Middle East Tensions Exploding

[cbacon 0]

ZNet Commentary

Apocalypse Near August 08, 2006

By Noam Chomsky

 

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Merav Yudilovitch

 

Last week, a group of renowned intellectuals published an open letter blaming Israel for escalating the conflict in the Middle East. The letter, which mainly referred to the alignment of forces between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, caused a lot of anger among Ynet and Ynetnews readers, particularly due to its claim that the Israeli policy's political aim is to eliminate the Palestinian nation.

 

The letter was formulated by art critic and author John Berger and among its signatories were Nobel Prize winner, playwright Harold Pinter, linguist and theoretician Noam Chomsly, Nobel Prize laureate José Saramago, Booker Prize laureate Arundhati Roy, American author Russell Banks, author and playwright Gore Vidal, and historian Howard Zinn.

 

 

Prof. Chomsky, you claimed that the provocation and counter-provocation all serve as a distraction from the real issue. What does it mean?

 

"I assume you are referring to John Berger's letter (which I signed, among others). The "real issue" that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable land and major resources, leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley.

 

"This program of realignment cynically disguised as "withdrawal," is of course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it spells the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for 30 years - matters that are so well documented that I do not have to review them here.

 

"To turn to your specific question, even a casual look at the Western press reveals that the crucial developments in the occupied territories are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction in Gaza - which was rarely seriously reported in the first place - has largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover of the West Bank has virtually disappeared.

 

"However, I would not go as far as the implication in your question that this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect. We should recall that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that if resistance to Israel's destructive and illegal programs is legitimate within the West Bank (and it would be interesting to see a rational argument to the contrary), then it is legitimate in Gaza as well."

 

 

You claim that the world media refuses to link between what's going on in the occupied territories and in Lebanon?

 

"Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be leveled against the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the Berger letter.

 

"Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured, eliciting huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza, supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be punished.

 

 

One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language Israeli press, basically IDF handouts. And there were a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US.

 

Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, and no call for military or terrorist attacks against Israel. A Google search will quickly reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.

 

"The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with harsh clarity that the show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the population.

 

"As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate basis for support for these operations.

 

The same elementary moral principles carry over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long periods.

 

 

Truly disgraceful

"Over the many years in which Israel carried out these practices regularly, even kidnapping on the high seas, no one ever argued that these crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous - hence suppressed.

 

"All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases, revealing that they consider kidnapping a matter of no significance when carried by US-supported Israeli forces.

"Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are 'Hamas militants' or were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful."

 

 

You are talking first and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian nation, but will it solve the "Iranian threat"? Will it push Hizbullah from the Israeli border?

 

"Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred of Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds - and far beyond, as international polls reveal. Such an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing rejectionism.

 

"On Iran and Hizbullah, there is, of course, much more to say, and I can only mention a few central points here.

 

"Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

 

"In June 2006, Ayatollah Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei.

 

"Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

 

"The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty.

"ElBaradeiR17;s proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: The growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of 'apocalypse soon' (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course.

 

"The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community". These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

 

"It is commonly said that the 'international community' has called on Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define the "international community" as Washington and whoever happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action, international polls reveal.

 

"The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world.

 

"As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.

 

"It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tyrant installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States - including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others - strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians, just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help in developing the chemical weapons that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

 

 

Peaceful means

 

"There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests that the governments fear that they may be serious.

 

"I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law, and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel do regularly.

 

"On Hizbullah too, there are hard and serious questions. As well-known, Hizbullah was formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role in driving out the aggressors.

 

"The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel regularly bombed Lebanon, trying desperately to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the ludicrous pretext that Ambassador Argov had been wounded (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out.

 

 

Shameful pretexts

 

"It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hizbullah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had similar pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

 

"The problem of Hezbollah's arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes Hizbullah's military wing as "resistance rather than as a militia, and thus exempt from" Resolution 1559.

