Category: News and Views
Subject: Haaretz: IDF commander calls israeli deed "Insane and Monstrous"
"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster
bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of
cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.
IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
By Meron Rappaport
"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster
bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of
cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.
Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF
fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.
In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used
phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law.
According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired
in the final 10 days of the war.
Advertisement
The rocket unit commander stated that Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
platforms were heavily used in spite of the fact that they were known to be
highly inaccurate.
MLRS is a track or tire carried mobile rocket launching platform, capable of
firing a very high volume of mostly unguided munitions. The basic rocket
fired by the platform is unguided and imprecise, with a range of about 32
kilometers. The rockets are designed to burst into sub-munitions at a planned
altitude in order to blanket enemy army and personnel on the ground with smaller
explosive rounds.
The use of such weaponry is controversial mainly due to its inaccuracy and
ability to wreak great havoc against indeterminate targets over large areas of
territory, with a margin of error of as much as 1,200 meters from the
intended target to the area hit.
The cluster rounds which don't detonate on impact, believed by the United
Nations to be around 40% of those fired by the IDF in Lebanon, remain on the
ground as unexploded munitions, effectively littering the landscape with
thousands of land mines which will continue to claim victims long after the war has
ended.
Because of their high level of failure to detonate, it is believed that
there are around 500,000 unexploded munitions on the ground in Lebanon. To date
12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by these mines since the end of the war.
According to the commander, in order to compensate for the inaccuracy of the
rockets and the inability to strike individual targets precisely, units
would "flood" the battlefield with munitions, accounting for the littered and
explosive landscape of post-war Lebanon.
When his reserve duty came to a close, the commander in question sent a
letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz outlining the use of cluster munitions, a
letter which has remained unanswered.
'Excessive injury and unnecessary suffering'
It has come to light that IDF soldiers fired phosphorous rounds in order to
cause fires in Lebanon. An artillery commander has admitted to seeing trucks
loaded with phosphorous rounds on their way to artillery crews in the north
of Israel.
A direct hit from a phosphorous shell typically causes severe burns and a
slow, painful death.
International law forbids the use of weapons that cause "excessive injury
and unnecessary suffering", and many experts are of the opinion that
phosphorous rounds fall directly in that category.
The International Red Cross has determined that international law forbids
the use of phosphorous and other types of flammable rounds against personnel,
both civilian and military.
IDF: No violation of international law
In response, the IDF Spokesman's Office stated that "International law does
not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs. The
convention on conventional weaponry does not declare a prohibition on [phosphorous
weapons], rather, on principles regulating the use of such weapons.
"For understandable operational reasons, the IDF does not respond to
[accounts of] details of weaponry in its possession.
"The IDF makes use only of methods and weaponry which are permissible under
international law. Artillery fire in general, including MLRS fire, were used
in response solely to firing on the state of Israel."
The Defense Minister's office said it had not received messages regarding
cluster bomb fire.
Link to article:
_http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html _
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html)
Well, all goodness, HappyMan,
There's no such thing as a moral war, and rarely a justified war.
Perhaps if some of those folks learned to get along with their neighbors, their neighbors would get along with them.
Bob
What were the options? No one is right here, but if hesbala is hiding in sivilian populations how is Israel supposed to get them to stop shooting rockets into there own citys? Remember in World War II we killed countless German civilians to end the war more quickly, but people don't complain about that. I'm not saying I agree with the use of cluster bombs on civilian populations, but I can see both sides of the issue. Unfortionately neither side is right.
These excerpts from Howard Zinn, address Jared & Bob's comments.
Alternet, September 9, 2006`
There is something important to be learned from the recent experience of the
United States and Israel in the Middle East: that massive military attacks,
inevitably indiscriminate, are not only morally reprehensible, but useless in
achieving the stated aims of those who carry them out.
The United States, in three years of war, which began with shock-and- awe
bombardment and goes on with day-to-day violence and chaos, has been an utter
failure in its claimed objective of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq.
The Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon has not brought security to
Israel; indeed it has increased the number of its enemies, whether in Hezbollah or
Hamas or among Arabs who belong to neither of those groups.
The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the
futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite
their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small,
weak nations -- the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan -- and were forced to withdraw.
Even the "victories" of great military powers turn out to be elusive.
Presumably, after attacking and invading Afghanistan, the president was able to
declare that the Taliban were defeated. But more than four years later,
Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country.
The two most powerful nations after World War II, the United States and the
Soviet Union, with all their military might, have not been able to control
events in countries that they considered to be in their sphere of influence --
the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the United States in Latin America.
Beyond the futility of armed force, and ultimately more important, is the
fact that war in our time inevitably results in the indiscriminate killing of
large numbers of people. To put it more bluntly, war is terrorism. That is why
a "war on terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. Wars waged by nations,
whether by the United States or Israel, are a hundred times more deadly for
innocent people than the attacks by terrorists, vicious as they are.
The repeated excuse, given by both Pentagon spokespersons and Israeli
officials, for dropping bombs where ordinary people live is that terrorists hide
among civilians. Therefore the killing of innocent people (in Iraq, in Lebanon)
is called accidental, whereas the deaths caused by terrorists (on 9/11, by
Hezbollah rockets) are deliberate.
This is a false distinction, quickly refuted with a bit of thought. If a
bomb is deliberately dropped on a house or a vehicle on the grounds that a
"suspected terrorist" is inside (note the frequent use of the word suspected as
evidence of the uncertainty surrounding targets), the resulting deaths of women
and children may not be intentional. But neither are they accidental. The
proper description is "inevitable."
