Measured response
Posted July 14th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Israel seems hellbent on destroying Hezbollah. The western powers say, "take a deep breath and count to ten, or ten million."
David Ignatius of the Washington Post thinks Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah invited the counterattack knowing it would destabilize Lebanon.
Charles Krauthammer asks, "where's the grievance?" Israel has evacuated Gaza and Lebanon and is rewarded by attack. Proof that Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Syria have a grievance with the existence of Israel.
July 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Krauthammer dug out his Çliff Notes on the history of Israel and
conveniently ignored the Israeli brutality committed in the last 50 years against the Palestinians. Sure the Israelis pulled out of Gaza-
after they were done bulldozing Palestinian houses and sometimes entire neighborhoods in the middle of the night.
If you want to know why these terrorist groups exist, you have to
dig a little deeper than the pandering of hacks like Krauthammer.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:30 am
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer071406.php3
July 16th, 2006 at 12:53 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/middleeast/16hezbollah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
July 16th, 2006 at 4:30 am
Auggie "Last Post" Fields has come out of retirement more times than Cher.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
http://www.mannequinmadness.com/cart/images/Mr%20Martinique.jpg
July 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
No disrespect, Mencken, but why do these terrorists groups exist?
July 16th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Larry:
Religious extremism is at the root of most terrorism, but that wouldn't explain Timothy McVeigh.
My point was that Krauthammer completely ignored Israel's violent past. Ariel Sharon didn't get the name " Butcher of Beirut" becausehe sold kibbee to the locals.
I'm not taking sides here, I just want to make the point that the
blood is on everyone's hands, and the definition of terrorism can depend on who's on the receiving end of it.
July 16th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
"Seven Canadians — including four children — were killed in an Israeli air raid that hit a Lebanese town on the border with Israel on Sunday. Three Canadians were seriously injured.
Four of those killed in Lebanon on Sunday were children. (CBC)
Israel has acknowledged carrying out the attack and has apologized to Ottawa, CBC's Nahlah Ayed reported from Beirut."
You see Larry, since the Israelis apologized- it's not terrorism.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:29 am
Another dead puppy story?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:57 am
Larry, using your analogy, how many puppies died in the World Trade Center attack ?
July 17th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Nobody would argue it's tragic when innocents are killed, whether they happen to be Canadian or not. But that's what happens when armies start lobbing missiles at one another in what amounts to open war.
And it's really not the same thing as walking into a crowded cafe with a bomb under your coat, or planting a bomb on a bus, or flying commercial airliners into a skyscraper.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:33 am
"And it's really not the same thing as walking into a crowded cafe with a bomb under your coat, or planting a bomb on a bus, or flying commercial airliners into a skyscraper."
Why isn't it? Look, the Palestinians use the methods available to them. If they had F16's, Apaches, M1 tanks, or Pedators, then that's what they would use. Do you think they throw rocks and
Molotov cocktails because that's their weapons of choice?
Keep in mind during the Revolutionary War, the British were outraged that the American troops hid behind trees and picked
off the British soldiers standing in neat rows in their bright red uniforms. Now that seems a perfectly logical way to do business. Only the rules of engagement change, not the results.
Larry, terrorist tactics, without fail are horrible and despicable acts but really, is there that much difference between blowing up a cafe with a bomb under your coat, and dropping napalm on a village and incinerating everyone in it ?
Can you explain the difference? I can't without sounding like an
apologist for one side or the other.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
The PC mullahs must be smiling.
Auggie gets to keep his g*y mannequin link up but my response gets bowdlerized.
Why didn't you just pixelate the icky parts Chip ?
Jumpin' Jehosephat Jimmy Olsen, you just did.
The irony here? Now that'd be one funny cartoon.
Auggie: You owe Chip two Galley Boys. Wait…. that sounds uh, uh… er you'd better make that a double cheeseburger.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
The Israelis haven't dropped napalm on any quiet villages yet, as far as I know. The attacks I have read about have tactical targets, such as Hezbollah headquarters and leadership, bridges, roads and armaments.
The target in a cafe or bus bombing is the innocent civilian, with no tactical advantage other than to terrorize a populace.
I think we're talking about different issues, in any case. "Hezbollah" isn't the same as "Palestinian," and Hezbollah is not throwing rocks at tanks, it's launching rockets at cities.
I'm not sure what the primary goal is either, other than to destabilize the region. Maybe they're nervous because democracy's on the march in Iraq!
July 17th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
You're helping make my point. You say the Israelis have "tactical" targets and make it sound like they are only attacking inanimate
objects. You know better than that don't you ?
If "democracy is on the march in Iraq" , civil war is in a full sprint.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I thought you'd like that last statement, Mencken.
It's horrific when bystanders (or soldiers) are killed in wars, but the Israeli's are under attack and they have a purpose.
Krauthammer's story implied there was no real purpose for Hezbollah's current work and I have yet to see anybody offer one.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Hezbollah's "purpose" is to keep the Israelis out of Southern Lebanon whether you agree with that goal or not. Is that purpose
less noble than invading Iraq ?
We shocked and awed Baghdad for the first month of the war and
thought we would impress the hell out of our enemies. Here we
are 3 years later and we're up to our necks in it. What makes you think the Israelis will fare any better? ( Other than Rumsfeld is not in charge of their armed forces)
July 17th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Bolton just put a big red bow on the point I was trying to make.
"US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".
July 17th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Er.. better read that quote again. NO moral equivalence means they aren't the same.
You're arguing that they are.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
"Hezbollah's "purpose" is to keep the Israelis out of Southern Lebanon whether you agree with that goal or not. "
This is only partly true. It's to keep them out of Lebanon, out of Isreal, out of any land mass really. You know, 'drive the Jews into the sea" and all…
July 18th, 2006 at 4:06 am
I read the quote right. My point has been that most people don't
think that there is a moral equivalance. Bolton just confirmed it.
I don't agree with Bolton.
You're right Mick, Hezbollah's goals are wider and more malevolant than can be discussed in this little box. I just object to
the attitude that the Israelis haven't acted terribly as well at times.
A pox on both of their houses.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Proving that someone, or "most people," don't agree with you is not a very persuasive argument.
As far as keeping the Israelis out of southern Lebanon, I thought they had recently left.
Of course the Israelis have acted terribly and treated Palestinians horribly at times. And they probably overreacted when those soldiers were captured last week. Their buttons are as easy to push as yours, Mencken.
The big question, and the question Krauthammer drives at, is why do Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran/Syria want to push those buttons now?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
"Their buttons are as easy to push as yours, Mencken."
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't punched anyone since
September of 1970.