ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

You're correct, hamburger.

I talk about that with a friend of my wife (a former personal consultant to the late President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany). She said the same. (And from her I know that 100% kosher meals can't be prepared by non-Jews, even if they are secular and not orthodox.)

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foxfire :
i believe you wrote :
"...Some years ago, there was a rumor circulating that Islamic people who come into contact with pig fat are required to undergo an extensive two week purification process; otherwise they go to Islamic hell because they have been defiled with pork.

Now this was pure rumor, and I have never been able to verify it, but if true. . . . . .then why don't we just spray them with bacon grease or something every week or so and keep them busy purifying themselves and afraid to wage war? "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that made me ask the question re jewish resort and food serving requirements .
i asssume you would not have approved , if someone had suggested that both the arabs and the israelis be sprayed with bacon fat ?
you may not realize this , but strictly kosher jews - and that was the case at grossinger's - would destroy any utensils that cannot be purified if "contaminated" (blood/meat and milk mixed , or contact with pork).
from what i recall , we were told when we were invited to visit the kitchen , that at least once a year all metal pots would be treated with a blowtorch to eliminate any possible contamination .
one thing we were sure about , their food was outstanding - but many non-jewish americans were not happy with the cuisine - as i said : no bacon and eggs .
hbg

ps. not that it really has anything to do with the topic of this thread ; it's kind of frivolous .

It was a sort of joke Hamburger. I didn't expect anybody to take it seriously nor to nitpick my 100% kosher line. I will rescind the 100% and make it, oh let's see, 90%? Will that make everybody happy? (I really expected that when I explained that my Jewish friends were not completely kosher it would be understood in that vein.)

But semi-seriously, few other than the relatively few Americans, Europeans, or Asians who have certain religious convictions would have any problem handling pork. And if we 'inconvenienced' militant Islamic types with a little pig fat, they couldn't easily retaliate could they? What's worse. Offending their religious/cultural sensibilities or everybody keeps trying to kill each other?

Sometimes you just have to think outside the box.

0 Replies

I generally consider 'mostly' to mean more than 'less' or 'fewer'. In this case I intended it to mean quite a bit more than less or fewer. How do you define 'mostly'?

foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

I was referred to the Toronto Star piece in my morning e-mail.

Thankyou. And from where does this morning email originate?

Quote:

As a general rule, I at least scan headlines on both CNN and FNN websites, NY Times, Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, LA Times, run through the listings on Drudge and Real Clear Politics which always give the pros and cons of just about everything, sometimes check to see if there is anything interesting going on with Chris Hitchins and Anderew Sullivan, and otherwise have our local 24-hour new/talk radio station running in the background while I work. I read articles in more depth if I am looking for specific informaton or if they are particularly interesting. I rarely watch television news unless something special is going on like the Shuttle launch and landing. Is that specific enough for you?

Fine. You attend to news more than most folks but we knew that already. For completeness, let's add from earlier information you provided, that your talk radio listening includes Rush.

But the problem sits in relation to this paragraph of yours above and the following paragraph.

Quote:

It is my perception that there has been far more criticism of Israel in the MSM than there has been support shown for it. If you care to compile a comprehensive list showing this not to be so, then be my guest. Otherwise bite me.

Odd to have such confidence in your "perception" of what the MSM is doing when you watch television news only "rarely" and when your print sources are so few and, apparently, often merely "scanned". It raises the obvious question...how much of your "perception" of the MSM rests upon your sources talking about the MSM?

Those of us who actually do attend to a lot of media daily, both from inside the US and from elsewhere, know that the claim I'm taking to task here (it's in red again) is just not true. Make inquiries of any one of them. Or, you could watch this segment from last evenings PBS Newshour Though the subject is broader than US media coverage, that is included. Or test your thesis in a simple manner...take, say, CNN and watch for three hours measuring minutes of footage of destruction in Israel vs minutes of footage of destruction in Lebanon. Or watch O'Reilly or Scarborough and count the number of sympathetic comments re the Lebanese vs same for Israelis.

