WTC Muslim extremists perceptions. The Weathermen also committed terrorist acts in this country, the Klan committed terrorist acts. They were also rebellious. The suicide bombers in Palestine are viewed as heros, as were the Kamikazes in WW 2. They certainly are not heros to us.

I'll stick the Americna Heritage Dictionary for now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Killing innocent Lebanese civilians in order to change Lebanon's & Syria's policies is called "terrorism."

No it's not, at least not by Americans and Israelis. It's called collateral damage. When the Arab countries in the region become dominant military forces, then they can call it what they want....

I do recall reading and hearing Israel expressing regret for the loss of innocent civilian life as they retaliated for the capture of their soldiers. I don't recall any regret being expressed for the 3000 killed on 9/11. I only heard the 3000 referred to as valid targets by those responsible.

But then again Suff, I was probably being brainwashed and was actually listening to a carefully constructed CIA/Bushie PsyOps program, right big guy?

[Show Me the Wire]

PA:

According to Sec's source the American Heritage dictionary Israel's actions are terrorism. That is the problem with all encompassing definitions. The type of definitions that can be spun to mean anything. Makes it much eassier to accuse the wronged party and make the wronged party equally guilty.

[Secretariat]

PA:

According to Sec's source the American Heritage dictionary Israel's actions are terrorism. That is the problem with all encompassing definitions. The type of definitions that can be spun to mean anything. Makes it much eassier to accuse the wronged party and make the wronged party equally guilty.

Well, if we have a War on Terrorism, and even the UN can't agree on the definition of it, and the dictionaries can't agree, we have a problem. Now, if we had a war on Al Queda, then that is something tangible.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

let's put this discussion to rest about defining terrorism and its application to the Boston Tea Party.

TERROR is the stem word of terrorism. Terror is generally defined by my source and your source as a state of "intense" fear.

So it seems a basic element of terrorism, coming from the root terror, is intense fear by the targeted party.

Do you believe Great Britain's monarchy or its people or the tea company had an "intense' fear over the actions of a few colonists throwing tea into the harbor?

I don't. In fact history shows Great Britain looked upon the revolt as a nuisance that they could crush at any time.

I state my use of the word terrorism (implying the underlying definition of the stem word) is more precise and more meaningfull and more appricable to the actions of a terrorist organization like Al Queda and Hezballoh than to the Boston Tea Party.

[Show Me the Wire]

The U.N. can't agree on a political definition for terrorism for political reasons.

Let me suggest a workable definition Terrorism:

The systematic behavior of violence or threatend violence against another's property or person causing intense overpowering fear of the threatened behavior, which behavior is aimed at the changing of foreign government policies or its actions.

[Show Me the Wire]

Killing innocent Lebanese civilians in order to change Lebanon's & Syria's policies is called "terrorism."

Suff:

How do you feel about democratic support and approval (through their strategists and elected office holders) to Israel's terrorist activities towards Lebanon.

I agree it is disgusting seeing young Israeli chidren writnig messages on bombs dropped on innocent Lebanese children through error or as collateral damage..

I believe if we in the U.S. allowed such behavior we would be rightfully villified by the country's mainstream press and our anti-war politicians. Instead, because it is Israel we are being fed the idea this repulsive behavior as being apprpriate and as some cute warm feel good story about the killing of innocents.

[Secretariat]

Sec:

TERROR is the stem word of terrorism. Terror is generally defined by my source and your source as a state of "intense" fear.

So it seems a basic element of terrorism, coming from the root terror, is intense fear by the targeted party.



"intense fear by the targete party?"

Would this act qualify as a terrorism commttied upon Chancellor Merkel?

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

very tense facial look, maybe.

[Snag]

"intense fear by the targete party?"

Would this act qualify as a terrorism commttied upon Chancellor Merkel?

Give me a break!!!!!

[Suff]

[QUOTE] Originally Posted by Suff
Killing innocent Lebanese civilians in order to change Lebanon's & Syria's policies is called "terrorism."

No it's not, ....


Yes............................................... ... It is.

[Suff]

Give me a break!!!!!

Your out of breaks.

[OTM Al]

The conservatives now growing critical of administration policy

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51116

The whole area is very close to complete chaos and our government on both sides of the aisle is tacitly allowing this to happen.

[PaceAdvantage]

The whole area is very close to complete chaos and our government on both sides of the aisle is tacitly allowing this to happen.

The whole area is always close to complete chaos. This situation became stuck on BROKEN a long time ago, and as we can see throughout recent history, diplomacy never found a solution and never will.

[Show Me the Wire]

OTM AL:

If you have been following my possts I have been openly critical about Israel's response to its border violation by Hezbollah. My prior posts state why the target and the type of responsse is folly as a foreign policy.

Pat Buchanan correctly points out the U.S. does not retaliate against civilian infrastructure and he should have pointed out the U.S. doesn't have kodak moments of young children writting messages on lethal bombs.

My posts attempt to address the double standard in the U.S. created by the mainstream press and the anti-war democrats. I for one am tired of the duplicity of these people and their treatment of the U.S. armed forces and U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Buchanan rightfull states "Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?'

If the anti-war politicians and the mainstream press truly believe the U.S.' unilateral foreign policy is wrong concerning Iraq and the Middle East, they, meaning the mainstream press and anti-war politicians surely must condemn Israel's actions and not call for blind support of Israel. That is my problem with the fake ant-war crowd.

I applaud Sen. Warner's call for restraint on our side before blindly committing ourselves to Israel's actions.

I believe as Mr. Buchanan stated that Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars and that Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Israel must be held accountable for its actions against Lebanon's civilian infrastucture and its civilians.

I reiterate that Israel as any soverign nation has the right to defend its border's and its people, but I believe the fake anti-war politicians will blindly cause mass destruction due to its misguided faith in Israel and their need for campaign contributions.

[OTM Al]

To me the duplicity has been at all levels in both of these so called parties. Just thought I'd throw that article up in support of the points you were trying to make, no other reason.

Israel has never faced sanction from a world body, even when they flat out took East (? have to look this bit of history up again but it was part of the city) Jerusalem that was not theirs in violation of UN treaty. Living day to day with the threat of getting blown up must be a difficult thing, but then one also wonders how much is brought on themselves by national policy. The worst part of it is that its never the policy makers and the warmongers that seem to get hurt, its the common people trying to eke out a living. As far as governments go, everyone over there is guilty. Funny thing is that all the religions who share the same god all seem to share the basic tenet that killing is wrong, but then all are raring to do it anyway. Human nature I guess. Maybe instead of building a wall around Mexico, we should build one around the Middle East and just let them go at it, winner take all.....

[Secretariat]

Israel has carte blanche to do anything it wants. It's been that way for years. The Israeli lobby has tremendous influence in both parties.