"A National Dialogue in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its main purpose was to formulate a "national defense strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel), but it remained deadlocked over Hizbullah's call for "a defense strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep its weapons as a deterrent to possible Israeli aggression," in the absence of any credible alternative. The US could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee against an invasion by its client state, but that would require a sharp change in long-standing policy.

 

"In the background are crucial facts emphasized by several veteran Middle East correspondents. Rami Khouri, now an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes that "the Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect them and deliver essential services."

 

 

You are not referring in your letter to the Israeli casualties. Is there differentiation in your opinion between Israeli civic casualties of war and Lebanese or Palestinian casualties?

 

"That is not accurate. John Berger's letter is very explicit about making no distinction between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states: "Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment."

 

"You claimed that the world is cooperating with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon and is not interfering in the events Gaza and Jenin. What purpose does this silence serve?

 

"The great majority of the world can do nothing but protest, though it is fully expected that the intense anger and resentment caused by US-Israeli violence will - as in the past - prove to be a gift for the most extremist and violent elements, mobilizing new recruits to their cause.

 

"The US-backed Arab tyrannies did condemn Hizbullah, but are being forced to back down out of fear of their own populations. Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's most loyal (and most important) ally, was compelled to say that "If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire."

 

"As for Europe, it is unwilling to take a stand against the US administration, which has made it clear that it supports the destruction of Palestine and Israeli violence. With regard to Palestine, while Bush's stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real break in US rejectionism in 30 years.

 

"The US also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression when atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.

 

"Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the world below through a bombsight." Much the same is true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners, despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view of the world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual monopoly of the means of violence, with consequences that we need not review."

 

 

What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?

 

"I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

 

"We can expect with confidence that the US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That may not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They are even facing the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi'a alliance controlling the world's major energy supplies, and independent of Washington - or even worse, establishing closer links with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council.

"The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, the leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hizbullah, and a harsh critic of the organization, describes the current conflict in "apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All hell would be let loose" if the outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which "the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government that it perceives as its betrayer.

 

"It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihad terror. The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about it by Western intelligence agencies, and by the leading specialists on these topics.

 

"One can bury one's head in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus" that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never be guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even 'apocalypse soon.'"

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Norm Chomsky is a son of a bitch.

 

Did I ever tell you about the time Chomsky took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Chomsky takes me to a vacant lot and says, "Here we are." We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Chomsky yelled over the roar of the flames, "Always leave things the way you found 'em!"

 

To Norm Chomsky!

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

It's George Galloway video, which I think was linked to in another thread on this board already. Basically he's a gigantic British liberal...very anti-Israel and pro-Arab.

 

 

What in the video did he say that was out of line?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It's the same demented liberal garbage about Israel constantly invading Lebanon (as if part of some land grab), completely ignoring the terrorist crimes against Israel.

 

Basically these liberals feel the Palestinians are a repressed minority, and see Israel as a mini-US, so they feel the need to constantly attack Israel's policies in defending itself.

 

Yes, there are 20+ Arab countries and one Jewish state. Clearly Israel is the majority aggressor, throughout its entire existence.

 

BTW, C-Bacon, no one here fucking cares about your hero Noam Chomsky. Did you write him a love letter after posting that interview?

[cbacon 0]

I love how you respond to the issues brought up by Galloway by essentially saying nothing other than playing the 'liberal bias/anti-semite' card, so it's clear you really know nothing outside of the information you've already been spoon fed. Which is quite telling since I doubt you even read the Chomsky articles seeing as how you would likely be unable to debunk any of the statements (most of which would be new to you anyway).

 

Must be nice living in a bubble where everything is black and white

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

It's the same demented liberal garbage about Israel constantly invading Lebanon (as if part of some land grab), completely ignoring the terrorist crimes against Israel.

 

Basically these liberals feel the Palestinians are a repressed minority, and see Israel as a mini-US, so they feel the need to constantly attack Israel's policies in defending itself.

 

Yes, there are 20+ Arab countries and one Jewish state. Clearly Israel is the majority aggressor, throughout its entire existence.