I'm not optimistic you'll place your idea in jeopardy. Having me do your research or intellectual work for you is a cop-out, and a handy one, as you'd ignore or deny it anyway. Everyone on the site who is well-read and educated and interested in politics and who attends to a wide range of information sources loses patience with you (just go through the names) and that happens for precisely the reason that you will not risk your idea by doing the above.

Quote:

I wonder if you ever read anything that even remotely smacks of a view contrary to yours other than to cherry pick quotes you can post and attack? So what's your routine to obtain the news of the day?

It is the same almost every day (by 'almost' I mean five out of seven days it will be pretty much identical) in content and sequence:
NY Times
The Guardian
The Independent
Salon
Washington Post
Chicago Tribune
(Boston Globe no longer in this spot since loss of Thomas Oliphant)
Los Angeles Times
Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (now McClatchy)
Media Matters
Columbia Journalism Review
Arts and Letters Daily (from where I link to numerous papers, journals, magazines and essays etc including...
Ha'aretz (about once a week, though more often right now)
USA Today
London Times (was a daily read before, but only rare now)
Eric Alterman's blog
and various according to whim choices from this site, eg Buckley I went to yesterday
plus numerous linked pieces out of all the above.

Re TV news, I watch PBS almost always, then over the following hour I switch back and forth between O'Reilly, Olbermann and John Stewart/Colbert. When PBS features a spot of little interest, I'm over to Hardball. I fit in about one hour a week on other Fox news shows.

Then there are the magazines that come to my door and the books (Suskind presently).

I have the time to do all this, a blessing.

0 Replies

Well some of us have to work for a living, Blatham and actually have a life in the real world and don't have all day to leisurely peruse all media sources. I would say that I'm sorry you find my own selection of news sources to be lacking, but that would be a lie. I think I keep myself sufficiently well informed to be able to choose the more realistic view than you do. But you're not going to agree with me about that either, nor do I expect you to. (I choose not to watch much television as I think it is mostly the most inferior of all sources to get the real skinny on most things.)

As to where I got that Toronto piece? I can't remember. I subscribe to the Opinion Journal and several other sampler kinds of news sources and it could have been referenced in any one of them. Why would it matter?

Is Rush on the local news/talk station I listen to? Yes though I rarely have time to listen at the time he's on. It is an ABC affiliate and the No #1 rated station in the state. So I get enough ABC national news all day long to balance what little I might hear of Rush. Do you listen to Rush? If not why not? How are you balancing your news sources to be sure you're getting all points of view?

Now, please list all your news sources that consistently take Israel's side in the current conflict. To the best of my knowledge, none of my regular sources have not criticized Israel, though you do find a bit of support here and there, and none have been as enthusiastic in any support as that Toronto Star piece that I posted. I presume that all your favorite sources have been 100% in Israel's camp, yes? It would seem that they almost would almost have to be based on your scathing and patronizing criticism of my perception.

0 Replies

I think, the Toronto Star follows the Lebanon/Gaza/Israel conflict as do other media - not supporting one side, but reporting (see e.g. the ropert from 27.07.2006, page 17: "Disastrous twin wars ?'a calculated kind of madness'").
Their view is more positive than others, their coverage about Lebanon perhaps less. (Can't really judge that, I only looked through two of the last issues.)

I suppose, it's very close to the German media coverage.

You said, Foxfyre, that you keep yourself sufficiently well informed to be able to choose the more realistic view than Blatham does.
As far as I can see, besides the Toronto Star you've no other media source covering international views. (I read Ha'aretz online as well as the [print] version of the Jerusalem Post re this conflict now more often than usually - besides the couple of other printed and online media I normally do.)

I suppose, it's always hard to stay well informed .... the more conflicts there are and the more sifferenst aspects are involved.