If you don't think so, look at this vote.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003140434_webhousemideast20.html

"I certainly sympathize with the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "The Early Show" today. But, he said, if Hezbollah is "going to launch attacks from the Lebanese territory, then tragically the Lebanese government and people pay a price for that."

Yet as Republican and Democratic leaders rally behind the measure in rare bipartisan fashion, a handful of lawmakers have quietly expressed reservations that the resolution was too much the result of a powerful lobbying force and attempts to court Jewish voters.

"I'm just sick in the stomach, to put it mildly," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, D-W.Va., who is of Lebanese descent.

Rahall joined other Arab-American lawmakers in drafting an alternative resolution that would have omitted language holding Lebanon responsible for Hezbollah's actions and called for restraint from all sides. Rahall said that proposal was "politely swept under the rug," a political reality he and others say reflects the influence Israel has in Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who co-sponsored the alternative resolution and also is of Lebanese descent, agreed. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby "throws in language that AIPAC wants. That isn't always the best thing for this body to endorse," Issa said.

...

The interesting quote by McCain challenges the democratically elected leader of Lebanon (non-Hezbollah) who has stated the Lebanese Army will join with the Hezbollah to fight Israel if Israeli troops come into Lebanon.

..

Bottom line - another mess. You get kind of used to it during the last six years.

[Show Me the Wire]

OTM AL:

Your comment on the basic tenent regarding killing is inacurate, it is not absolutely true for Islam. The true believer is expected to kill the infidel or if the infidel is allowed to live he must be taxed heavily.

Islam has a sdifferent perspective the Judiasm and Christianity when it comes to killing.

This is the reason radical Islamic groups can recruit believers to commit homicide bombings.

The differences between religious tenets about killing really need to be understood by the Western World.

[freeneasy]

whats the difference between the terrorist attack on the twin towers and the iraqi goverment? nothing
whats the difference between the terroist killing and kidnapping of isreali troops and the lebbonease goverment? nothing
every nation that houses, confirms and supports terrorist knows that isreal will without a marked hesitation strike back with and carry out whatevers nesseceary to protect its nation.
maybe lebannon is willing to provke isreal into enough retaliation in the hopes that the other nations that hate and want to see isreal wiped out, will join in or collaboratre with them in an all out effort to accomplish such an end

[Indulto]

BOTH PARTIES HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH KILLING INNOCENT LEBANONESE CIVILIANS. JEWISH LOBBYISTS PAY GOOD MOENY TO HAVE ISRAEL'S VOICE HEARD ON CAPITOL HILL. TO POINT AT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP HERE IS UNFAIR. THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL'S ACTIONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. AS I SAID, I PERSONALLY THINK iT WAS AN OVERREACTION BY ISRAEL CONSIDERING THESE TERRORIST GROUPS HAVE BEEN TAKING HOSTAGES AND RANSOMING THEM FOR CONCESSIONS FOR DECADES. IF ISRAEL HAS DONE ANYTHING HERE THEY HAVE INSURED THE DEATH AND TORTURE OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CAPTURED.
THE JEWISH LOBBY IN NY IS QUITE POWERFUL AND ANY SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE FROM NY REGARDLESS OF PARTY - CLINTON, SCHUMER OR EVEN OF WHEN D'AMATO WAS STILL THERE WOULD BE WIDELY SUPPORTING ISRAELS ACTIONS. IT GOES BEYOND PARTY. I DON'T EVEN SEE MANY SOUTHERN CONGRESSMEN CRITICIZING ISRAEL.
YOU WON'T AT THIS STAGE HEAR CONDEMNATION FROM EITHER PARTY BECAUSE OF THE STONG JEWISH LOBBY, AND BECAUSE WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF WHAT IS TOTALLY HAPPENING YET. I'VE HEARD NO AL JAZEERA REPORTS ON THIS BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS WON'T REPORT THE OTHER SIDE, ONLY ISRAEL'S SIDE WHICH IS NOT SURPRISING. THAT'S NOT TO SAY ISRAEL'S SIDE ISN'T TOTALLY JUSTIFIED BUT THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS TENDS TO ALWAYS PAINT A PRO-ISRAEL SIDE.
Israel has carte blanche to do anything it wants. It's been that way for years. The Israeli lobby has tremendous influence in both parties.Sec,
You keep referring to a “Jewish Lobby” and now an “Israeli Lobby.” Can you be more specific about who these lobbyists are, what issues they promote, which elected officials they are able to influence, and what incentives -- financial or otherwise -- they offer in exchange for support? Are any of them suspected of corruption? Was Jack Abramoff involved in issues related to Israel?

[lsbets]

[/font][/color]


Sec,
You keep referring to a “Jewish Lobby” and now an “Israeli Lobby.” Can you be more specific about who these lobbyists are, what issues they promote, which elected officials they are able to influence, and what incentives -- financial or otherwise -- they offer in exchange for support? Are any of them suspected of corruption? Was Jack Abramoff involved in issues related to Israel?

Indulto, don't foget, Sec's problem with Lieberman has been that he looks out for Israel, not America, yet he has not singled out any other politician (non-Jew) who supports the Iraq war as having the same conflict of interest.
Based on that it is understandable why some might wonder if the anti-Lieberman forces are playing on an age old tenant of anti-Semetism. Until I hear someone say Bush or McCain cares more about Israel than America, I have a hard time thinking that one specific criticism against Lieberman is designed to do nothing more than appeal to the worst in people, just like the problems folks had with Kennedy being a Catholic.

Great point you beought up, and I probably do you know good by supporting your observation, but it does make one wonder how far they will go to support their partisan agendas.

[Indulto]

Indulto, don't foget, Sec's problem with Lieberman has been that he looks out for Israel, not America, yet he has not singled out any other politician (non-Jew) who supports the Iraq war as having the same conflict of interest.
Based on that it is understandable why some might wonder if the anti-Lieberman forces are playing on an age old tenant of anti-Semetism. Until I hear someone say Bush or McCain cares more about Israel than America, I have a hard time thinking that one specific criticism against Lieberman is designed to do nothing more than appeal to the worst in people, just like the problems folks had with Kennedy being a Catholic.

Great point you beought up, and I probably do you know good by supporting your observation, but it does make one wonder how far they will go to support their partisan agendas.lsbets,
I don't understand why you think supporting my observation does me no good, but frankly I'm no Lieberman supporter either. His one act of integrity was to publicly censure Clinton. I wish he had just switched parties at that point rather than be available to tempt Gore into choosing a weaker VP candidate because he so desperately wanted to separate himself from Clinton. Lieberman probably lost more votes for Gore than Nader.

Lieberman's support for Bush's Iraq adventure cost him Gore's support and any chance for his own nomination. He's senile as well as clueless if he tries to run for the Senate as an independent should he lose the Democratic primary. A good man with more ambition than common sense, but that combination is hardly unique.