So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a
deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of
innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater
than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war
as a solution for terrorism.
For instance, more than a million civilians in Vietnam were killed by US
bombs, presumably by "accident." Add up all the terrorist attacks throughout the
world in the 20th century and they do not equal that awful toll.
If reacting to terrorist attacks by war is inevitably immoral, then we must
look for ways other than war to end terrorism, including the terrorism of
war. And if military retaliation for terrorism is not only immoral but futile,
then political leaders, however cold-blooded their calculations, may have to
reconsider their policies.
Disgusting and completely inhuman the sooner Israel is bought to book the better..unexploded Israeli bombs are still causing death on a daily basis,the casualties are mostly children, due to their curiosity ..I ask both sides, what kind of a world have you created for your children!
Well posted happy man. I basically agree. And, Lebanon only captured/killed soldiers, not civilians, the civilian massacre was all Israel I'm afraid. Granted I don't think the initial attack/kidnap was justified and if you play into such attacks and agree to exchange prisoners you open yourself to further attacks. That being said, lots of those prisoners are held in Israeli prisons as a reseult of kidnapping too and/or tried by military courts with no rights for the defendant. I don't see how killing of soldiers can ever equate to dropping bombs on innocent civilians and I really like the analysis of "war on terror" and, seriously, look where all those military tactics have brought us, any closer to defeating terrorism .. absolutely not.
I hear a lot of accusations here, (especially against Israel and the United States), but, where's the solutions.
Perhaps the United States and Israel should just declare a Jihad on all Moslems?
Perhaps we should take all the right-winged sickos (and there's plenty of them) and train them in commando tactics and turn them lose in the Middle East? I'm sure some of them would be willing to explode bombs attached to their body among civilians. Maybe we could even train them to kill athletes during the next olympics.
Sure it feels good when you condemn your enemy, but it doesn't resolve anything.
Where's the solutions Wildebrew, Goblin and Happyman?
Bob
BlBobby,
I think perhaps what people need to consider when looking at any of these major global conflicts, whether you look at individual examples such is what is happening around Israel right now, or what has happened in northern Ireland in the passed, or indeed if you simply lump everything together and call it a war on terror the solution is actually painfully simple. What you need is meaningful dialogue. Of course I absolutely accept that that is far far easier said than done however that doesn't make the statement any less true because of that fact.
I think that what many people find hard to swallow is that there isn't a quick fix to any of these problems. It was horribly inevitable that after September the 11th, 2001, the western country's were going to lash out with military action. If anybody in power had actually stopped to think for even a nannow second they'd have realized that this was entirely the reaction that was hoped for by Al Qaeda. As has already been pointed out by other posters after all. Since 2001 and every conflict that has been fort in the so called, "war on terror", what realistically can we claimed to have achieved? Pretty much nothing is what. Al Qaeda is still around. The Taliban are still around.
I think you see what is often not realized is that the 9-11 attacks weren't the culmination of a well thought out plan. They were in fact the start of one. Think about it for a second people. What was actually achieved that day? So the terrorists destroyed a few aircraft, killed a few thousand civilian people and knocked down a couple of big towers. Hardly actually a startling military success and my sincere apologies by the way if I sound at all callus in saying all of that but the point I'm trying to make is that it was all a means to an end. What these terrorists wanted to do was force an overbearing reaction because in doing that, in forcing the west into killing many thousands of Muslims, no matter how unintentionally, would then reinforce the messages that these people have been trying to get across for years. The western powers are a force for bad and here is your proof.
Unfortunately the west's reaction to the 9-11 attacks, far from making the World a safer place, has in fact only served to deepen the sense of hatred and mistrust with in the Muslim community that lead to these attacks in the first place.
These terrorists aren't stupid people. They're well aware that they can't win a gun on gun, rocket on rocket war with the US and it's allies, so instead they're attempting to psychologically under mine the sense of security in countries like the United states and Britain. So now be completely honest with yourselves here, do you feel as safe now as you did 6 years ago?
So you see. All the wars that have been fort since have only served to strengthen the terrorist hand not weaken it.
The smart way to tackle terrorism would be to systematically remove the reasons for hate not to reinforce that hate by waging war all round the World. Ultimately that will only serve to worsen the problem not resolve it.
Unfortunately though this is an approached that will never be adopted because it is far too slow. We've had it drilled into us from the outset that the only way to sort this whole mess out is to keep attacking every so called rogue nation until there are none left, until every single terrorist is dead and buried.
Of course it doesn't take a genius to point out that these are totally unrealistic and unachievable goals, which only makes it all the more sad that more people can't see it really. But who am I? *Shrugs*.
Dan/
Grace, in your elongated way, you've posed some questions for which I thought I had given an answer.
As far as solutions go, the UN or red cross are both useless and crooked whimps and offer nothing.
My solution, do as your enemy, but do it better is radical (kind of like chemo therapy), but it might work. ... But it might not.
Bob
I agree with the sentaments expressed by Dan, Wildebrew, and Goblin and I disagree with Bob
Bob, your points are flaud as I will briefly explain in the small space allowed. I will quote your points as you wrote them then insert my response. Here is what you said:
“I hear a lot of accusations here, (especially against Israel and the United States), but, where's the solutions.”
