The strategy is?

[cj001f]

All there is to get is this: Islamic Fascists want nothing more than to convert everyone, eriadicate freedom of religion and speech, put the women in burhkas, and basically roll the clock back about 2000 years or so, or kill you if you aren't down with that idea. But we have nothing to fear until they start busting into Jewish community centers and gunning down women here in the US...oh wait.

 

Add some weight, Viagra and Oxycontin and I'd be talking to Rush! Let's have some good ethnic cleansing of Arabs to protect freedom!

 

hint: islamofascists aren't the loons with nukes, and islamists want to roll back the clock ~1400 years (it's the Christian fundamentalist wackjobs who want to roll back 2000 years)

[JayB]

Recent Iraq civilian death estimates: between 39,000 and 44,000. But we didn't mean it. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

 

If you've got some time to spare, maybe you could parse out the percentage of deaths at the hands of US forces, versus sectarian violence, versus random murder and crime.

 

To get back to one of your consistent themes - it seems to me that you are arguing that there is no distinction between physical and moral equivalence, and that all civilian deaths resulting from combat are morally equivalent to one another. By that reasoning soldiers who inadvertently kill civilians in a crossfire while trying to rescue them from certain execution at the hands of their captors are morally equivalent to soldiers that deliberately seeking out civilians and kill them? Or am I misunderstanding something about your position? The stance that physical equivalence = moral equivalence seems to be the only framework in which one could argue that the actions of the Israeli military and those of Hezbollah are morally equivalent.

[lI1|1!]

nevermind

Edited August 2, 2006 by lI1|1!

[cj001f]

nevermind

was Nirvana's big hit record.

 

wait, you probably knew that didn't you?

[greenfork]

Add some weight, Viagra and Oxycontin and I'd be talking to Rush! Let's have some good ethnic cleansing of Arabs to protect freedom!

 

Well now you're just putting words in valleydude's mouth, aren't you? Who suggested ethnic cleansing? Rush is a moron (well, not a moron I guess - he knows what he's doing, but those who listen/agree with him are morons).

 

What valleydude said is basically right. The radical muslim leaders want to convert everyone and kill infidels. There is no denying that.

 

hint: islamofascists aren't the loons with nukes,

 

Not yet, no. Do you think they will hesitate to use them once (not if) they get them? They'll be able to use them with impunity, because we won't have any obvious target to strike back at. Kind of scary.

 

and islamists want to roll back the clock ~1400 years (it's the Christian fundamentalist wackjobs who want to roll back 2000 years)

 

nice catch...

[valleydude]

All there is to get is this: Islamic Fascists want nothing more than to convert everyone, eriadicate freedom of religion and speech, put the women in burhkas, and basically roll the clock back about 2000 years or so, or kill you if you aren't down with that idea. But we have nothing to fear until they start busting into Jewish community centers and gunning down women here in the US...oh wait.

 

Add some weight, Viagra and Oxycontin and I'd be talking to Rush! Let's have some good ethnic cleansing of Arabs to protect freedom!

 

hint: islamofascists aren't the loons with nukes, and islamists want to roll back the clock ~1400 years (it's the Christian fundamentalist wackjobs who want to roll back 2000 years)

 

Take it however you wish. Just letting you know.

[Jim]

At least an intelligent question - you're close. My main concern is that Israel is a democratic state; and a powerful one. Forget about the issues about how it was established. It's there and deserves to be a sovereign state. Hezbollah and such are terrorists and kill civilians with that intent. The Israeli government kills many more civilians but says it's just in a days work of war. Is Israel excused from any morality because they say they didn't mean it, or will investigate it (the usual press release)? No. I'd say they have more moral and human rights responsibility because they are a powrerful democratic country, that supposedly values human rights. The purposeful targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure amounts to state terrorism. And I agree with you - a more precise ground offensive would likely have been more effective and minimized civilian casualties.

[cj001f]

Not yet, no. Do you think they will hesitate to use them once (not if) they get them? They'll be able to use them with impunity, because we won't have any obvious target to strike back at. Kind of scary.

Well, if they do get them it'll probably be from the same shitbag who is selling them the rockets they are currently using to attack Israel - Kim Jong Il.

[JayB]

It's been too long since the we've seen a massive ground invasion. Israel should just roll straight into Damascus, link up with the 4th ID in Baghdad, and plow right into Tehran. If you're going to escalate, go straight to the top.

 

I personally think that holding Potlucks for Peace is the way out of this one.

[cj001f]

It's been too long since the we've seen a massive ground invasion. Israel should just roll straight into Damascus, link up with the 4th ID in Baghdad, and plow right into Tehran. If you're going to escalate, go straight to the top.

 

I personally think that holding Potlucks for Peace is the way out of this one.

 

I'd prefer Strippers for Syria or Naked Twister for North Korea

[slothrop]

Knitting for Nuclear Annihilation

[valleydude]

I'd say they have more moral and human rights responsibility because they are a powrerful democratic country.

 

Noble? Yes.

Desirable? Certainley.

Will maintaining such a ideal preclude Islamic Fascists from seeking the destruction of Israel, The US, (insert infidel nation here)? Nay.

[cj001f]

Knitting for Nuclear Annihilation

I was heading towards the moderate arab states - blowjobs for bahrain, orgies for oman, dps for dubai.

[SmallShoes]

If you were attacked, would you not defend yourself if you couldn't do it w/o killing innocents on the other side?