[lsbets]

Indulto, the reason I do you no good is that to those who lump you in with Lefty when you don't fall in line with their agendas, I am everything they despise. What I have done and the way I lead my life makes their skin crawl, so my support of your positions does nothing to gain you any credibility.

I can respect every reason you don't support Lieberman, and you are not trying to advance a ridiculous stereotype to do so. For the record, I think if he loses the Dem primary, he should not run as an independent. That is disingenuous to sat the least. He has chosen to be a Dem and if he loses the Dem primary, than he should be a man and step aside.

[Secretariat]

[/font][/color]


Sec,
You keep referring to a “Jewish Lobby” and now an “Israeli Lobby.” Can you be more specific about who these lobbyists are, what issues they promote, which elected officials they are able to influence, and what incentives -- financial or otherwise -- they offer in exchange for support? Are any of them suspected of corruption? Was Jack Abramoff involved in issues related to Israel?

http://www.aipac.org/whoWeAre.cfm

Start with the guys above from their own website -

"AIPAC works to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together to meet these challenges effectively.
For these reasons, The New York Times has called AIPAC “the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel,” while Fortune magazine has consistently ranked AIPAC among America's most powerful interest groups.

Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress—at home and in Washington—AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year.

AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel -- from procuring $2.46 billion in aid critical to Israel's security, to funding joint U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons.

Activists work closely with AIPAC's professional staff, people drawn from the top echelons of government, diplomacy, academia and politics. AIPAC lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC policy experts each day review hundreds of periodicals, journals, speeches and reports and meet regularly with the most innovative foreign policy thinkers in order to track and analyze events and trends."
....

Then go here. (It's a lot of reading I know.)

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

"CBS is reporting that a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst detailed to Undersecretary of Defense for Planning Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans is under FBI investigation for spying for Israel. The person passed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) confidential documents, including those detailing Bush administration policy toward Iran, and AIPAC then passed them to Israel. There are wiretaps and photographs backing up the FBI case (the FBI agents involved are extremely brave to take this on)."

...


"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money evenhandedly inside the U.S."

...

Then look at this site from just this one Pro-Israel PAC in ters of contributions to congressmen.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html

...

Here is an excerpt from the book, They Dare to Speak Out by Paul Findley:
"AIPAC consistently gets more than it wants, and what it wants most is more money for Israel. How much money?

"For 1985-1986, the Reagan Administration budgeted $4.5 billion for Israel in military and economic assistance—about $1,500 for every man, woman and child in Israel; $6,000 for a family of four. (That amount of money becomes all the more striking when one considers that in 1985, Israel's finance minister, Yitzhak Moda'i, took home $580 a month; a postman or grocery check-out clerk in Israel makes about $200 a month; a top photographer working for a foreign news service earns the princely sum of $600 a month.)"

Here's a quote from one of the most conservative newspapers in the country, the Wall Street Journal:

"Several ranking Congressmen—most of whom wouldn't comment on the record for this story—say they believe the political effect of Jewish PAC money is greater than that of other major lobbies because it is skillfully focused on one foreign policy issue." Wall Street Journal, August 1983.

That was 1983 during the Reagan years. AIPAC has only grown more powerful.

....

This is not a democrat or republican issue. It crosses both parties of Congress who are bought, and support those groups who pay them.
A common tactic of AIPAC is to label anyone "anti-Semitic" on the basis of any questioning of Israel and disseminates an "enemies list" of dozens of individuals and organizations identified as inimical to Israeli interests. This is in addition to the enemies list of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. Both lists include journalists and media which have not otherwise been properly intimidated.

...

There is so much on AIPAC itself that just familiarizing yourself with their affect on US policy will keep you busy for months withotu going into the work of PNAC, Feith and Richard Perle and the birth of the neocons..

....

Then this:

"AIPAC and Espionage:
Guilty as Hell
Pentagon analyst plea bargains, threatens to expose Israel's Washington cabal by Justin Raimondo

The plea bargain struck by former Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin – charged with five counts of handing over classified information to officials of a pro-Israel lobbying group, who passed it on to Israeli diplomatic personnel – has delivered a body blow to the defense of the two remaining accused spies. Steve Rosen, who for 20 years was the chief lobbyist over at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's top foreign policy analyst, befriended Franklin and pumped him for top-secret information – including sensitive data about al-Qaeda, the Khobar Towers terrorist attack, Iran's weapons program, and attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Now they face the likely prospect of Franklin testifying to their treason in court.

For months, AIPAC's defenders have been bruiting it about that this prosecution is persecution, that the whole thing is a "setup." What Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin are accused of is routine, said their defenders – "everybody does it" – and the decision to go after AIPAC is thinly disguised anti-Semitism, the 21st century American equivalent of Kristallnacht. They have impugned the FBI as some sort of neo-Nazi outfit, exonerated the accused before even hearing the charges, and engaged in a smear campaign against anyone who wonders why it is that a purportedly American organization is engaged in an intelligence-gathering operation involving the transfer of top-secret information to a foreign government.

Now the man they portrayed as being a persecuted victim is admitting that, yes, he spied for Israel, and, furthermore, the clear implication of this apparent plea bargain is that he is prepared to expose the spy ring that Israel was – and perhaps still is – running inside AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.

This case has received relatively little publicity in relation to its importance. It isn't just the fact that, for the first time in recent memory, Israel's powerful lobby has been humbled. What is going on here is the exposure of Israel's underground army in the U.S. – covert legions of propagandists and outright spies, whose job it is to not only make the case for Israel but to bend American policy to suit Israel's needs (and, in the process, penetrate closely-held U.S. secrets). "

...

I will not go into Abramoff as running out of room, but he does have strong links to AIPAC. That would require creating an entire thread by itself just on him.

[Indulto]

http://www.aipac.org/whoWeAre.cfm

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html
Sec,
Thanks.

[lsbets]

A common tactic of AIPAC is to label anyone "anti-Semitic" on the basis of any questioning of Israel and disseminates an "enemies list" of dozens of individuals and organizations identified as inimical to Israeli interests. This is in addition to the enemies list of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. Both lists include journalists and media which have not otherwise been properly intimidated.


Aren't you missing a link for this quote?

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

As your posts states: "This is not a democrat or republican issue. It crosses both parties of Congress who are bought, and support those groups who pay them."

But it is the democrats who are the biggest hypocrites in this matter. They fake the anti-war sentiments and feign disdain about the murder of innocent civilians. The argue terrorists organiaztions are not a threat to the security interests of the U.S.

After all that posturing, the anti-war democrats turn a blind eye to the murder of innocent Lebanese civilians, rant on about how the security interests of the U.S. are being threatened by an attack on Israel. All of this reversal for campaign funds.

At least the republicans have been consistent in their agenda.