From today's The Guardian, page 3 (pages 2 to 4 deal with Lebanon/Israel exclusively):

0 Replies

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/./photos/uncategorized/screenhunter_1_14.jpg

0 Replies

On Perilous Border, Lebanese Christians Take In Muslims

0 Replies

Charles Moore in the UK Telegraph also criticizes the media and conclusions of the reluctant observors for their view of the Iraeli/Hezbollah conflict. The whole essay is a good read.

Excerpt (emphasis mine)
"You could criticise Israel's recent attack for many things. Some argue that it is disproportionate, or too indiscriminate. Others think that it is ill-planned militarily. Others hold that it will give more power to extremists in the Arab world, and will hamper a wider peace settlement. These are all reasonable, though not necessarily correct positions to hold. But European discourse on the subject seems to have been overwhelmed by something else - a narrative, told most powerfully by the way television pictures are selected, that makes Israel out as a senseless, imperialist, mass-murdering, racist bully.

"Not only is this analysis wrong - if the Israelis are such imperialists, why did they withdraw from Lebanon for six years, only returning when threatened once again? How many genocidal regimes do you know that have a free press and free elections? - it is also morally imbecilic. It makes no distinction between the tough, sometimes nasty things all countries do when hard-pressed and the profoundly evil intent of some ideologies and regimes. It says nothing about the fanaticism and the immediacy of the threat to Israel. Sir Peter has somehow managed to live on this planet for 75 years without spotting the difference between what Israel is doing in Lebanon and "unlimited war".

"As well as being morally imbecilic, this narrative is the enemy of all efforts to understand what is actually going on in the Middle East. It is so lazy.

"Thus, for example, you would hardly know from watching the television that most Arab nations in the region, with the notable exception of Syria, detest the power of Hizbollah. You would barely have noticed that Hizbollah is a Shia faction, actively supported by Iran, and therefore feared by most Sunnis and by all who resist Iranian hegemony.

"Nor would you have seen investigations of how Hizbollah places its missile sites in civilian areas, or coverage of the report in a Kuwaiti newspaper that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbollah, was expected in Damascus on Thursday for a meeting with the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. You would also not have gathered that the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, which the television so recently invited you to admire, cannot possibly be carried through if Syria and Iran and Hizbollah are able to operate in that country.

"Behind the dominant narrative of Israeli oppression is a patronising, almost racist assumption about the Arabs, and about Muslims, which is, essentially, that "they're all the same". Public discussion therefore does not stop to consider whether the immediate ceasefire called for by most European countries might hand a victory to Hizbollah, which, in turn, would ultimately lead to a much greater loss of life. It just postures.

More. . . .
SOURCE

0 Replies

A little bit larger than the "essay"* Foxfyre quoted, in the very same Torygraph (page 9 in today's issue):

NB: terrorists is written with quotation marks in the report on the right side.

* It's actually a comment on page 26, with this caricature

0 Replies

TOP TEN DEMANDS BY al-MALIKI
By Don Davis
It's been widely reported that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has asked Bush to pressure Israel to halt its attacks in Lebanon, and to allow U.S. soldiers in Iraq to be tried under Iraqi law. But as this reporter has learned, during Mr. al-Maliki's controversial appearance before a Joint Session of Congress, he plans to present a much more comprehensive list of demands. Here then, are the Top Ten panaceas, from the Top Dog of the Shias:

10. U.S. troops suspected of abuse to be imprisoned in Abu Ghraib, and attacked by rabid goats.

9. Jewish members of coalition forces required to wear Star of David armband.

8. American soldiers must battle insurgents with bottom of shoes instead of assault rifles.

7. U.S. must erect statue of Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad for locals to topple.

6. "God Bless You" after sneezes must be replaced by Allahu Akbar (God is Great).

5. Dispatch of Bill Frist to Iraq to diagnose victims of suicide bombings.

4. Female soldiers to be outfitted with camouflage burkas.

3. Iraqi army units to "stand down" in favor of Cub Scout troops.

2. 101st Airborne Division to be reassigned to Beirut - to fight Israelis.