 

BTW, C-Bacon, no one here fucking cares about your hero Noam Chomsky. Did you write him a love letter after posting that interview?

 

I hope you don't mind me picking your brain a bit.

 

 

Are you saying that what Galloway said was a lie? Are you saying that since Israel is supposedly MORE like US that we should support them by default? Are you saying if I was to take into account the Palestinian perspective that I might be an anti-Semite the way alot of conservatives might label me?

 

Sorry dude, all I see are two sides fighting and being real fuckheads about it. You can take everything Galloway said and toss all away except one thing. This has been going on longer than four weeks. ALOT longer! So trying to put the blame on who hit who first is just a waste of time and a detriment to truth. Stow the finger pointing because it why we have this situation in the first place.

 

Conventional wisdom reminds us of the old "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Which always rubbed me the wrong way when this fight screams "Those who can not FORGIVE history are doomed to live there forever."

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I love how you respond to the issues brought up by Galloway by essentially saying nothing other than playing the 'liberal bias/anti-semite' card, so it's clear you really know nothing outside of the information you've already been spoon fed. Which is quite telling since I doubt you even read the Chomsky articles seeing as how you would likely be unable to debunk any of the statements (most of which would be new to you anyway).

 

Must be nice living in a bubble where everything is black and white

 

Only thing missing from this message is the coffee drinking icon, C-Bacon. Your righteous intellectual indignation is quite annoying though, and I don't see any reason to respond to you, since we'll never be on the same page anyway. I'm glad you seem to know exactly how much knowledge and education I have from one post, as well.

 

I'll consider responding to the Chomsky article more thoroughly later, but right now it's lunch time.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

well it looks like this is more or less over (for now)... and nothing of any consequence has been accomplished.

 

Except a huge increase in Hezbollah's popularity.

 

And the non-release of the soldiers.

 

And a ton of civilians dead, mostly on the Lebanese side.

 

And a month of Israelis holed up in bomb shelters.

 

But trying to think of logical consequences of actions before you take them is apparently for terrorist-loving anti-semitic cowards who just want to "roll over and die". or something. I tried to get into this back when the initial Beirut bombings began about how this was just plain bad, but it was always the same simplistic stupid-people logic from hardcore supporters.

 

Israel is clearly worse off now than it was before the offensive began.

 

I think its becoming clear that at some point, when you military reaches a certain strength, you start to become stupid, which is why guerrilla organizations can always find success by using the same tactics they've used for decades. They DELIBERATLY draw you in by clustering into civilian populations, and DELIBERATLY create a situation where you have to become evil to stop them. It's strategy, because if you have any morals whatsoever you won't do it, or if you do well everybody else in the world sees it.

And every single time someone takes the bait.

 

Here's to another 30 years of bloodshed.

[pappajacks 0]

Olmert has been severely criticized during the last week in Israel. They thought it would be a lot easier and probably underestimated Hizbollah's resistance. These organizations have learned that you cannot beat israel army against army because Israel is armed to the teeth. A conventional war with israel would be impossible to win so guerilla style warfare seems to be the way to go....and if the last month means anything...I would expect it to be even more popular among groups that challenge powerhouse armies.

 

The invincible israeli army all of a sudden looked vulnerable. What was the difference in numbers between israeli and Hizbollah soldiers killed?

[Guest CWMwasmurdered]

Israel showed that they aren't afraid to act. I sincerely doubt this is over. And it's going to be impossible to get an accuarate count of how many Terrorists were killed. They don't exactly wear uniforms.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think the big winner politically is going to be Likud. They had no influence on this war planning and aren't tarred like Kadmina with Olmert or Labor with Peretz. My prediction is that the fallout from this may see a crumbling of the Kadima-Labor partnership within the next year or so (probably b/c Labor might feel that its political advantageous to challenge Olmert and therefore break the coalition) which could usher Likud's hard liners into power and Benyamin Netanyahu returns to power for the first time in over a decade.