These are not accusations. The U.S. is already involved in two wars in the Middle East, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Israel has not yet signed a formal seasefire in its war against Lebanon, and is committing a slow genocide against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Ghaza. Remember that my original posting is taken from Haaretz, a mainstream Israeli newspaper, not a wakky left wing extremist publication.
“Perhaps the United States and Israel should just declare a Jihad on all Moslems?”
Isn’t this what the feeling which the United States and Israel are reinforcing among Arabs and Muslims? Can you count how many times did George Bush use the word crusade in his reference to the American wars in the Middle East? Doesn’t religion lie at the essence of Zionism and at the core of Israel’s historical and biblical claims to Christian and Muslim Palestinian land?
“Perhaps we should take all the right-winged sickos (and there's plenty of them) and train them in commando tactics and turn them lose in the Middle East?
I'm sure some of them would be willing to explode bombs attached to their body among civilians. Maybe we could even train them to kill athletes during
the next olympics.:
We have done much worse than that. It will be sad if you have not heard about the cases of rape committed by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, or cases of mass killings and about the thousands of torture of Iraqi prisoners by our psychos in Abu Grayb and other prison facilities. If we let loose our right wing people to declare jihad in the middle east they won’t cause as much damage as employing our most advanced and sophisticated military technology -- B52’s, F16’s, f18’s, cruise missiles and all sorts of laser-guided and what so called smart bombs, -- we have used all these weapons and more. Suffice to say that over 250 thousand Iraqis have been killed or wounded since we invaded this country three and a half years ago. Not even
In their wildest dreams did the Muslim fundamentalists and Jihadis imagine to establish a base of operation for themselves in Iraq before the American invasion. Thanks to our wise leadership, we opened Iraq up for all sorts of Jihadis and al-qaeda groups. Now Iraq is most valued training ground for al-Qaeda.
“Where's the solutions Wildebrew, Goblin and Happyman?”
I speak for myself and I believe that the solution is in pursuing different policies than bullying people around the world. In the Middle East we should seek to facilitate the negociation of just and lasting peace agreements between the Palestinians, Arab States and Israel. What we have been doing in the past is blindly adopting Israeli positions whether they are just or not. Unfortunately, Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by AIPAC and a number of pro-Israel Christian Zionist organizations and groups. Under the influence of such lobbies the U.S. is pursuing foreign policy harmful to both the American and the Israeli national interest. Here I will post the link to the relevant study of Professors’ Steve Walt and Norman Merschheimer from Harvard University and University of Chicago.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Israel must do the following: Release Lebanese and Palestinian political prisoners, Withdraw from Syrian and Lebanese occupied land. Withdraw from the West bank And Ghaza to allow the Palestinians to realize their right of self-determination, political independence and freedom, and allow the Palestinian refugees their right of repatriation.
This will guarantee peace and security for everybody.
Unfortionately the idea of open lines of comminication and wonderful lets all hold hands and sit around a camp fire idea will never work out. If we had tried to reason with Hitler, where would we be today? We tried to reason with Stolin and look where it got us, no where. As far as has this war been helpful to the US it very well may have been. I'm not willing to say we've gained nothing from this war because I can't see all the classifyed reports. We may have stopped hundreds of planned terrorist attacks, we may have stopped none unfortionately we will never no. I'll give you that it doesn't appear like this war has been of any use but you don't know that for sure.
Happyman, thanks for your post. I will admit that I may be outgunned here, but will try to formulate a response later on.
I simply wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for posting this topic. I love a good political discussion, and this is shaping up to be one of the best I've seen here.
Laters (as they say).
Bob
Bob.
Let me first say that I am neither an enemy of Israel nor the U.S. In fact, I wish for both countries to live in peace and in the absence of fear of senseless and brutal attacks, most of the time aimed against people who had absolutely nothing to do with the war in the first place.
The jews suffered needlessly and cruely not just during World War II but also at numerous times throughout history before that. I have a few Jewish friends (some even strongly oppose what's going on in the middle east) and it appears that the majority of Americans are beginning to feel the same way about their country (see results in recent primaries, we will fully get to see how they feel in November's ellections).
My rising irritation with the situation has come from Bush's relentless speeches and using the phrase "war on terror" more often than any other phhrase in his vocabulary in the recent years, and it appears that that magical phrase should justify absolutely anything, billions of dollars spent in Iraq, freezing of aide to the Palestinian peoples, shipments of bombs to Israel, secret interegation and torture prisons around the world, tapping of all communications (wonder how they found interpreters to translate my conversations with my family, I'd be happy to translate for them), surveillance of international bank accounts, disregard for the Geneva conventions on human rights, rape and cold blooded murder committed by soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere (sadly inevitably I think, under war some people go crazy, but still this kind of behavior can't go unpunished and, most importantly of all, the killings of hundreds of thousands of muslims around the world.
Let me simply ask you this, if an Iraqi group killed your parents and raped your sister, how would you feel towards Iraq, would you be happy to nigotiate, would you be scared into submission or would you be filled with hatred and wanting revenge. Even if you were an exceptional man (and you may well be, I certainly have no proof to the contrary) and able to forgive I bet you the majority of people, simply are not that good hearted. Needless killing fuels hate, the Islamic fundamentalist use that hate in their campaining, recruiting, financing, the media uses pictures of the killings to sell newspapers, get viewerers and advertizing revenue. This is a battle for hearts and minds, much more so than for superiority.
And I just get the feeling that, by now, terrorism has been defined as any struggle of a nation that has inferior weapons to "fight back" against the more technologically advanced nation.