1. Borrow Tom DeLay's gerrymander plan ?- to get rid of Sunnis.

0 Replies

foxfyre said:

Quote:

Well some of us have to work for a living, Blatham and actually have a life in the real world and don't have all day to leisurely peruse all media sources.

Well, that got me chuckling. Class warfare? I began my working life at 12 and up until two years past (at 56) never stopped other than taking two summers off when circumstances permitted/demanded. And since April, we've been running a jewelry store 6 days a week plus making all the product sold in our store (during march, I renovated). I'm up between 4 and 6AM each morning and that gives me three hours or so to read - and write a little.

Quote:

I would say that I'm sorry you find my own selection of news sources to be lacking, but that would be a lie. I think I keep myself sufficiently well informed to be able to choose the more realistic view than you do. But you're not going to agree with me about that either, nor do I expect you to. (I choose not to watch much television as I think it is mostly the most inferior of all sources to get the real skinny on most things.)

Fine. But if you choose not to watch TV or read more broadly, then don't you consider it a matter of integrity to withhold from proclamations regarding that which you actually do not know about? I've never been to Ibeza nor have I studied it nor read much about it. Consequently, I don't pretend to know about it.

Quote:

As to where I got that Toronto piece? I can't remember. I subscribe to the Opinion Journal and several other sampler kinds of news sources and it could have been referenced in any one of them. Why would it matter?

We both know why it would matter. If you aren't personally attending to the media in question, yet you hold such clear opinions regarding it, then the question of where you get your opinion comes begging.

Quote:

Is Rush on the local news/talk station I listen to? Yes though I rarely have time to listen at the time he's on. It is an ABC affiliate and the No #1 rated station in the state. So I get enough ABC national news all day long to balance what little I might hear of Rush. Do you listen to Rush? If not why not? How are you balancing your news sources to be sure you're getting all points of view?

No, I don't listen to radio at all. I've heard/read many excerpts from Rush, of course. I spend no time tuning in to him because his game has nothing to do with truthfulness. Re 'balance'...that's a rather poor substitute idea for education through diverse sources. It implies just two sides and that's almost always a false choice. What would be a White Supremicist's idea of 'balance'?

Quote:

Now, please list all your news sources that consistently take Israel's side in the current conflict.

Nobody I read/watch consistently takes Israel's side presently, not even Ha'aretz. But that's not a claim I've made anywhere, is it?

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, none of my regular sources have not criticized Israel, though you do find a bit of support here and there, and none have been as enthusiastic in any support as that Toronto Star piece that I posted. I presume that all your favorite sources have been 100% in Israel's camp, yes? It would seem that they almost would almost have to be based on your scathing and patronizing criticism of my perception.

As above.

All that is in question here in post after post has been...
1. your assertion that the MSM's coverage of the middle east presently contains more criticism towards Israel than towards the Arab or Muslim opponents and
2. the warrant for this assertion.

I am being critical. We ought to challenge assertions (on important community matters) which are so clearly false no matter how certain is the person who makes it and no matter whether they are comfortable being criticized. And we ought to encourage folks to review critically how they came by a false idea.

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

Charles Moore in the UK Telegraph also criticizes the media and conclusions of the reluctant observors for their view of the Iraeli/Hezbollah conflict. The whole essay is a good read.

Sigh. You've just gone and done it again. You take someone else's assertion and tie it to your own and believe/hope/whatever that this somehow constitutes evidence. But it is just another fallacious appeal to authority.

I don't think you'll ever get this one, fox.

0 Replies

Playing the game and blaming the others......

Israeli missiles have hit humanitarian vehicles, including Lebanese Red Cross ambulances, and strikes have come within a few hundred yards of the few aid truck convoys making their way south this week.

Only a handful of trucks have reached stranded refugees, who have few supplies of medicine, food and water. Fuel, necessary for leaving the area, is almost impossible to come by.