 

I was waiting for someone to bring this up before me, but....

Can't defend themselves without killing innocent civilians? Have you ever heard of the Qana shelling (aka Qana massacre)? 106 Lebanese civilians (or should I say "civilians"?) killed. Targeted by Israeli artillery - "accidentally" I'm sure. Although both the UN and Amnesty International investigations found numerous holes in the Israeli explanation. Like how they were monitoring where civilians were with two helicopters and an unmanned drone - which Israel initially denied having in the area.

[slothrop]

What does Israel possibly have to gain by deliberately targeting civilians? I think they just have so-so intelligence and an itchy trigger finger. It's too easy to provoke them into shelling/bombing/bulldozing something and Hezbollah has taken advantage of it.

[Jim]

You're talking about the 1996 time, this time they only killed a third that many.

[greenfork]

Smallshoes, given how much this has hurt Israel's cause, do you really believe that Israel intentionally targetted innocent civilians? Really? Why would they do that?

[JayB]

At least an intelligent question - you're close. My main concern is that Israel is a democratic state; and a powerful one. Forget about the issues about how it was established. It's there and deserves to be a sovereign state. Hezbollah and such are terrorists and kill civilians with that intent. The Israeli government kills many more civilians but says it's just in a days work of war. Is Israel excused from any morality because they say they didn't mean it, or will investigate it (the usual press release)? No. I'd say they have more moral and human rights responsibility because they are a powrerful democratic country, that supposedly values human rights. The purposeful targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure amounts to state terrorism. And I agree with you - a more precise ground offensive would likely have been more effective and minimized civilian casualties.

 

I think a significant ground offensive immediately after the air campaign would probably have been more effective in actually achieving Israel's stated objective, but I'm not sure that intense ground fighting would result in fewer civilian casualties, given the fact that Hizbullah hasn't evinced much in the way of an effort to separate themselves from civilians and get the civilians out of harm's way.

 

I'm not sure that Israel's tactics have been the wisest here, but it seems to me that they've done everything that they could to minimize civilian casualties - as if they elected to pay no heed to civilian lives they could have easily flattened any or all of Lebanon and been done with it. So by taking measures to limit civilian casualties as much as possible in the face of a massive rocket bombardment undertaken to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible, I'd say that Israel has lived up to it's moral responsibilities as a more powerful democratic state that's aspiring to live by a higher set of ideals than their enemies. I am not sure if there's any way that they could respond to these missile attacks that would eliminate civilian casualties alogether, other than battening down the hatches and waiting until Hezbollah exhausts its arsenal, but I don't think it's reasonable for the rest of the world to expect them to do that when no other nation on Earth would accept that kind of limitation on their ability to respond while being attacked.

[Jim]

What does Israel possibly have to gain by deliberately targeting civilians? I think they just have so-so intelligence and an itchy trigger finger. It's too easy to provoke them into shelling/bombing/bulldozing something and Hezbollah has taken advantage of it.

 

It's their usual strategy, to pound the populace into pudding, thinking this will somehow pacify them in the long run. Good question though - why would you drop 500 lb bombs on residential housing? Hoping there's a couple of wackos among the innocents I suppose.

[Jim]

I'm not sure that Israel's tactics have been the wisest here, but it seems to me that they've done everything that they could to minimize civilian casualties - as if they elected to pay no heed to civilian lives they could have easily flattened any or all of Lebanon and been done with it. So by taking measures to limit civilian casualties as much as possible in the face of a massive rocket bombardment undertaken to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible, I'd say that Israel has lived up to it's moral responsibilities as a more powerful democratic state that's aspiring to live by a higher set of ideals than their enemies.

 

Tale of the tape: Lebanon civilian casualties : over 600

Israeli civilian casualties from the "massive" rocket attacks: 18

 

I'd say the response is over the top.

[slothrop]

To Hezbollah, there are no civilians. They take "you're either with us or against us" to a new level.

 

Not responding would have been an interesting reponse, though. Might have thrown Nasrallah off his game. Israel could have let the outrage at the unprovoked Hezbollah raid marinate for a while, at least. But no, Iran/Syria/etc. read the political situation very well and took advantage.

[olyclimber]

The strategy is to copy the enormous success of using violence to stop violence. Historically, this has always worked.

[JayB]

Smallshoes, given how much this has hurt Israel's cause, do you really believe that Israel intentionally targetted innocent civilians? Really? Why would they do that?

 

And if that was their goal, who limit themselves to an artillery shell or two?

 

It'd be interesting to see the analysis in which Israel concludes that it can advance it's interests by deliberately invoking condemnation and outrage through intentionally killing civilians.

 

I feel like I must be missing something here. Israel has the capacity to kill every last civilian in Lebanon in short order if it chooses to, but only uses a fraction of it's millitary power, and takes as many precautions as is reasonably possible to avoid killing civilians, while Hezbollah holds nothing back and unleashes every bit of its arsenal while trying to kill as many civilians as possible, and use the civilian population as shields - but Israel is the actor singled out for condemnation?

 

Having said all of that, even if they were equally bad, I'd take Israel's side for strategic reasons alone, so I'm hardly an impartial observer on this one.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

it's the Christian fundamentalist wackjobs who want to roll back 2000 years)

 

more like 300-400 years.

[valleydude]

What he said. Go Jews.