 

As a sidenote, I remain a bit confused about the whole Iran nuclear deal. Are inspectors still permitted to check out facilities or did Iran kick them out? Might sound like a dumb question but somehow I can't recall. If someone knows the answer it'd be appreciated.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Yeah, gloat over their "victory" all they want but Bush and Israel keep making the same mistake. Getting into an armed conflict either here or in Iraq is exactly what these assholes want. The more broader the scope the more happy Hezbollah and bin Laden will be. The more we fight them with guns, rockets, and bombs the more resilient they will become. They don't even bother trying to understand the enemy so therefore the best they can do is blow up SOME of them.

 

If these "leaders" can't neuter them politically they will never defeat them. I can already imagine what it will be like WHEN they are here stateside. Because you KNOW it is going to happen.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Yeah, gloat over their "victory" all they want but Bush and Israel keep making the same mistake. Getting into an armed conflict either here or in Iraq is exactly what these assholes want. The more broader the scope the more happy Hezbollah and bin Laden will be. The more we fight them with guns, rockets, and bombs the more resilient they will become. They don't even bother trying to understand the enemy so therefore the best they can do is blow up SOME of them.

 

If these "leaders" can't neuter them politically they will never defeat them. I can already imagine what it will be like WHEN they are here stateside. Because you KNOW it is going to happen.

 

So your response to a terror attack would be to do nothing because fighting the terrorists is what they want?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So YOU would respond by continuing an unending cycle of violence that gets us nowhere?

 

The point was if our "leaders" have no better ideas than the ones being used right now we should get some new ones. Someone who will try something different since the way things are now are clearly not going to work. You can't kill all of them. Everyone terrorist you kill more will come either because of their religious beliefs or maybe because someone they know or loved was killed in the conflict. Some of them might not have got involved otherwise.

 

Oh we could dig our heels in deeper and just use bigger bombs but how soon after that does the rest of the world turn against US? Keep on this road and that is where it leads. So what good will come of this I ask you? It certainly won't make us SAFER. Swim at your own risk.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, gloat over their "victory" all they want but Bush and Israel keep making the same mistake. Getting into an armed conflict either here or in Iraq is exactly what these assholes want. The more broader the scope the more happy Hezbollah and bin Laden will be. The more we fight them with guns, rockets, and bombs the more resilient they will become. They don't even bother trying to understand the enemy so therefore the best they can do is blow up SOME of them.

 

If these "leaders" can't neuter them politically they will never defeat them. I can already imagine what it will be like WHEN they are here stateside. Because you KNOW it is going to happen.

 

So your response to a terror attack would be to do nothing because fighting the terrorists is what they want?

 

If Al Quaeda actually set up shop here in the US, I would hope many Americans would feel compelled to take matters into their own hands, assuming the government did nothing. I know I would consider it.

 

Many of the leftists think we should do more to understand why the terrorists are mad, try to negotiate with them, join in a singalong to "Imagine", etc. It's the same attitude that the Western world took to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Look how well that turned out. I guess if 6 million or so Jews die, it's not that big a deal. I mean, how much have Israeli deaths been reported in this conflict? No one seems to give a crap about 3 kidnapped Israeli soldiers, but if a couple sons of a terrorist leader get killed, we have to condemn Israel over it.

 

Can't we recognize that America has enemies that need to be dealt with, and not coddled?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Why don't we just organize a large "hitman squad" within the CIA to go after these people? And I'm not talking about the terrorists. I'm talking about their families. These idiots don't care if they die so let's start going after people they might actually give a crap about. This is what the Russian KGB threatened to do when one of its diplomats was abducted in Lebanon in the 1980s and surprise, surprise the guy was returned within several days of that proclamation.

 

Sure, it sounds crazy and I'm not sure I would 100% condone it but if these people don't seem to care about life then we need to start taking extreme measures to eliminate them. I for one do not want to live under sharia law and the fact that these leftist rallies call George W. Bush the biggest terrorist in the world is absolutley ludicrous.