While most civilians with money or transport are leaving the conflict zone, large numbers are trapped by Israeli shelling or because they cannot afford the $1,000 charged by taxi drivers to deliver fuel or drive families to safety.

Israel's government spokesman, Avi Pazner, said Israel has already opened safe corridors across Lebanon for shipments and claimed that Hizbollah guerrillas were blocking them in order to create a humanitarian aid crisis.

'There is no need for a temporary, 72-hour cease-fire because Israel has opened humanitarian corridors to and from and Lebanon,' he told reporters.

'The problem is completely different. It is Hizbollah who is deliberately preventing the transfer of medical aid and of food to the population of southern Lebanon in order to create a humanitarian crisis, which they want to blame Israel for.'

The top UN humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon, Mona Hammam, greeted this claim with incredulity saying convoys so far had encountered 'no problems' from Hizbollah.

Observer journalists travelling in the south of the country also failed to encounter attempts by Hizbollah to prevent the passage of aid. Instead, in conversations with aid agencies and Lebanese officials on the ground it was clear that Israel's continuing attacks on the remaining open routes in and out of the south were preventing the distribution of aid.

Shaista Aziz of Oxfam also echoed complaints that Israeli attacks were preventing the aid effort.

'The Oxfam rapid response team only managed to get in yesterday,' she told The Observer today. 'The reason was lack of security - the bombing. We have still been unable to get our aid workers to the south where they are desperately needed.

Full story http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1833143,00.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Charles Moore in the UK Telegraph also criticizes the media and conclusions of the reluctant observors for their view of the Iraeli/Hezbollah conflict. The whole essay is a good read.

Sigh. You've just gone and done it again. You take someone else's assertion and tie it to your own and believe/hope/whatever that this somehow constitutes evidence. But it is just another fallacious appeal to authority.

I don't think you'll ever get this one, fox.

Well I'm still waiting for your list of sources that are oohing and ahing in their praise and support for Israel. And yes, I generally use sources that back up my point of view when I can find them. Don't you? I don't recall you using a source that disagreed with you unless it was just to pull out a quote to attack.

Is it possible for you to make a case for your point of view that is not built upon my perceived sins? Is it too much to ask you to support your opinion as much as you demand that I support mine?

Or shall we just keep pretending that your point of view isn't fairly hypocritical to this point?

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
foxfyre said:
Quote:
Well some of us have to work for a living, Blatham and actually have a life in the real world and don't have all day to leisurely peruse all media sources.

Well, that got me chuckling. Class warfare? I began my working life at 12 and up until two years past (at 56) never stopped other than taking two summers off when circumstances permitted/demanded. And since April, we've been running a jewelry store 6 days a week plus making all the product sold in our store (during march, I renovated). I'm up between 4 and 6AM each morning and that gives me three hours or so to read - and write a little.

Good for you. Your schedule is not all that different from mine.

Quote:
Quote:
I would say that I'm sorry you find my own selection of news sources to be lacking, but that would be a lie. I think I keep myself sufficiently well informed to be able to choose the more realistic view than you do. But you're not going to agree with me about that either, nor do I expect you to. (I choose not to watch much television as I think it is mostly the most inferior of all sources to get the real skinny on most things.)

Fine. But if you choose not to watch TV or read more broadly, then don't you consider it a matter of integrity to withhold from proclamations regarding that which you actually do not know about? I've never been to Ibeza nor have I studied it nor read much about it. Consequently, I don't pretend to know about it.

A matter of integrity to not express an opinion of perception? What planet did you fall off of and/or who elected you hall monitor of free speech? I am pretty damn sure my reading selections are far more eclectic and diverse than yours and I don't apologize for them in the least. I base that perception on the reading lists you have thus far provided and the sources from which you occasionally quote. I don't watch much television because the reporting on television is far too shallow and too often inaccurate for me to wish to waste my time with it as a general rule.

Quote:
Quote:
As to where I got that Toronto piece? I can't remember. I subscribe to the Opinion Journal and several other sampler kinds of news sources and it could have been referenced in any one of them. Why would it matter?