To my democratic neighbors it is not right to sacrifice one American armed forces life for the fattening of campaign coffers. If some believe the Iraq war was about oil, it is despicable a new military action will be about securing campaign contributions.

[Indulto]

Sec:
As your posts states: "This is not a democrat or republican issue. It crosses both parties of Congress who are bought, and support those groups who pay them."

But it is the democrats who are the biggest hypocrites in this matter. They fake the anti-war sentiments and feign disdain about the murder of innocent civilians. The argue terrorists organiaztions are not a threat to the security interests of the U.S.

After all that posturing, the anti-war democrats turn a blind eye to the murder of innocent Lebanese civilians, rant on about how the security interests of the U.S. are being threatened by an attack on Israel. All of this reversal for campaign funds.

At least the republicans have been consistent in their agenda.

To my democratic neighbors it isnot right to sacrifice one American armed forces life for the fattening of campaign coffers. If some believe the Iraq war was about oil, it is despicable a new military action will be about securing campaign contributions.SMTW,
You’re beginning to sound like a Republican spinmeister to me. Sean Hannity in particular comes to mind. I have a hunch that when I finish following up on Sec's references, I'll find some hypocritical Republicans as well as Democrats. So please tell me why a consistent hypocrite is any improvement over an inconsistent one? Also, isn't it hypocrisy to label Lebonese civilian deaths as murder, but not Israeli deaths?

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

The republican agenda regarding the war on terror has been consistent, saying terrorist organizations and nations that fund, support, arm, etc. terrorist organiztions are threats to the security interests of the U.S. Their support of Israel's actions is consistent and not hypocritical. Notice I am not saying blind republican support for Israel is necessarily acceptable or correct.

I call kllings by terrorist organizations murder. If you read my posts you see I refer to terrorist as homicide bombers and I refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

I do not advocate Hezbollah's actions either. Hezbollah is terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and is not morally superior to Israel.

I not spinning anything, the truth is the truth.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

BTW, why do I sound like Sean Hannity? Not familiar with his opinions as I do not listen to his radio show or his t.v. show. Does he espouse the same views I am regarding the anti-war democrats stunning reversal regarding terrorist attacks?

All my opinions are based on my personal observations and are not formed through listening to Mr. Hannity or some other talking head.

[Suff]

Indulto:

The republican agenda regarding the war on terror has been consistent, saying terrorist organizations and nations that fund, support, arm, etc. terrorist organiztions are threats to the security interests of the U.S. .

GWB/Republicans/Neocons sold Nuclear Technology to Pakistan. Not only does Pakistan not have complete control over all its geography, its arguably the safest haven for fanatical islamists in the world.

Those facts are common knowledge.

Further, on issue's ranging from border security, foreign management of our ports, immigration policies, Cargo scanning & inspection to name just a few, Republicans have been anything but consistent.

[GaryG]

GWB/Republicans/Neocons sold Nuclear Technology to Pakistan. This is pure bullshit....

[Suff]

This is pure bullshit....

No its not. They sold them ( and India) civilian nuclear technology, and 36 F-16 Fighter Jets, and missile technology.

[Suff]

GWB/Republicans/Neocons sold Nuclear Technology to Pakistan. Not only does Pakistan not have complete control over all its geography, its arguably the safest haven for fanatical islamists in the world.

Those facts are common knowledge.

Further, on issue's ranging from border security, foreign management of our ports, immigration policies, Cargo scanning & inspection to name just a few, Republicans have been anything but consistent.

[Secretariat]

SMTW,

Do you beleive a nation that spies on us (the Franklin case - not the only one), and manipulates our foreign policy via the second largest lobby in Congress -AIPAC, is not a threat to our national security? Just curious.

btw..as to Suff's post, India is claiming the train bombings there originated from Pakistan. Is India an ally, and were they not the victim of a terrorist act? Should they invade Pakistan as Israel has invaded Lebanon?

[Indulto]

BTW, why do I sound like Sean Hannity? Not familiar with his opinions as I do not listen to his radio show or his t.v. show. Does he espouse the same views I am regarding the anti-war democrats stunning reversal regarding terrorist attacks?

All my opinions are based on my personal observations and are not formed through listening to Mr. Hannity or some other talking head.SMTW,
I have no doubt that you form your own opinions. It is the quality of distortion in favor of Republicans that inspired my reference to Mr. Hannity. Had your distortion favored Democrats, Randi Rhodes would have come to mind.

As I myself have difficulty accepting unnecessary and unfortunate loss of human life, I normally support those who refuse to allow it to be ignored -- provided their motivation and agendas aren't suspect. Initially, I thought your posts in this thread raised some worthwhile questions about the Israeli reaction to the Hezbollah attack, but your subsequent remarks indicate to me that your primary objective is not to solve the problem, but to prevent it's solution by extending partisan divisiveness.

It is too soon to take a stance against either party on this issue unless one intends to seek political advantage.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

I do not know how to solve hate, by diplomacy. Therfore, I have no immediate solution.

I have reservations about the new rhetoric coming from the previous anti-war democrats ackknowleding the terrorist attacks on Israel as a security threat to the U.S. Indulto, what do you think a country should do if there security is threatened? Should it protect itself?

I beleive the previous anti-war democratics are ready to plunge the U.S. in harms way for Israel,( to protect U.S. security interests) contrary to their dovish stance on Iraq. Understand Israel is an ally, but it is a sovereign foreign country and the Hezbollah's terrorist attack on Israel was not a threat to the security intesrests of the U.S.

Regretablly, two soldiers were kidnapped and eight were murdered, but this event alone was not a threat to U.S. security. Israel's response has definitely put the U.S. security interest in danger.

These previous anti-war democrats should have immediately condemned Israel's actions for the same reasons democrats condemned U.S. actions in the Middle East. Instead they bowed to the mighty campaign dolar.

That is the truth. I have not praised the rupublicans or the current administration. All I said is that the have been consistent and I expected their reaction to the attack on Isreal.

In my opinion the damage is already done. The Arab world sees complete non-partisan support for Israel, while the Arab world sees partisan support for U.S. actions in the Middle East. What kind of message does that send to the Arab world ? A dangerous and wreckless message all courtesy of the campaign money grubbing democratic party.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

Yes to your question about spying.

According to the democratic party, yes.

Read my answer to Indulto to get my personal view about U.S. security interests being threatened in the Hezbollah's attack.

[Show Me the Wire]

Suff:

I see you tried to hijack the topic with a quote from one of my posts. Evidently you read my posts in this thread. I am waiting for your reply to my questions directed to you in post # 40.

I hope you reply with a substantive answer.

[Indulto]

Indulto:

I do not know how to solve hate, by diplomacy. Therfore, I have no immediate solution.