 

By the way, where are all the feminists on this issue? You'd think they would give Bush some credit since he's liberated millions of women in Afghanistan by getting rid of the oppressive Taliban regime and since an Islamic regime would cover them up in 100 layers of clothing and take away any freedoms they have. Oh yea...they aren't going to support him because the right to an abortion is more important than a poor girl in Afghanistan getting an education and having to get married when they are like 5 years old to 60 year old men. Got it.

 

As far as Iran goes I say we need to do everything we can to sanction their ass. They can use the oil weapon all they want but I think the world could survive by having 5% of its oil reserves depleted better than Iran could survive with a 100% loss of oil revenue. It would totally collapse their government and would provide an opportunity for reformers to depose the Guardian Council and institue democracy without our interference.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/islam/

 

Link to some awesome pictures from a protest in London.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

The point is, they're not being dealt with in the way things are being done. Hezbollah was not dealt with, in the least. Are the insurgents in Iraq really being dealt with? We're doing a better job than the israeli's did in this offensive but i still dont sense its really a good job.

 

Anybody who couldn't see from the beginning that this offensive WASN'T going to do what Israel wanted it to is BLIND. I'm sorry but they are. It was all so fuckin obvious. Hezbollah was simply doing what every guerrilla/terrorist organization has done.

 

The bottom line is until the military powers can come up with people smart enough to come up with a more effective way with dealing with guerilla warfare, it'll go on, because they consistently OUTSMART US by baiting us into no-win situations.

 

I wonder what the israeli war planning room was like. When someone tries to point out the obvious things wrong with reaching the goal, was there a designated robot that simply repeated "SO YOUR OPTION IS TO DO NOTHING AND SURRENDER!??" It could just repeat the same statement over and over again.

 

The right wing method is a PROVEN FAILURE time and time and time and time again (try, every major guerilla situation, from afghan-soviets, vietnam, pally territories, this offesnvie, iraq). The far left wing method is at times, more like "surrender".

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think the solution starts with the US weening itself off of Middle East oil. Let them get their money from someone else.

[2GOLD 0]

I think the solution starts with the US weening itself off of Middle East oil. Let them get their money from someone else.

 

Then they would just get their money from aid from us. Or even more UN corruption than usual.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Yeah, gloat over their "victory" all they want but Bush and Israel keep making the same mistake. Getting into an armed conflict either here or in Iraq is exactly what these assholes want. The more broader the scope the more happy Hezbollah and bin Laden will be. The more we fight them with guns, rockets, and bombs the more resilient they will become. They don't even bother trying to understand the enemy so therefore the best they can do is blow up SOME of them.

 

If these "leaders" can't neuter them politically they will never defeat them. I can already imagine what it will be like WHEN they are here stateside. Because you KNOW it is going to happen.

 

So your response to a terror attack would be to do nothing because fighting the terrorists is what they want?

 

If Al Quaeda actually set up shop here in the US, I would hope many Americans would feel compelled to take matters into their own hands, assuming the government did nothing. I know I would consider it.

 

Many of the leftists think we should do more to understand why the terrorists are mad, try to negotiate with them, join in a singalong to "Imagine", etc. It's the same attitude that the Western world took to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Look how well that turned out. I guess if 6 million or so Jews die, it's not that big a deal. I mean, how much have Israeli deaths been reported in this conflict? No one seems to give a crap about 3 kidnapped Israeli soldiers, but if a couple sons of a terrorist leader get killed, we have to condemn Israel over it.

 

Can't we recognize that America has enemies that need to be dealt with, and not coddled?

 

 

 

It is your plan for dealing with them that is the problem. You are not going to be able to kill ALL of them. Sure, I suppose if we could the threat would be less. However, what point is there if I (as I said before) their will was set and heels dug in. They don't care if they die for their god. So they will keep attacking and then play weak when we show up with big guns which makes Americans and Israel look like assholes. Revenge makes for bad politics for a reason. So lets stop playing their way and try something new. Perferably an idea where nobody has to fucking die.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Someone has to die. That's the point. They want to kill us, and are willing to kill themselves, innocent civilians (on both sides), and anyone who gets in their way. I agree that the circle of violence does perpetuate itself, but what is your better solution?