What, in essence, is the difference between kidnapping an Israeli soldier and putting a Palestinian person into an Israeli prison (captured in an overnight raid). I'd be happy to accept a sensible explanation of why this is different. They even humiliate and imprison the country's ministers. I disagree with the Palestinian viewpoint of not recognizing Israel's right to exist (Hamas' view point to be exact) but when you stifle millions of people and keep building new houses for your rich people on their land while they starve to death on the outside of the walls, what do you expect?
And whilst the military and spying campaign might have stopped 10 terrorist attacks it sure has convinced ten thousand other people to offer themselves as catalysts for the next planned attack.
If we were just and even handed in our approach to this situation we might even convince moderate Arab nations to join in with us. Hitler invaded other countries and we eventually stopped him. Israel invaded Lebanon, the U.S. invaded Iraq .. from that standpoint purely, who is committing the wrongs?
I like the U.S. I've been given education here, I have friends here, family and work and I like the people, even some of the tv shows, the food, the fact people get to live together and still hold their own views and culture. I want the world to adopt some of those things and for the U.S. to adopt those things in their t
...in their approach to other countries as well.
I am, in no way, implying the U.S. or Israel can be compared to the Nazi regime, I'm only responding to the point Jared raised.
And I, personally, have no issues with my conversations and bank transactions being monitorred. Such things should not be a problem unless one had something to hide, so I don't see the big deal over them, but I don't want that to be done secretly, I want to know what my rights are and I am entitled to under the U.S. constitution in fact.
So, I don't want anyone to construe this post as me fighting against the U.S., in fact I'm sure we all feel the same way (possibly apart from the terrorists), we want peace and prosperity, I just think we've been extremely counter productive on that end and haven't achieved anything, except to make matters worse for ourselves and the rest of the world. Remember, I'm from Europe. I go back home about twice a year. Around 9/11 I've never seen so much solidarity and goodwill an support for invading Afghanistan was overwhelming, in the last year or two Americans are almost dispised, it's not "cool" to live here any more, no one looks up to Americans .. the reputation and goodwill is completely gone, and, like I said, we're rapidly losing the battle for hearts and minds, bombs will never create goodwill, they will only intimidate, not create peace, intimidation leads to hatred and the cycle will repeat itself.
If there is, even remotely, a seemingly "just" reason for using bombs, yes, that's different, if Israel's land was invaded they should use whatever means they have and the rest of the civilized world will understand, a few nations wouldn't but at least they'd be isolated.
Anyways, enough commenting on this for now, I'd like to see your suggestions as to what approach will work, baring in mind we haven't exactly been all that successful thus far.
Let me start off by saying that I did not vote for Bush and I do not support him. Now that that is out of the way... I don't see another option outside of military action, however unfortunate that may be. The main reason being is that you can't have diplomacy with extremists and fundamentalists. They are not concerned with human rights or the democratic process. Also, The Palestinian and Isreailly issue is like the England and northern Ireland issue in that it's become a part of the culture you might say. When someone is brought up with such extreme ideas, to hate another group of people so much, it's hard to break that. No innocent people should die in a military conflict but it happens, and always will I'm sorry to say.
Blobby you are without a doubt the most ignorant eejit I have ever come across. There are faults on both sides and as long as america arms israel then with gross hypocrisy vilifies the arab world then there are no solutions. Bush is content for this war to continue as it justifies his irrational, hate filled far right supported crusade, against the arab world, which in turn feeds AL Qaeda..
GG. bush is the very worst type of extremist and the fault lies with him.
Re: Post #18 I concur with starting with the statement, "There are faults on both sides and as long as america arms israel then with gross hypocrisy vilifies the arab world then there are no solutions. Bush is content for this war to continue as it justifies his irrational, hate filled far right supported crusade, against the arab world, which in turn feeds AL Qaeda."
Okay, I wish to fulfill a promise I made in an earlier post (post fourteen above), namely, to try to formulate an argument in response to others here on this topic. When I made that promise, I had visions of formulating an undisputable argument designed to crush my oponents <grin>. Alas, "our greatness is only in our daydreams."
I do not have Wildebrew's gifts of refutation or language, nor Happyman's scholasticism. Nor do I have Grace's ability to Mother us all as we argue, nor Goblin's ability to sum up my feelings with a simple phrase or two.
My actual sentaments are more aligned with TheRomanBattleMask, Harp and Guitargod1. (I hope these folks will forgive and correct me if I misinterpret their position.)
My own feeling is, sure the use of cluster bombs was drastic, sure attacking Iraq and our attrocities there are wrong, but, what's a fella gonna do? It reminds me of Piggy's response in "Lord of the Flies". When the children had just voted that ghosts do exist, he says, something like: " "I didn't vote for no ghosts! ... Remember that, all of you!".
I didn't vote for bush, nor do I support him. But, let me state without any reservations, I do believe in Israel's right to exist. Unfortunately this sentament is not shared by many in the Moslem world. I do not support the killing of 2,000 innocent bystanders, as was done on 9-11.
This problem has existed since 1948 at the latest, not just on Bush's watch. And, I don't have a solution. Nor, obviously, does anyone else.
The sentaments I expressed in posts 3, 8 and 11, were offered tongue-in-cheek. I am a liberal, and a patriot. It is very seldom that I take up the banners of any republican, much less those of Mr. Bush.
Incidentally, I feel I must respond to Goblin's personal attack in the first line of post 18. Considering the source and previous posts on these boards, how come I'm not surprised nor swayed one little bit from my position. Such an erudite statement just... well... leaves me speechless.