I have reservations about the new rhetoric coming from the previous anti-war democrats ackknowleding the terrorist attacks on Israel as a security threat to the U.S. Indulto, what do you think a country should do if there security is threatened? Should it protect itself?

I beleive the previous anti-war democratics are ready to plunge the U.S. in harms way for Israel,( to protect U.S. security interests) contrary to their dovish stance on Iraq. Understand Israel is an ally, but it is a sovereign foreign country and the Hezbollah's terrorist attack on Israel was not a threat to the security intesrests of the U.S.

Regretablly, two soldiers were kidnapped and eight were murdered, but this event alone was not a threat to U.S. security. Israel's response has definitely put the U.S. security interest in danger.

These previous anti-war democrats should have immediately condemned Israel's actions for the same reasons democrats condemned U.S. actions in the Middle East. Instead they bowed to the mighty campaign dolar.

That is the truth. I have not praised the rupublicans or the current administration. All I said is that the have been consistent and I expected their reaction to the attack on Isreal.

In my opinion the damage is already done. The Arab world sees complete non-partisan support for Israel, while the Arab world sees partisan support for U.S. actions in the Middle East. What kind of message does that send to the Arab world ? A dangerous and wreckless message all courtesy of the campaign money grubbing democratic party.Quintessential guru, eh?

You've finally exposed your deception for all to see. I don't know yet whether you're just a political hack who is trying to undo the damage done by Tom DeLay to the Republican party, or a pro-Muslim who is trying to weaken American support for Israel, but it's clear to me that the only use you have for truth is to bend it.

As I see it, the Democrats are not "Doves." They supported our action in Afghanistan as did most of the world community. Most Democrats -- like some Republicans finally do now -- questioned the wisdom of this administration's invasion of Iraq. That makes them "anti-Iraq war," not "anti-war."

Your misuse of the English language under pressure suggests that you might not be all you would have us believe. I hope Sec has more information about who he's dealing with than I do.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

The Guru refers to horse racing not politics. Talk about spin and insults, "political Hack". I guess you are right I am being financed by the Republican National Committee to infiltrate the PA off topic board.

I beg your pardon, I may have typos, but my use of language is not misused as you say. Misuse of language is the area of expertise of the left political camp.

I will take your attack on me as a compliment, because as some wise people have said the truth hurts.

[46zilzal]

come on everyone thinks another person MIS-USES language when the reader has a differing point of view. It is not specific to a political persuasion.

[Show Me the Wire]

More chronic by a certain previously mentioned segment. As well the as the personal attack strategy.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Show Me The Wire(1)
Indulto:

The Guru refers to horse racing not politics. Talk about spin and insults, "political Hack". I guess you are right I am being financed by the Republican National Committee to infiltrate the PA off topic board.

I beg your pardon, I may have typos, but my use of language is not misused as you say. Misuse of language is the area of expertise of the left political camp.

I will take your attack on me as a compliment, because as some wise people have said the truth hurts.
Originally posted by 46zilzal
come on everyone thinks another person MIS-USES language when the reader has a differing point of view. It is not specific to a political persuasion.
Originally posted by Show Me The Wire(2)
More chronic by a certain previously mentioned segment. As well the as the personal attack strategy.SMTW,
I’ll leave it to other readers to determine who’s spinning what. The insults started with “campaign money grubbing democratic party,” and I do take it personally when genuine anti-war sentiment is perverted by manipulative types. Keep responding though. You lose credibility with each successive post.

[Suff]

Suff:

How do you feel about democratic support and approval (through their strategists and elected office holders) to Israel's terrorist activities towards Lebanon.

I agree it is disgusting seeing young Israeli chidren writnig messages on bombs dropped on innocent Lebanese children through error or as collateral damage..

I believe if we in the U.S. allowed such behavior we would be rightfully villified by the country's mainstream press and our anti-war politicians. Instead, because it is Israel we are being fed the idea this repulsive behavior as being apprpriate and as some cute warm feel good story about the killing of innocents.

I have a completely different view. I don't feel the United States Security is under any real threat from AL qaeda, hezbollah.

Further I have asked many PA posters exactly how they envision Osama Bin Laden Taking over the United States, throwing out our constitution, and running the country?

The truth is.....all these groups pose no threat to our country. They certainly pose a threat to our individual lives. Even a Nuclear Bomb in NY doesn't mean the end of the USA....and what it stands for. What it is.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

My descriptive adjectives about the democratic party is a personal insult? Wow. :lol:

Tell me how the democratic anti-war sentiment is being perverted as you claim by manipulative types (meaning me).

Just more general spouting off without substance. What does that above-referenced statement even mean?

BTW the RNC also pays me to say I disagree with Israel's response. Indulto, I think you have a difficult time dealing with someone that forms their own opinions not based on the rhetoric of any specific party.

Yes, I am upset by my perceived duplicity of the democratic leadership. I believe Pallozzi, Dean, Kerry, etc. care more about campagn funds and political power more than the best intersts of the entire country and their constiuents. Did I make a personal insult again?

I bet my credibility would rise with you if I opined that the republican leadership is more interested in gaining oil than fighting terrorism. Hmmmm, that opinion has been expressed here and I did not see any of your posts accusing the poster of insulting the republican party.

Double standard here on PA off topic? Sort of like the warm fuzzy story about Israeli children writng love notes on bombs destined to destroy in Lebanon versus the horible stories portrayed in the media resulting from American bombs in Iraq. Those israeli shells must not have caused any pain, suffering, intense fear, or death to innocent civilians.

[Show Me the Wire]

I have a completely different view.
The truth is.....all these groups pose no threat to our country.
.....................

They certainly pose a threat to our individual lives. Even a Nuclear Bomb in NY doesn't mean the end of the USA....and what it stands for. What it is.


you're right Suff you have a unique view if you feel losing our individual lives is not a threat to the security interests of the U.S. Let me remind you, at risk of being maligned as a manipulator, the U.S. Constitution specifically imposes the requirement of protecting its citizens from foreign powers.

[PlanB]

If I can jump in here, I AGREE with Suff. If you carry the threats to the
logical extreme, they could hurt us, but not destroy us. But, the line is
thin because turmoil is unpredictable. Our economy is fragile from physical
assault. There are think tanks that have worked out scenarios in detail that
show our economy crippled. So, let's avoid over confidence.

[Secretariat]

SMTW,

As I said before, both parties have an agenda. I beleive you also have an agenda here to paint those democrats against the Iraqi War as somehow being hypocritical in the Israeli situation. Your purpose is partisan.

First, the Iraq War.

Those who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq (such as Dean) are not necessarily against terorrism. This goes back to the original debate of whether Iraq should have been included in the so-called War on Terrorism. You’ve made leaps here about terrorism and co-joined Iraq as a part of that. Much as the adminstration falsely attempted to spin Hussein with 911. If anything the US invasion of Iraq has fomented terrorism across the Mid-East.
Also multiple democrats have spoken out in different ways on this from Madeline Albright, to Joe Liberman to Hilary Clinton. You've isolated only a few to espouse your already pre-determined conclusion. That's Ok, but it is certainly now a non-partisan analysis.