 

The only other way would be to just completely isolate the Arab world, and we're not in a position economically to do that right now.

[BruiserKC 0]

Yeah, gloat over their "victory" all they want but Bush and Israel keep making the same mistake. Getting into an armed conflict either here or in Iraq is exactly what these assholes want. The more broader the scope the more happy Hezbollah and bin Laden will be. The more we fight them with guns, rockets, and bombs the more resilient they will become. They don't even bother trying to understand the enemy so therefore the best they can do is blow up SOME of them.

 

If these "leaders" can't neuter them politically they will never defeat them. I can already imagine what it will be like WHEN they are here stateside. Because you KNOW it is going to happen.

 

So your response to a terror attack would be to do nothing because fighting the terrorists is what they want?

 

If Al Quaeda actually set up shop here in the US, I would hope many Americans would feel compelled to take matters into their own hands, assuming the government did nothing. I know I would consider it.

 

Many of the leftists think we should do more to understand why the terrorists are mad, try to negotiate with them, join in a singalong to "Imagine", etc. It's the same attitude that the Western world took to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Look how well that turned out. I guess if 6 million or so Jews die, it's not that big a deal. I mean, how much have Israeli deaths been reported in this conflict? No one seems to give a crap about 3 kidnapped Israeli soldiers, but if a couple sons of a terrorist leader get killed, we have to condemn Israel over it.

 

Can't we recognize that America has enemies that need to be dealt with, and not coddled?

 

 

 

It is your plan for dealing with them that is the problem. You are not going to be able to kill ALL of them. Sure, I suppose if we could the threat would be less. However, what point is there if I (as I said before) their will was set and heels dug in. They don't care if they die for their god. So they will keep attacking and then play weak when we show up with big guns which makes Americans and Israel look like assholes. Revenge makes for bad politics for a reason. So lets stop playing their way and try something new. Perferably an idea where nobody has to fucking die.

 

 

Hitler did this in the '30s. He screamed about how bad off Germany was and used the media to make him seem like all he wanted was peace and a better Germany. The people we're dealing with aren't stupid...they use the media to portray America and Israel as evil and then they can justify whatever they do.

 

As for me...I think if we had taken the gloves off a long time ago and stuck it to these monsters who are out to destroy us, the troops would have probably been home by now. In World War II, we had to finally realize that the only way to take out Germany and Japan was to just obliterate them.

 

Before we do that...it's time to identify our enemy...Wahabism and a radical form of Islam that is hell-bent on taking over the world and forcing us all to kneel before Allah or have our domes lopped off. We need to tell the world this is the danger we are facing...plus we need to make the distinction we understand they don't represent all Muslims. However, it's high time they choose...you are truly with us or the terrorists.

 

And then...off with the gloves and take care of business. I don't like war...I hate war and would rather not fight unless I have to. However...back in school when I had to deal with a bully who was picking on me...I could have cared less about understanding what the bully's problem was. I wanted him to stop...if that meant hauling off and knocking him out...so be it.

 

Call it heartless, call it cruel...but I'm OK with a little bit of fear in them. I just want it to the point they think twice before perpetrating another 9/11.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Because Saddam and Iraq were responsible for 9/11...

 

Oh and leave Hitler out of it!

[bobobrazil1984 0]

That's great Bruiser... EXCEPT ITS NOT WORKING!

 

Only a truly blind person would think that this situation worked out WELL for Israel.

 

People are very good with generalities but seem oblivious to the fact that the end result is always the OPPOSITE of what you wanted.

 

I noticed Hezbollah, who already experienced a jump in popularity after Israel's offensive-which-did-nothing-to-Hezbollah's-infastructure, immediatly jumped into Lebanon and started with the rebuilding, thereby increasing their stock even more. There's an article in the NYTimes about this.