Bob
...HappyMan, I realize this is "off topic," and only to say to BlBobby, "Why must you retort to name calling of this myself..?? This term, 'Mother' is not to my personal appeal." *"Dig"*!
And while this is straying a little bit, I was going between CNN and BBC news today and they were talking about what the pope said when he quoted a 14th century speech regarding Moslems using violance/force to convert others. I kept hearing the phrase "...and this has caused outrage and may lead to retaliation across the Moslem world. That is getting really old I must say. The statement was most likely taken out of context to begin with. Also, extremists like Benlodden and many others have been going on with this Geehad thing for ages now which promotes violence against non believers. i don't see why the Moslem world as a whole doesn't try to stop these fundamentalists on their own turf. But when a nation has the balls to actually step in and try to stop extremism and crimes against humanity, the rest of the world stands up to complain. Okay, the motives for going into Iraq may be suspect, but, someone had to stop Saddam. The people of the country couldn't do it themselves for obvious reasons. And I agree that Isreal should be allowed to exist. One main issue with hezbela is that they are tied to social services and education etc for many of the poor in that region so they can hide and somehow try to justify their acts of terrorism and get more support.
First i want to apologize for not contributing much to this discussion, although i am the one who started it. Having said that, i must add that my lack of contribution is partially caused by my frustration regarding the ignorance reflected in some of the postings regarding the Middle East, The Arab-Israeli conflict, and Muslim societies and cultures in general. Responding to some of the comments satisfactorily requires long explanations which can run well beyond the 4000 characters allowed. Nonetheless, I promise to post several long messages addressing what i believe most problematic of those postings.
Concerning Guitargod1 posting #23 about the pope's lecture in a university in Germany, The Pope was not quoted out of context. He hid behind a quotation of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor refering to Muhammad, the Muslims' prophet as someone who spread his religion by the edge of the sword. Two quick points: This reference to Muhammad and to Islam is historically inaccurate; Secondly it is neither religiously sensative nor politicaly smart to do such a thing at a time when people's emotions in the Muslim world are running high. You know very well that Muslims around the world have very strong feelings that the west has begun a war against islam. American actions and words contribute a lot to this feeling among muslims.
Now it is the pope who is being quoted, not a journalist or a lunatic in the u.s. congress. He is the most renoun person in the christian world. Because of who he is, his words will certainly make things worse.
The logic in the rest of your posting is skewed, so i will not comment on it, at least not now.
cheers,
happyman.
...well, all goodness, conversation is just beginning to take off or so it seems...
If the rest of my post is filled with scued logic, then perhaps you can answer these questions. If the US hadn't stepped in and taken care of Saddam, who would have done it? And while things in Afganastann and Iraq are turbulant at the moment due to warring factions and suicidal fundamentalists, at least there is hope for human rights and some social infostructure that isn't so appressive. Perhaps it will result in people being able to speak their minds and women being treated as free and equal so the rest of the world won't have to watch the type of crimes that occur on a regular basis in places like Iran. Just my two cents. I'd like to hope that the majority of Moslems want peace. If they want it bad enough, why can't they stop these extremists who are preaching death and hatred and who are brainwashing people into things like suicide bombing etc?
HappyMan, as you might expect, I agree with guitargod1. I think he brings up some good questions.
Furthermore, I don't think you should get by with throwing out phrases like "The logic in the rest of your posting is skewed, so i will not comment on it, at least not now." That kind of argument is an ad hominim argument; one of the worst logical fallacies similar to the question "do you still beat your wife?"
If that logic is so skewed, then tell those of us who are not as perceptive as yourself what's skewed about it. That's a Bush-like argument similar to the arguement "If you don't want to torture prisoners then you are in favor of terrorism and I'm not going to talk with you."
The difficulty with the situation in the middle east is that there's ignorance and irationality coming from all sides. Israel believes itself in such danger that it has to resort to cluster bombs to rid itself of its enemy. The Arabs calling for Jihads at every supposed provocation, be it a simple phrase in the Pope's speech or cartoons printed in a newspaper. And amongst all of this we have the United States blundering around like a bull in a China shop, believing they can bully anyone who doesn't agree with them.
When you said, "First i want to apologize for not contributing much to this discussion, although i am the one who started it. Having said that, i must add that my lack
of contribution is partially caused by my frustration regarding the ignorance reflected in some of the postings regarding the Middle East, The Arab-Israeli
conflict, and Muslim societies and cultures in general. Responding to some of the comments satisfactorily requires long explanations which can run well
beyond the 4000 characters allowed. Nonetheless, I promise to post several long messages addressing what i believe most problematic of those postings." you give me hope. I am sorry I am so ignorant about the situation in the middle east, but, I freely admit that I am and would like to learn what can be done to resolve it. But, if you insist on talking down to the rest of us, I will keep calling you on it. Give us facts, not ad hominim arguments.
Bob
...*Thinking..... sounds as though BlBobby is hungry...