Second, “The republican agenda regarding the war on terror has been consistent, saying terrorist organizations and nations that fund, support, arm, etc. terrorist organiztions are threats to the security interests of the U.S.”

- Yet, you say nothing about India’s claim that Pakistan was behind the bombings there. In fact GW supports the Pakistan regime with weaponry despite an ally claiming that a state is sponsring terorism upon their nation. I find that far from "consistent".

[Show Me the Wire]

to quote

"one man's terrorist is another's hero"

[Suff]

[QUOTE]you're right Suff you have a unique view if you feel losing our individual lives is not a threat to the security interests of the U.S

How so? Unique perhaps. But not unreasonable.

I see no imminent danger from any Terrorist group to the toppling of our nation. As a matter of fact, if such a threat exists, I believe it comes from the reaction of the current leaders. Because, again, IMHO, the destruction of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the weakening of the check & balance system provided by the three branch's, is the DEATH of AMERICA.

Random deaths, innocent death, wether in small or large numbers are not an automatic end to America. The dismantling of our Constitution is the DEATH of AMERICA. We simply become a patch of dirt, with people on it.

I quote Ben Franklin often. I'm sure some are sick of it. I don't care. It's true.

Any man that would give up an ounce of freedom , for an ounce of protection, deserves neither.
Ben Franklin 1776




. Let me remind you, at risk of being maligned as a manipulator, the U.S. Constitution specifically imposes the requirement of protecting its citizens from foreign powers


On Inauguration day, the only Job requirement the President must annunciate is his obligation to the constitution.

He must repeat a phrase that is Contained in Article II, section 8.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I , George Bush do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



IMHO, that is Job one... Not protecting a few thousand or even a million people. A million lives? That my friend, just might be the true cost of freedom... Real freedom, freedom that the founders talked about... involves more than breathing air in and out....and staying alive.

I suggest George Bush worry about my 4th amendment rights, and I'll worry about me breathing in and out.

[Show Me the Wire]

Suff;

I agree with you about the Constitution. I too am concerned about the erosion of freedoms in this country. I am on the same page as you about personal liberty.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

Seriously, your post is a fine example of spin, trying to pull in a unrelated subject with similiar words.

The republican policies I am talking about refer to the terrorist groups focused on doing violence and harm to U.S. citizens and or property. This policy has been the agenda from the beginning and you know it.

[46zilzal]

[color=black]SMTW,
I’ll leave it to other readers to determine who’s spinning what. The insults started with “campaign money grubbing democratic party,” and I do take it personally when genuine anti-war sentiment is perverted by manipulative types. Keep responding though. You lose credibility with each successive post.
not spinning a thing

[Secretariat]

Sec:

Seriously, your post is a fine example of spin, trying to pull in a unrelated subject with similiar words.

The republican policies I am talking about refer to the terrorist groups focused on doing violence and harm to U.S. citizens and or property. This policy has been the agenda from the beginning and you know it.

Now that is spin.

You raised the question of terrorism, and other countries sponsoring them (which is part of the Republican doctrine). Yet, the Bush administration has done nothing about its relationship with Pakistan despite India's complaints about Pakistan. I still assert your purpose is to make a partisan issue out of this.

You've tied the invasion of Iraq into this mix whereas Iraq had launched no violence on US citizenry. You've tied Iraq into the War on Terrorism when most democrats have complaiend that iraq was a diversion on the War on Terorrism in Afghanistan agaisnt the Taliban and Bin Laden.

Now you're trying to create partisan rift against Democrats who are agreeing with Republicans in defending Israel's right to defend itself.

I've stated my opinion which is Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. The question I raised was it an overreaction on Lebanon based on the kidnapping of three soldiers. This is a horrific action, but this has been a commonplance occurrence for decades, and ususally results in ransoming jailed Palestinans for the soldiers. The question is why now? I don't agree with ransoming for different soldiers, but it is a common practice of warfare for ages previous to the 20th century.

My issue is primarily not this partisan thing, but are we able to act first in the US's best interests when Congress is bought by the 2nd largest PAC in the US which has a vested interest in Israel at all costs. Those issues are of interest to me. Not this silly partisan spin you're playing.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by Show Me The Wire
My descriptive adjectives about the democratic party is a personal insult? Wow. SMTF,
Fortunately, reality is not YOUR perception. Anti-war sentiment is not confined to Democrats and support for Israel is not confined to Republicans. Your “descriptive adjectives” were both offensive and inaccurate as broadly applied to an entire group of individuals. While that particular phrase did not insult me, personally, it served notice that insults were part of your repertoire.Tell me how the democratic anti-war sentiment is being perverted as you claim by manipulative types (meaning me).

Just more general spouting off without substance. What does that above-referenced statement even mean?Genuine anti-war sentiment is not selective regarding location and participants in its rejection of the waste and ruination of human lives. It is the exclusive property of true conscientious objectors and those peace activists who have been killed or taken hostage trying to make the world a better place. They are the reason people like Lush Windbag offend me at a personal level.

There is no such thing as “democratic anti-war sentiment.” That term is a partisan perversion of true courage of conviction. Labeling those opponents of the Viet Nam War OR the Invasion of Iraq who DON’T oppose Israel’s military action in Lebanon, as anti-war hypocrites is similarly perverse.I bet my credibility would rise with you if I opined that the republican leadership is more interested in gaining oil than fighting terrorism. Hmmmm, that opinion has been expressed here and I did not see any of your posts accusing the poster of insulting the republican party.Unlike PA, I don’t read every thread. I guess you were just lucky. ;)

Your credibility isn’t likely to rise with me, but you at least stopped it’s free-fall when you agreed with Suff about the Constitution.

[Show Me the Wire]

"Labeling those opponents of the Viet Nam War"

When do I do that? Do you mean Kerry the man who admitted to shooting civilians in the back? Talk about spin.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

My primary issue is the security of my country. Not all the troubles in the world. I showed my disdain for the republicans in Congress who fail to address border security.

I call that honesty, not spin. If you do not like my opinions you are free to ignore them.

I am not involving myself in a pissing contest with Indulto or you about partisan politics. I assess the issues and each party on their own merits or lack thereof. I am a true independent.

[Indulto]

Sec:

My primary issue is the security of my country. Not all the troubles in the world. I showed my disdain for the republicans in Congress who fail to address border security.

I call that honesty, not spin. If you do not like my opinions you are free to ignore them.