We both know why it would matter. If you aren't personally attending to the media in question, yet you hold such clear opinions regarding it, then the question of where you get your opinion comes begging.

Oh I see. The fact that it is a source on its own merits is not sufficient? It must be recommended by Salon or some other such approved (by you) source before it is acceptable to present? I swear this may be the silliest thing you've come up with yet.

Quote:
Quote:
Is Rush on the local news/talk station I listen to? Yes though I rarely have time to listen at the time he's on. It is an ABC affiliate and the No #1 rated station in the state. So I get enough ABC national news all day long to balance what little I might hear of Rush. Do you listen to Rush? If not why not? How are you balancing your news sources to be sure you're getting all points of view?
No, I don't listen to radio at all. I've heard/read many excerpts from Rush, of course. I spend no time tuning in to him because his game has nothing to do with truthfulness. Re 'balance'...that's a rather poor substitute idea for education through diverse sources. It implies just two sides and that's almost always a false choice. What would be a White Supremicist's idea of 'balance'?

If you 'don't listen to radio' and have not heard more than 'excerpts from Rush', then how in the world could you come to a conclusion that 'his game has nothing to do with truthfulness'? On what do you base that opinion oh mighty one who presumes to be qualified to judge what opinions are acceptable for me to offer?

Quote:
Quote:
Now, please list all your news sources that consistently take Israel's side in the current conflict.

Nobody I read/watch consistently takes Israel's side presently, not even Ha'aretz. But that's not a claim I've made anywhere, is it?

Quote:
To the best of my knowledge, none of my regular sources have not criticized Israel, though you do find a bit of support here and there, and none have been as enthusiastic in any support as that Toronto Star piece that I posted. I presume that all your favorite sources have been 100% in Israel's camp, yes? It would seem that they almost would almost have to be based on your scathing and patronizing criticism of my perception.

As above.

Did you or did you not criticize me for presuming to state my perception that the mainstream media is largely critical of Israel? You flat out jumped on me for stating that presumption. If it is wrong for me to say that, would it not be logical to assume that you claim the opposite? If so, I certainly think it is not unreasonable to ask you to back up the claim and show how your criticism of me is valid.

Quote:
All that is in question here in post after post has been...
1. your assertion that the MSM's coverage of the middle east presently contains more criticism towards Israel than towards the Arab or Muslim opponents and
2. the warrant for this assertion.

I am being critical. We ought to challenge assertions (on important community matters) which are so clearly false no matter how certain is the person who makes it and no matter whether they are comfortable being criticized. And we ought to encourage folks to review critically how they came by a false idea.

Ah yes. But you think I should review critically how I came to a 'false idea' (in your opinion) but you refuse to be similarly challenged yourself. You will understand how I find that extremely arrogant and more than a little hypocritical. You even earlier objected to me posting a piece by another presumably qualified journalist who had come to the same conclusion I did.

I will continue to believe my ideas are just as good as yours unless you can show how your ideas are superior. Until then, happy reading.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

The top UN humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon, Mona Hammam, greeted this claim with incredulity saying convoys so far had encountered 'no problems' from Hizbollah.

Yeah, it seems like the only people having problems with the hezbullies right now are Israeli citizens being rocketed by them and having to hole up in bomb shelters.

So far, Lebanese have been lucky, and Israelis have been playing by rules which Curtis Lemay never played by and which even Slick KKKlintler and Wesley Clark were not playing by in 1999. Something like 500 Lebanese have been killed under circumstances in which they'd pretty much all have been killed in 1944, and Israel has the capacity to do that.

At some point, if the rocket attacks cannot be halted by the means Israel is presently using, Lebanon could end up being totally annihilated.

Basically, the only Lebanese I can easily feel sorry for are the Christians who used to be the majority a few decades ago, but guess what? They're not living in Lebanon any more. Apparently they got driven out by the same sort of stupidity we're observing now.