I will not repeat my comments on the Pope’s statement; I think I said enough in posting #24. I will only add the correct version of history as most historians agreed. Muhammad was involved in defensive wars with the Arab tribes in the Arabian Peninsula who were determined to crush the early Muslim community. The Arab tribes were pagans. Muhammad and his small number of followers were forced out of the city of Mecca in 622 and sought refuge in Medina roughly 170 miles to the north of Mecca. The people of Medina rallied around Muhammad and accepted Islam. The people of Mecca remained determined to Crush Islam and preserve their Pagan traditions. Within ten years, by the year 632 The Muslim communities in Medina managed to defeat the pagan tribes Of Arabia and bring them to the fold of Islam. The non Pagan communities of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and the small community ofHanifs living in the Arabian Peninsula were not asked to convert to Islam. The term “Dhimmis” was employed to define their status. The Quran, The Muslim’s Holy Script refers to them as people of the book. The term Dhimmi literally means people who must be protected by the Muslim community. Muslims were required to pay a special tax called Zakat, which total roughly 2.5 percent of one’s annual savings. Dhimmis were required to pay a poll tax called Jizya. In return for the Jizya, the people of the book were exempt of military service and were given full autonomy over their own internal affairs, like religious practices and personal status issues.
After Muhammad’s death in 632, the leaders of the Muslim community continued the practice of giving full autonomy to the Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian communities living among the Muslims. Later when the Muslim state expanded far out of the Arabian Peninsula, a similar Dhimmi status was extended to the Hindus and Buddhists
Two observations are worthy of pointing out:
1) Muhammad’s defensive wars against the Pagan Arab tribes were not any different from the wars of the Jewish prophets and kings against the pagan Tribes of their time. I recommend you have a look at the Old Testament and read about the wars of Saul, David, Solomon and the rest in the book of Kings.
2) 2) After the subjugation of the Pagan Arab tribes, The Muslim state expanded rapidly in the Zoroastrian territories of the Persian Empire and the Christian territories of the Byzantine Empire in the Middle East. The Muslims immediately realized that discouraging conversion to Islam brings tremendous revenues to the Muslim treasury through the collection of the Jizya taxes. Conversely, conversion would deny the Muslim state very important financial resources. So the historical record does not only disproof the claim that Muslims used the edge of the sword to spread Islam, in fact it shows that Muslims discouraged the conversion of none Muslims altogether for economic benefits.
3)
4) My reference to the skewed logic in the rest of Guitargod1 posting was not meant as an insult. I am simply saying that he put together so many unrelated issues. There is no logical thread that can bring his points together. Please see my brief comments on some of his points in the next posting.
Here are brief comments on some of Guitargod1's points in posting #23. I strongly maintain that they are not logically connected.
“I don't see why the Moslem
World as a whole doesn't try to stop these fundamentalists on their own turf.”
I assume that what you mean by fundamentalists are the militant political Islamists, like Al-Qaeda and not referring to devout conservative Muslims. The Muslim world is comprised of 59 different states with 59 different political systems. Most of them are secular countries, and the vast majority of them have no presence of Political fundamentalists in their midst, or at least not more than the presence of Christian and Jewish fundamentalist in our midst. The countries that do have militant Islamic movements are fully engaged in wars against these movements. Are we engaged in wars against the Christian fundamentalists in our midst? Israel engaged in wars against the Jewish fundamentalists of the Settler's movement?
“But when a nation has the balls to actually step in and try to stop extremism
and crimes against humanity, the rest of the world stands up to complain.”
No one complained when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to bring the fundamentalist regime of the Taliban down. The U.S. enjoyed universal support across the globe, including the Muslim world.
“Okay, the motives for going into Iraq may be suspect, but, someone had to stop
Saddam.”
Here your logic drifts. The regime of Saddam has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. It was a purely secular regime. Yes, it is a political dictatorship, but an anti fundamentalist dictatorship. What did we do in Iraq? We brought down a secular regime, and we opened the gates of the country for sectarian wars and potentially the birth of a religious state in the place of the secular one. I said in a previous posting that not in their wildest dreams did the Muslim fundamentalists including alQaedah ever thought they would have presence in Iraq before we invaded. Now Iraq is their most important base.
“The people of the country couldn't do it themselves for obvious reasons.”
Are you suggesting that we should go and overthrow every dictatorship in the world under the pretense that the people could not do it themselves?
“And I agree that Isreal should be allowed to exist.”
Here is another twist in your logic. I thought you were commenting on the Pope's Lecture. Israel does not need your approval or mine. It is a thermo nuclear power with a nuclear arsenal that can turn the entire globe into ashes. It has the fourth strongest army in the world. Its existence is not in any danger. What we should be worried about now is the right of the Palestinians to exist.
“One main issue with
hezbela is that they are tied to social services and education etc for many of the poor in that region so they can hide and somehow try to justify their
acts of terrorism and get more support.”
I do not know what you mean by this statement or how is it related to the Pope's lecture. Hezbullah was born as a local Lebanese resistance movement to the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories After the Israeli invasion of this small country in 1982. Now it has become a political party with tremendous social and political base and a large number of representatives in the Lebanese parliament. It has been fully integrated into the social and political fabric of the Lebanese society. Offering social services is a smart thing. Once the reasons for the existence of Hezbollah’s military presence are removed, such as ending Israeli occupation of Lebanese land, and the release of the Lebanese political prisoners in Israeli jails, Hezbollah will dismantle its military apparatus, and continue to exist as a political party. Equating Hezbullah with al-Qaedah misses the point.
I will leave it to Grace to Deal with Bob's dissatisfaction of my comments.
So, everyone, thanks for the good discussion. Just a question:
What's the diffrence between Israel using cluster bombs and Hezbola using hundreds of rockets? they both kill in basically the same way.