I am not involving myself in a pissing contest with Indulto or you about partisan politics. I assess the issues and each party on their own merits or lack thereof. I am a true independent.Thank goodness. Pissing contests aren't my favorite implementation of things warm and wet.:lol:

[Tom]

...... For the record, I think if he loses the Dem primary, he should not run as an independent. That is disingenuous to sat the least. He has chosen to be a Dem and if he loses the Dem primary, than he should be a man and step aside.

I disagree here, ls. I think he runs to serve his country, not his party. I think he is a genuinely dedicated public servant, who happens to disagree with me 99% of the time. I would rather have his 10% that I agree with in there than most of the plugs moveon.org would sponsor. I think he has a very good shot to win if he runs as an independent, and judging but some of the republican arses in there now, I would suggest he run as a republican - his 10% is far more than we are getting from many of them now!
This government needs real public servants,not politcal hacks, and Joe L is one. Partys aside, I am proud to have him representing me on the hill. I could live with 48 more like him in the Senate. ;)

[Ponyplayr]

Thank goodness. Pissing contests aren't my favorite implementation of things warm and wet.:lol:
:D :lol: :D

[Secretariat]

I disagree here, ls. I think he runs to serve his country, not his party. I think he is a genuinely dedicated public servant, who happens to disagree with me 99% of the time. I would rather have his 10% that I agree with in there than most of the plugs moveon.org would sponsor. I think he has a very good shot to win if he runs as an independent, and judging but some of the republican arses in there now, I would suggest he run as a republican - his 10% is far more than we are getting from many of them now!
This government needs real public servants,not politcal hacks, and Joe L is one. Partys aside, I am proud to have him representing me on the hill. I could live with 48 more like him in the Senate. ;)

Something doesn't add up here. :D

[Tom]

I respect honest people even when they disagree wtih me.
You will notice, however, I said 48 more like him - keeps it 51-49! ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

Speaking of honest, Bob Bickel, a democratic strategists, whom hates GWB said today in an interview the Israeli Lebanese conflict is a transparent attempt by GWB to eradicate Hazbollah.


I can see the democratic leadership statements now something like Yes, I believed Hezbollah's attack on Israeli soldiers was a threat to the security interest of the U.S., only because I believed the lies told by President Bush.

[Show Me the Wire]

Indulto:

Out of graciousness I let that gapping opening pass by you made with your warm and wet line.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

After considering your comments about my seeming agenda against the previously anti- Iraq war democratic party leadership, I must make amends. you correctly pointed out the democrats and the republicans both seek campaign financing. It seems the democratic party is representing what its supporters desire.

The democratic supporters do not support the Iraqi war and the democratic leadership took the stance supported by its contributors. The democratic leadership justified the anti-war stance in several ways, such as, unilateral action should not be taken, loss of innocent civilian life, and loss of American life's because Iraq, all though a supporter of terrorist groups was not an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.

In this light it is the supporters the believe that unilateral action, even though condemned by most of the world, loss of innocent civilian life, and possible loss of American life's is acceptable because the wrongful killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers is an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. Since the democrats financial supporters deem this conflict as an acceptable reason to kill the democratic party to remain financially viable in the political arena must adopt its supporters policies.

Now, I believe we are on the same page. My question is how do the supporters justify an attack against Israeli military personnel as an imminent threat to U.S. security? Israel has suffered many attacks conducted by terrorist on Israeli soil through homicide bombers. Under this thinking homicide bombings should be a threat to U.S. security.

No matter how I try to justify the charge regarding imminent threats to the U.S. I can not. No how is a limited attack on Israeli military personnel any more of a threat to U.S. security than a homicide bomber is killing innocent Israeli citizens.

Regardless of the democratic party's supporters change of heart, I can not see any good faith argument that the security interests of the U.S. were threatened prior to Israel's unilateral action escalating the violence.

[Secretariat]

Now, I believe we are on the same page. My question is how do the supporters justify an attack against Israeli military personnel as an imminent threat to U.S. security?

Now we get to the crux of it. Defining an "imminent" threat to the US is where people see things differently. Even GW was careful to define Iraq as a "grave" threat, and claimed he never said imminent. Imminent to my way of thinking means "soon", and without provocation, and massive in scope to US soil. The problem one has to ask is - should Israel be treated as US soil or as a soverign nation. What does Israel make? Why do we give them more foreign aid per person than any other country? We all know why. Therefore, is an attack on Israel considered an imminent threat to the US? Well, it is if you consider that Israel is essentially a part of the US, but it fails the scope of the attack IMO based on this kidnapping incident. I disagree that this is an imminent threat due to the scope of the action. But politicians (both sides) receive massive contributions by AIPAC and personal contributors to make sure Israel is always supported in Congress s it has been here.

Israel has suffered many attacks conducted by terrorist on Israeli soil through homicide bombers. Under this thinking homicide bombings should be a threat to U.S. security.

Again, depends on your definition of threat to security. The Weathermen were a threat in the US, McVeigh was a threat. What is so odd, is this ransoming has gone on for decades. Why the reaction now? And why are non-Hezbollah targets being hit so much as reproted by the British Foreign Minister? Why has the US not even attempted to broker a cease fire to save innocent lives? I don't know the answers here. Seems very odd.


No matter how I try to justify the charge regarding imminent threats to the U.S. I can not. No how is a limited attack on Israeli military personnel any more of a threat to U.S. security than a homicide bomber is killing innocent Israeli citizens.

Regardless of the democratic party's supporters change of heart, I can not see any good faith argument that the security interests of the U.S. were threatened prior to Israel's unilateral action escalating the violence.

The US security interests were not threatened unless you buy into the argument that Israel is symbolically a part of the US, OR if you beleive that a strong allied military presence is necessary in the Mid-East to defend Europe? Honestly, I can see supporting Israel as an ally. I can see defending their right to defend themselves. Where I draw the line is when they dictate politically via financial contribution the WH and Congressional foreign policy.

I agreed with much of your post. It was the original nature of it that struck me as trying to make it into a partisan issue. When it comes to Israel somehow Congress becomes more bi-partisan than it is over anything. Ever wonder why that is?

[Tom]

"I agreed with much of your post. It was the original nature of it that struck me as trying to make it into a partisan issue. When it comes to Israel somehow Congress becomes more bi-partisan than it is over anything. Ever wonder why that is?"

Because they are area our ally, and they have a right to thier security from the hoards of heathens at their doors. Arabs/muslems whatever you call them are and have been our enemy. They were allies of the nazis and they have a wacked out religion that focuses on our destruction.

[Secretariat]

"I agreed with much of your post. It was the original nature of it that struck me as trying to make it into a partisan issue. When it comes to Israel somehow Congress becomes more bi-partisan than it is over anything. Ever wonder why that is?"

Because they are area our ally, and they have a right to thier security from the hoards of heathens at their doors. Arabs/muslems whatever you call them are and have been our enemy. They were allies of the nazis and they have a wacked out religion that focuses on our destruction.

Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally, Jordan is an ally, Egypt is an ally, Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the war on terror. Apparently, not all Arabs/muslems are our enemy. We have a lot of allies, but none of them receives the kind of foreign aid Israel does, the weaponry Israel gets, or the bi-partisan support Israel does in Congress. so I'll ask again. Ever wonder why that is?

[JPinMaryland]

Arabs/muslems whatever you call them are and have been our enemy. They were allies of the nazis and they have a wacked out religion that focuses on our destruction.

There's like 1.2 billion moslems world wide and I guarantee you if every one of them was a Nazi ally in WWII we'd probably not have won that war.

FOr instance, many philipinos fought alongside US troops in the Philip.Is. I guess a good many of them were moslems.

Same for indians fighting in Burma and in europe. Many moslems but not a majority.

Really might be more profitable to try to research some of this stuff before making blanket generalizations re: who fought whom in WW II.

[Tom]

Israel is a REAL ally. We were instrumental in Israel getting established in 1947, and were one of the first nations to recognize them.
We were the ones who found the nazi death camps in WWII, so I guess maybe we had a little insights into what persecution was all about. Jews had been scattered all over the globe by tyrany, and we were in the business of ending tyany.
It is not arab allies who need aid - Israel is the one fighting for survival in world of animals. Why do you thinkg we don't try to get a cease fire? We owe Israel. They were extremely patient with attacks on them during both the Gulf War and Iraq war, not retaliating, trusting us that it was best for us. Now, this is best for them. This is the war on terror. And Israel is obviously up to it. We need to support them all the way here. All the way.
Just think wahat our FULL miliatary might, not a restrained, humanitarian war, on Iran would look like. Just imagine what we could do if we really wanted to.
I can't think a better ally in this world than Israel, save for Britain. Both startegically, and because they deserve it.

[Tom]

There's like 1.2 billion moslems world wide and I guarantee you if every one of them was a Nazi ally in WWII we'd probably not have won that war.

FOr instance, many philipinos fought alongside US troops in the Philip.Is. I guess a good many of them were moslems.

Same for indians fighting in Burma and in europe. Many moslems but not a majority.

Really might be more profitable to try to research some of this stuff before making blanket generalizations re: who fought whom in WW II.

I'm talking about the middle east. Many there were predominatly nazi allies. I don't think Israel is having any problems with philipinos or Indians.
And I'm not sure there were that many nazis in the Phillipenes back then either.

[Light]

When it comes to Israel somehow Congress becomes more bi-partisan than it is over anything. Ever wonder why that is?"


I think Pat Buchanan put it best when he called Congress "Israeli occupied Territory"

[Tom]

No, it's just that we are the right side of the middle east problems, that's all.

[JPinMaryland]

I'm talking about the middle east. Many there were predominatly nazi allies. I don't think Israel is having any problems with philipinos or Indians...

You dont seem to know much about the middle east during WW II.

[Tom]

Enlighten me.
You deny arab connections to nazis?

[JPinMaryland]

no, you implied that all arabs were allies of Nazis in your earlier post.

[Tom]

I posted:
.....and they have a right to thier security from the hoards of heathens at their doors. Arabs/muslems whatever you call them.......

Read more carfeully - context is the heathens at their doors. This is not the Phillipenes.

But for the records, the rest of the 1.2 bullion, while not all nazi allies, do seem to have a rather large population of terrorists and wack jobs amoungst them, no? Bali ring a bell?

[Secretariat]

The Phillipines? Tom, the Phillipines were loaded with Japanese in WW II who were allies of the Nazi's in WW 2. They are one of our biggest allies now.

[Show Me the Wire]

Probably, because of Little Boy and Fat Man.

[Tom]

The Phillipines? Tom, the Phillipines were loaded with Japanese in WW II who were allies of the Nazi's in WW 2. They are one of our biggest allies now.

Well, then JP is wrong.
Do either of you guy actually read posts?
I was talking about the MIDDLE EAST. PERIOD.
Israel is not facing a direct threat from the Pacific Ocean.

[JPinMaryland]

"I posted:
.....and they have a right to thier security from the hoards of heathens at their doors. Arabs/muslems whatever you call them......."

Errrh, wrong quote Tom. This is what I am responding to:


"Arabs/muslems whatever you call them are and have been our enemy. They were allies of the nazis and they have a wacked out religion that focuses on our destruction....

As you yourself have said you were not referring to world wide muslims, but simply those in close proximity to Israel.

Are you with me so far? Okay then, why dont you try googling: WW II + Transjordan; WW II + Iraq; WW II + Egypt and see what you find.

I think you will find at least of these powers were allied to Allies, Transjordan, Egypt and Iraq. Syria was Vichy which sort of makes them Nazis in name, not sure what contribution they really did.

Okay?

[JPinMaryland]

It is not arab allies who need aid - Israel is the one fighting for survival in world of animals. Why do you thinkg we don't try to get a cease fire? We owe Israel..


AP. 7.24.06. Dateline: Beirut, LEBANON. Sec. Rice proposes cease fire with conditions...

Hey another good call there. Tom! :jump:

[Tom]

I Googles this:

muslim nazi connection

And the cease fire with conditions - yeah, condition Lebanon will not agree to, and it still give Israel time to finish the job.

And look how long it too Condi to go over there.

I stand by my post.
Both of them.

[JPinMaryland]

It took her about 24 hours from your last post on the subject.

[Tom]

You go right ahead an believe what you want to belive.
They have been calling for her to go since last weekend.
I had no idea she was waitnig to see what I thought about it!

But the Isaelis keep moving on, don't they?

[JPinMaryland]

Can you explain what you're pt. was when you said "why do you think we dont want a cease fire.?"

[Snag]

I had no idea she was waitnig to see what I thought about it!



Tom, we always wait to hear what you think!! Condi is just the latest on a long list. :D :D

[Tom]

Can you explain what you're pt. was when you said "why do you think we dont want a cease fire.?"

Israel is taking care of terroritsts, and that is a good thing.
Also, in the long term it may give us a postion to deal more effectively with Syria and Iran.

Why on earth would WE care about stopping what Israel is doing?

[JPinMaryland]

It is not at all certain that Israel will succeed in getting Hezbollah out of there. I.D.F. occupied Lebanon for 20 years and apparently were unable to root them out.

We probably need a cease fire in order to keep the region stabilized and probably cannot commit much more military forces. That plus Israel is not winning many friends with the current bombardment campaign, even on this board for example, there is a significant backlash.

The quickest way to end it is probably prisoner exchanges, if not and the UN has to send in a military force this is going to take some doing if they can do it all. Christine Amanpour was speculating that they may use Turkish forces in the region! Which likely means the Kurds will be sold out once again. I dont see the Turks but who is left? Australia?