I agree with this. But there is a difference between this and "kill all the Arabs because they hate Israel." If they hate Israel but don't have rockets, I don't much care.

Again with the double negative. Yes. It's not like certain of the Lebanese people do not relate and sympathize with Hezbollah. Many even voted for Hezbollah.

Hell, you voted for Bush, but it's not like that makes you culpable for his war crimes (if any).

Certainly by age three, no kid is fully innocent. Less, if you take an old-skool view of Genesis.

So, Lebanese men, women and children deserved to be killed because they created communities predicated on hate and the idea of destruction of Israel, and they let Hezbollah live and prosper in their country.

The latter is my Ward Churchill/little Eichman point, about which you and I have both said enough. Tell me, though: How did your average resident of Lebanon create a community predicated on hate? I was under the impression that Lebanon was around for a while before 1948, so I'm not clear what you mean by this?

See, I treat the "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" stuff as pure hyperbole (and part of my using this board to vent steam). Sorry if you and other don't see it that way. I'll try to tone that down.

As for how I see the truth in Ty's analogy, it's the idea that it's okay to kill people for what they think, rather than what they do. The second part (the comparison of the 911 terrorists to Israel) is not an apt analogy, which is why I only said that there was SOME truth to what Ty said.

1. Despite the fact that I love you, platonically, like a blog addled co-administrator and fellow oenophile, I hate you for making me google Kobayashi Maru. I know who Badtz Maru is, and thought this must be his brother or cousin. I am sad.

2. Which Sharon, 82 version or 05 version?

3. I am not advocating killing as many civilians as possible. I am fine with Israel destroying as much of the infrastructure, military and non-military as it thinks it needs to do impact on Hezbolah's ability to operate. At this point the innocent civilians should be evacuating. Where is the UN? Let them administer that part. That organisation's institutional anti-semitism is as much a part of the long term problem here as any. They should be charged with some responsibility. to that end, to save you the trouble of asking, half seriously, I am okay with Israel bombing the UN.

How do you cut off arms from Iran and Syria without bombing? (And don't say 'diplomacy')


And given the strength that Hezbollah has shown, it may not be an existential threat to Israel now but in another five years, and in conjunction with its allies, that may no longer be true.

Huh?

I agree with that. I know we have our differences, but please don't make me out to be racist and/or advocating killing all Arabs. I am not and don't take that position.

I have said I am okay with them hating Israel, but it has to go a bit beyond no rockets, it has to include no concerted intifida. Build a wall, figurative or literal, but if you can't interact, at least respect the wall. Or. Probably, with history as our guide, suffer some consequences.

Hmmm. By this rationale, you are to blame for Clinton.

I'm glad Sidd got my point, which was not put well. As I understand it, Churchill suggested that the men and women who worked in the WTC were culpable because they played of their role in the U.S. imperial hegemony (or whatever):

• As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

link.

It was the notion of targeting civilians that I was referring to; I was not trying to suggest that there is some equivalence between the respective causes.

He bit it a long time ago. It's just that the message is finally getting through the barbed wire.

Sorry not to link, but I didn't want anyone to think me a Trekkie, NTTAWWT.

'05 was wiser and cagier, if in worse health.

I have a problem with Israel destroying non-military infrastructure, for the reasons previously discussed. Funny, that.

Where is the UN? We ought to have an international organization prepared to come in and clean up the mess made by military intervention, if only to make military intervention more efficient and accepted. Too bad Bush didn't think of this earlier and try to strengthen the organization.

If you're going to rule out force and persuasion, that leaves less attractive options, like building a really big wall.

Can we involve Berkeley's traffic department? They would propose building traffic circles, putting in planters, and otherwise impeding the flow of traffic.

If you mean nukes, I hear you. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. If you look at the respective populations, resources, money, technology, etc., Hezbollah isn't in the same league. Hezbollah couldn't take out Lebanon's military, Lebanon couldn't take out Syria, and Syria couldn't stay in the same room with Israel.

Well. UN posts have been used for cover for Hezbollah, so it's not like the UN hasn't been keeping some of the people safer.

So how do you stop weapons from coming in from Syria?

It is too bad that most of the world seems more upset with Israel for using overwhelming force and hitting a lot of civilians unintentionally than they are with Hezbollah for using less force but shooting at civilians intentionally.