Besides, should Israel have just let Hezbola keep bombing their civilians. Hezbola hides among the civilians and then doesn't want Israel to bomb their rocket launching sites b/c civilians might be killed in the process. Its bizarre, if you ask me.
Oh just to mention, I wasn't directly connecting the various questions in my last post, I just figured I'd ask it all in one go.
...that seems reasonable guitargod1...
I am replying to the comments made by Jamesk in posting #31:
"What's the difference between Israel using cluster bombs and Hezbola using hundreds of rockets? they both kill in basically the same way."
The difference between the two is huge. Of the 1.2 million cluster bomblets which the Israeli army spread over Lebanese towns and villages, there are still over 100 thousand unexploded devices scattered in Lebanese streets, markets, farms, schools play grounds, parking lots, and house backyards. As Goblin said in posting #6, these unexploded bomblets are a death trap to children due to their curiosity. In fact over 20 Lebanese children have been already killed by these bomblets since the end of the fighting in August 15. We can only expect many more dead and maimed Lebanese children caused by these dangerous devices in the future. Hezbollah rockets did not leave hundreds of thousands of unexploded devices as death traps for Israeli children. No surprise then why the Israeli army officer quoted in posting #1 called this "insane and monstrous".
"Besides, should Israel have just let Hezbola keep bombing their civilians."
You got the chronology of events reversed. Hezbollah did not fire any rockets against Israeli civilians until after Israel began its heavy bombardment of Lebanese cities and towns. After the systematic Israeli destruction of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure and its massive attacks against the Lebanese population in the south, Hezbollah retaliated by unleashing hundreds of rockets against Israeli settlements and towns. Hezbollah's kidnapping of the 2 Israeli soldiers, which we are led to believe was the cause of the war, was a purely military operation against an Israeli military target. Immediately after they kidnapped the 2 soldiers, Hezbollah issued a communique declaring that they are ready to free those soldiers in exchange for the Lebanese political prisoners held by Israel. Some of those prisoners have been in Israeli prisons for 28 years. the chronology of events does not support your position.
"Hezbola hides among the civilians and then doesn't want Israel to bomb their
rocket launching sites b/c civilians might be killed in the process."
You are not the first to bring up this point; I think Jared raised this issue in posting #4. Let me clarify that Hezbollah does not hide among the civilian population. Hezbollah is by and large a civilian population. It was initially born as a resistance movement to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 1982, but over the years it became part of the social and political fabric of the Lebanese society. The followers of Hezbollah are students, teachers, taxi drivers, shop keepers, engineers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, businessmen, street peddlers, farmers and peasants, wage laborers, and any other profession you can imagine. Those people carry on a normal civilian life and only volunteer to fight in time of war. Apart from few military posts at the Israeli-Lebanese borders, Hezbollah does not have permanent military bases like regular conventional armies. When Israel began its bombardment of Lebanese villages and towns in the south in July 12, Hezbollah's followers, who are civilians for 99.9 percent of their time, rose up to defend their villages, towns, and cities. In the absence of a national army to defend their lives and properties, people in time of war defend themselves from their neighborhoods. Now, don't tell me that Hezbollah's followers must be blamed for not defending their villages from the outer space. It is an insult to human intelligence to continually hear sound bites taken from the official spokesmen of the Israeli government constantly repeated by CNN and other American media outlets without reasoning or critical analysis. Thus I am not surprised that some people repeat the charge that Hezbollah is to blame for the death of Lebanese civilians for hiding in civilian neighbourhoods, as if the right thing to do is to defend their homes from Mars.
Happyman very interesting. The Americans have used clusters as well. So don't expect them to have anything bad to say lol.
oh i do not expect the U.S. to say anything critical of the Israeli use of cluster bombs. It is the U.s. that gives the cluster bombs to Israel in the first place. We invaded iraq under the pretense of looking for weapons of mass destruction when we are notorious of the use of these weapons. We used nuclear against Japan in World War 2, and we used Agent orange and Napalm against Vietnam, In addition to experimenting with only god knows how many types of jerms we secretly used in all of hour wars.
...D*mn blasted Wars that bring destroying destruction to lives and *Voice trails off...too much ruin and pain...
Yes, it is depressing. It's a shame any of this happens at all. If you could take the money spent on war in the recent past, you could house, clothe and feed evrybody in the world.
Chemical weapons is nothing new. US uses them as well. Agent Orange used during the Vietnam war is still causing American soldiers health problems can you imagine what it has done to the local population? Iran and Iraq during their 10+ year war used chemical weapons, too. Everyone uses them as long as they can justify their need. Israel is no exception. Star
I agree, our weapons have surpassed our consciences. But, what's to be done?
We can't even control the NRA in our own borders. How are we going to control weapons of mass destruction throughout the world?
Who will lead us to our salvation? The Pope? Ala or his many spokesmen?
This topic is very thought provoking. It's also very depressing.
Bob
And you realize guitargod1, that it goes so much so deeper than simply being depressing…it cuts to the core you understand.. *This really is delightful pizza isn’t it and so nice to share in conversation. I note that it appears that HappyMan may have some more penetrating comments to bring for this afternoon session of sharing in Political/Govt. Responsibilities and Concerns. And…
wow...i can't believe this.
I think the sooner these types of weapons are banned the better.
The americans used them in afghanistan, and Australia, even though there were numourous petitions to have it stopped, went along with it.
The reasons for why these weapons clame so many lives of children is because they look like aid packages from groups like Oxfam or the red cross.
Children of such countries are used to receiving help in such a fashan, and thus, when they see these things they automatically associate it with help...how ironic.