 

Look at Hezbollah's role in Lebanon BEFORE this mess................... and look at it after.

 

Israel got outsmarted here. They took the bait, completely, 100%. Israel isn't hadn't even completely left and hezbollah was immediatly on the influence and rebuilding trail.

 

Hezbollah, now more popular than before! Now with Vitamin C!!!!

 

This clearly isn't working. It isn't working in Iraq, and it's not working in the Pally territoriies and it definatlely did not work against Hezbollah.

 

ANd we cant just do nothing.

 

The only real solution I can think of is pumping ALL the "war money" into intelligence and infiltration. ALL OF IT.

 

ALL 80 MILLION DOLLARS (or however much it is).

 

I have to think if our intelligence, had, say, double or triple the resources that they could hopefully pull off better cases of infiltration and inside sources. Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare isn't traditional war, and history has proven time and time again that "traditional war" methods are woefully inadequate.

 

QUADRUPLE the amount of special forces, and intelligence resources, and money available. In addition, any strategic fuck-ups need to be held immediatly accountable. This is essential. Smart people who think winning strategy. In Israel's case, I strongly feel that every war planner should be immediatly fired. In this kind of war, lack and thought of strategy hurts far more than any terrorist attack. SPECIAL FORCES and CIA INFILTRATION SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY ARMY.

[EricMM 0]

80 million dollars?

 

Where, pray tell, are you getting that number from ?

 

A drop in the bucket...

[bobobrazil1984 0]

nowhere, heh, just a random number i pulled out of my ass. however much it really is.

[EricMM 0]

Try 300 billion.

[BruiserKC 0]

Perhaps Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...but he was housing some bad peeps...Abu Nidal for example. Saddam was a monster and had to go. But he's just one part of the problem.

 

We're not fighting this thing all out...we're afraid of what the world thinks. In Israel's case, they waited on full-fledged military action and movement into Lebanon because they waited for the world to work on the diplomacy part...a ploy that bought Hezbollah more time. Hezbollah puts their installations and weaponry in the midst of civilian populations, all the while they deliberately target Israeli civilian targets with no military target value whatsoever. Meanwhile Hezbollah comes out shining like a rose and Kofi Annan's only real contribution is a Mel Gibson moment accusing Israel of deliberately targetting UN workers.

 

It's human nature...they are fighting for a cause that they think is worth fighting for and is attainable. If we put the smackdown to them and kill enough of the terrorists that want us dead, somewhere along the line they might actually start thinking picking a fight with us was not a good idea. It worked in Germany and Japan and it can work here.

 

The Vestal Virgin Travel Agency is open for business! We're taking reservations now for the afterlife, suicidal bombers. Operators are standing by...have your credit card ready. Plenty of seats available...first come first serve. No pushing, no shoving please...all of ya will get to see Allah and all his glory.

 

This is the approach that needs to be taken...and the world needs to be put on notice that is the way we're going. And then do it...a rocket comes out of the neighborhoods around the Baghdad airport...level the area. If Al-Sadr or some other cleric decides to hole himself up in a mosque and use it as a place to fight Americans...blow the mosque to bits. If, as an extreme example...we have American lives lost to a chemical or biological attack...the nation who harbors the monsters doing it gets one of their cities bombed to the ground. If they use a dirty nuke...couple of their cities are wiped off the face of the planet.

 

And if the world cries out...tell them they had a choice and we're going to deal with our survival first and foremost.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Don't worry folks, Hollywood has finally taken a stand against Hamas and Hezbollah. Which is generally, what any sane person would do.

 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5005961,00.html

 

Kidman condemns Hamas, HezbollahFrom correspondents in Los Angeles

 

August 17, 2006 08:51am

 

NICOLE Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism.

 

The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.

 

It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

 

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.

 

"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.

 

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

 

A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad.

 

The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.

 

Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names.

 

Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.