quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Caitlyn,

But if you are right then that implies that George Bush is a fake Christian and is just as much a hypocrite as his best friends the Saudis' and none of them are really religious?  But that would mean they don't believe any of the things they say and they only say them because their followers are dumb enough to believe it?

I just can't believe that, those people all seem so sincere to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I don't actually think this is even about "Muslim" radicalism. I think this is about nationalism, like most conflicts.
 
President Bush talks a lot about Christianity. Does that make our war in Iraq an act of Christian radicalism?
 
This same thing was going on at the time of the early Byzantine empire, fighting to the death with the Sassanid Persians. Quite a bit of radicalism, quite a bit before the spread of Islam.
 
We in the west have a bad habit of putting labels on thing, based on our own values. Many think this is conflict based on religion, when the reality is that religion is only being used as a tool to fuel the conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

There was a girl buried today who died as a result of all this.  She was one day old.  Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon, all of them should be ashamed to mention a God of any name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

There was a girl buried today who died as a result of all this.  She was one day old.  Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon, all of them should be ashamed to mention a God of any name.

In a simplistic sense you are right, however this will depend on your (the individual) beliefs and understanding of the doctrine or Holy Books you choose to follow. Different sects of most religions could if they chose, could legitimately find scriptures which validate any war and the shedding of blood. Not all Gods and Goddesses are of peace and light. The Norse in order to reach Valhalla needed to die in battle, a warriors death (Cant do that if there is no conflict old chap y’know), Kali required blood shed, Jehovah (YHVH) was a God who, according to the Old Testament,  was a blood thirsty bloke. Mars was of course the God of War and so on..

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

During his interview he also stated that the weapons come from the Lebanonese army.

[snip]

I don't profess to know the answers to these, but I do have opinions.   What are yours?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

Nobody is calling for the destruction of Israel except Hezbollah.  And Hamas.  And Iran.  And Syria.  And all their sympathizers.

The terrorists are integrated into the civilian population, and they use civilian infrastructure.  They don't drive around in army trucks wearing uniforms.  They don't get gas from military depots -- they get it from gas stations.  They don't set up a base for their missile launchers -- they hide them inside people's basements.  That's why they're such a damn problem.   And they want exactly the reaction you are giving them -- they want the Israelis to have to kill innocent people while coming after them and they are absolutely dependent on the self-righteours, morally superior "international community" to stand up and demand that Israel stop this "disproportionate" response.

You're assuming I subscribe to notions of proportionate response in warfare.  I don't.  What would've been proprotional -- kidnapping two Hezbollah fighters?  Kidnapping three?  Where does that get you?

In any case, I'd view an Iranian nuclear attack as absolutely consistent with Iran's view toward the existence of Israel.  Absolutely.  That doesn't mean I condone it -- I mean it would be a consistent response given what Iran's leaders have publically said about Israel in the past. 

I think when a state is confronted with a grave existential threat -- as Hezbollah is to Israel -- any talk of "proportional response" is ridiculous.  Wars are not stopped by proportional response.  Wars are perpetuated by proportional response. That's not to say that it's alright to randomly destroy anything you want, but once you decide to go to war, it's best to be decisive and defeat the enemy with massive, disproportionate force rather than screw around and allow the misery to be prolonged.

This war did not start with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.  We've been over that ground repeatedly.  Hezbollah has been harassing Israel for years, under the guise of "resistance" to Israeli occupation of south Lebanon (their real agenda, of course, is the eventual destruction of the state of Israel).  Israel withdrew all of its forces from south Lebanon in 2000 -- SIX YEARS AGO.  The reason they were there?  To stop shelling of northern Israel by Hezbollah.  Hezbollah's response to that was to move back into the formerly occupied territory and, instead of living peacefully with their southern neighbor, to resume firing Katyusha rockets into civilian neighborhoods in northern Israel. All the while integrating themselves into the civilian population, and using civilian locations for weapons storage and firing positions.

As far as I'm concerned Israel can and should wipe them out using whatever means necessary.  They have had chance after chance to live alongside Israel, and they have chosen to reject that option.  Hezbollah made that choice (and some in Lebanon made that choice, along with Syria and Iran) and they will have to live with the consequences.  A return to the status quo -- which is what would happen in any sort of "proportional response" scenario -- is not acceptable, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

..i have noted that those who support Israel's disproportionate response consistently avoid answering a question posed by myself and others..........the same logic that allows Israel to bomb the Lebanon indiscriminately would have allowed the British government to carpet bomb Dublin while the IRA were bombing us. Once again, and this time please dont avoid it.......would they have supported such a response from the British government?