It sickens me, but not just that, the fact that Israel has no plans to clean up the situation.
Just like many governments have taken no responsibility for the landmines left in vietnam and cambodia, the Israelies are just going to leave them there, so they can continue to kill!
Not only that, but the situation of how blatently horrific the israeli attack on Lebanon was disgusts me.
They took no notice of the fact that in many cases, the buildings they bombed were flying white flags, including churches,...and not even those of muslim origin.
Yes, that's a real war alright, a war where you kill inosent women and children who are hiding from the bloodshed in the only place where they think they will be safe...and by international standards, they should have been safe.
However, Israels bright solution to getting back their people was to send in more people to die and to kill a lot more people.
That makes so much sence.
Israel were only barely just a country when they started invading other countries. they have committed countless attrocities against many different countries, simply because they are unlike them.
Now, i do not by any means agree with the way in which the palistinian extremests are dealing with the issues that face them, but i can't say i support Israel iether.
I do however, support the palistinian cause, as it is a cause for which they have been fighting for for many years, and had original deals between countries been honoured, this wouldn't be happening today.
Most of the Arab world are very concerned at the stareotypical way in which the west sees them, and most of them are worried at present.
It is only a small group of people who are extremest. yet because of those actions, the rest suffer.
The rest are bullied in schools, the rest are singled out in situations by police. Our government has even gone so far as trying to ban islamic dress in public, for fear they may be hiding weapons.
It's just...madness
Quite frankly, the best types of weapons to use on people who are bringing up their children to hate/want to attack Israel, like those Lebanese people who I saw on ITV News during the war are nuclear weapons, because they ensure that all such people are whiped out, and what the world needs is a genicide against Islamic extremists and all their sympathisers.
even if children are killed?
Even if it means that people who don't support extremests are killed?
Right, i see all that is said about it, and will try to express my opinion as honestly, fairly, and clearly as possible.
I see what wayne said here. i will not go that far and under no circumstances would condone the massacre ofwomen and children or of those whose intentions are peaceful. And Loui, while i agree with you in a way, i remind all of you that the muslims have been trying to destroy Israel for the last 58 years.
When you see such organisations such as the juhad, sending man carrying boms on them to have them explode in a market place, busses, bars, or restaurants in different part of israel, why don't people say anything?
And make no mistake! as i said the other day on law lord's topic, the number of radical muslims is constantly increasing. So, right, Israel may have used clustered boms, and unfortunately those are things that happen during wars. how many times, however, did we not see the muslim terrorists commit that sort of horrible suicidal attacks or placing bombs every and this, in different parts of the world? India, Indonesia, France, England, Spain, let alone new york, of course. While it is to be deplored, indeed, that women and children where killed in libanon by bombs that did not reach their targets, i do think that israel has the right to defend themselves and protect themselves against those groups, and exterminate them.
Galileo, thanks so much for such a good post here! You are so right!
! I so wish folks in the states could realize the things your saying. It seems that you know more than a lot of folks do here.
And about the way in which the Palestinians handle there situation, it's real easy for us who've never had our homes stolen, and families killed to say this and that is wrong. So I will not sit in judgment of them. I can't say what I would do. If my mom, sisters and brother were slain right in front of my own eyes? If my home were stolen? Anyway...
And Senior, I get real tired of people saying that anyone that hurts an Israeli or whatever is a darn Islamic extremist. Do you even know what an Islamic extremist is? I will say no more until I hear your response to that.
cap black beard you write: "I see what Wayne said here. I will not go that far and under no circumstances would condone the massacre ofwomen and children or of those whose intentions
are peaceful. And Loui, while i agree with you in a way, i remind all of you that the muslims have been trying to destroy Israel for the last 58 years."
First of all, let me just say that it was the Israelis that went in and took homes from Palestinians first in very many cases. I am not all for killing women and children, let me make that clear. However, let's get our history strait here. I shall leave it at that for now...
Chriss, since you are referrng to my post, i suppose that you can read and see that i do not condone the massacre of women and children. I do not agree with everything that has been done by the Army of Israel However, before the Palestinians went in there, the country was theirs, if you will read your history. Or are you suggesting that Israel has no right to a land?
I respect muslims and arabs. I have no kind of respect however, for those who come into our countries and send in imams (muslim priests for the uninformed) and tell their children who live here that we are our enemies and who are over all things paid for it.
I can understand some of your point of view Chriss. Yet, i reiterate, perhaps clearer, what i said. The arabs, and the musmims as a religion must be respected. However, the branch of islam who preaches the destruction of israel and commits all those atrocities must indeed be removed. I hope i make myselfclear.
what about the promises that were made after world war I?
don't they count for anything, that land in palistine is rightfully belonging to the arabs...
let's not also forget that not soon after it was a country, isreal went and attacked egypt, lebanon and others...i think it was seria was it?
happyman knows anyway, my point is, that isreal don't seem to be good at the nigotiating thing.
sorry, i know that i am about to become the most hated zoner after this post but i'm afraid i have never been able to keep my mouth shut in the past, and i will not start now!
i'm afraid, that i don't ever condone killing of anyone, but vicaroo, u r completely right. israel took away the homes of women children and families which belonged to the palastinians, this land does not belong to them and never has. i also do not think they should treat the palastinians the way they are, after all, the palastinians r just reacting. the jews had a horrific time in world war two, and should be setting an example, not treating the pallastinians in such a wicked way!