0 Replies

Hezballah enjoys a unique advantage for a group engaged in a war:

If people on the other side die, they win.

If people on their side die, they win.

Arguably, the deaths of Lebanese citizens advance Hezballah's goals far far more than any death of Israeli soldier or citizen. Is there really any reason to believe that this radical group is above engineering the deaths of Lebanese citizens and UN observers? This is not to say that they are pulling firing the guns or dropping the bombs that kill these people. They don't need to. All they need to do is insinuate themselves within and around civilian centers and UN outposts and the Israelis will do their dirty work for them.

If Hezballah cared so much for the Lebanese people, they would not be using them as human shields. I suppose it's to be expected, but it is interesting that the Lebanese people don't seem to be blaming Hezballah for bringing down the wrath of the Israelis on their country and their own innocent heads.

Because they cannot be defeated without the loss of innocent Lebanese lives, Israel is supposed to simply endure the Hezballah attacks, and because the number of Israeli citizens killed during this war does not rise to the level of Lebanese casualties, it is of no consequence.

A cease-fire only postpones further bloodshed for another day. A cease-fire is a clear victory for Hezballah. No matter what happens now Israel has yet another black-eye in the view of a large part of the world. A cease-fire at this point means the black-eye and the deaths of its citizens have been for naught. A cease-fire at this point raises Hezballah's stature on many levels. The so-called Arab Street loves them because they have fought the mighty Infidel to a standstill, and the rest of the world recognizes them as some sort of quasi-state.

The only way a cease-fire makes sense is if it is followed by the serious and determined efforts of the rest of the world to assist the LLebanesegovernment is disarming and disbanding Hezballah as required by prior UN resolution.

What is the chance this will happen, and if it is attempted what is the chance that Hezballah will comply without violent resistance? What then, another cease-fire?

0 Replies

Finn writes

Quote:

Arguably, the deaths of Lebanese citizens advance Hezballah's goals far far more than any death of Israeli soldier or citizen. Is there really any reason to believe that this radical group is above engineering the deaths of Lebanese citizens and UN observers?

This is why what I perceive to be lopsided reporting on the conflict is so damaging. I looked for about 20 minutes using numerous key phrases and kept coming up with article after article citing Israel's attack on relief vehicles and asserting that Israel MUST allow these vehicles to reach stranded civilians. Almost all appear to be using the same sources as the wording is very similar in all.

Every once in awhile you see one or two lines in which Israel says they are only targeting military supply vehicles. Allowing for the usual accidents that are inevitably going to happen in war, it does not appear that Israel is being given much opportunity to tell their side of it. Even a recent UN press release cited Israel's "use of excessive force" while just saying that Israel's soldier should be returned and there should be a cease fire. There was no particular criticism of Hezbollah and certainly no reference to their terrorist network, violation of UN resolution(s), or that they started the fight.

I have no doubt that Hezbollah knows how to work at least a somewhat sympathetic media to their advantage.

0 Replies

gunga wrote

Quote:

Yeah, it seems like the only people having problems with the hezbullies right now are Israeli citizens being rocketed by them and having to hole up in bomb shelters.

So far, Lebanese have been lucky,

This is the part I think all reasonable people can't ignore. Considering Israel's formidable fire power, if they weren't pulling their punches where the civilians are concerned, there would be thousands upon thousands dead now instead of the few hundred reported.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The only way a cease-fire makes sense is if it is followed by the serious and determined efforts of the rest of the world to assist the LLebanesegovernment is disarming and disbanding Hezballah as required by prior UN resolution.

What is the chance this will happen, and if it is attempted what is the chance that Hezballah will comply without violent resistance? What then, another cease-fire?

What are the chances? Slim and none, and Slim's ridin outta town as we speak. Heaballah is part of the Leb government and a majority of the people support them and, like I say, there could easily come a day on which Ohlmert has to choose between protecting his own people and worrying about these dickheads.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know