Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

My personal experience (which is not a scientific poll) is that I have never met an Arab that thought Israel had a right to exist. That includes Christian palestians from Israel and Lebanon, and coptic Christians from Egypt. I mention them because before I met them I always assumed Christian Arabs would be more sympathetic to the Israeli cause. I have lived all over the world and worked and socialized with a lot of educated and affluent Arabs and they all have the same opinion. Arabia may not exist as a political reality but it is a reality in most Arabs minds. Arabia runs brom Baghdad to Morrocco and Israel is occupying a center portion of it. As most would say, "the Zionist are occupying the heart of Arabia".

I always thought that Moroccan royalty was somewhat sympathetic towards Israel, but my landlord in Law school was a Morrocan prince, and his whole familly looked forward to the day that Israel dissappeared. Arabs don't seem to agree on much, but that is one thing they all seem to agree on.

I now have many Persian employees, very well educated and seemngly rational, but they all think Israel has no right to exist and needs to go at the earliest possible convenience. So it also seems that the muslims off the world don't agree on much, but they all agree on the Isreali issue.

The Arab people (and Muslims) may be forced to to accept the reality of Israel, and they may even acknowledge it in treaties, but in their hearts they will always want it gone.

If the middle east became truely democratic and responded to its people wishes, I would believe they would all band together and take out Israel. The only thing that stops them from doing that is that they are all autocratic, are divided have other agendas and don't care what their people think.

If people have had a different experience than me, by all means, let me hear about it.

Iraqi Death Toll
 

I'm not sure comparisons between the numbers of deaths are relevant (nor that yours are accurate, but leave that aside).

When Israel declares victory, celebrates the establishment of democracy in Lebanon, and talks about its mission being accomplished, well, then the comparison to Iraq may make some sense.

But I guess Iraq is no longer important.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

In its broad strokes, of course not . . .

Our modernized bunker busting missiles are designed to be capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads.

When you are going after modern, deeply buried, hardened targets, like nuclear testing chambers, etc. -- you'd want to use tac nukes to have any real prospect of success. (If you were intending to wipe out a "program.") This isn't like dropping a few pickles on a reactor.

There are surely such plans in place for Iran, to be used if needed.

P.S. "Hearsay" is a cite/ a cite that is not cited/so then not a cite.

Paradox in haiku.

P.P.S. I _would borrow the lube, but Wonk told me you used it all up during your cite fight with Spanky. Burn!!! :P

S_A_M

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Ouch. "Semireasonable position and descend into Bull Shit."

My point was that when you refer to something that comes from an anoymous source you could at least say it was alleged instead of referring to it as fact. Cites are for demonstrating that there is a legitimate source that shows the information cited is factually true, not just showing that someone else has the same unstabstantiated opinion (like Ann Coulter loves to do).

I think Tys point was (and correct me if I am wrong) is that considering the structure and posture of our government most of our reliable information concerning our government has to come from anonymous sources, and as long as the information comes from a reputable journalist, information from anonymous sources (especially information that also has been reported by multiple legitimate journalists) can be assumed to be accurate (unless shown otherwise), and furthermore, such sources can be used in a cite to show the validity of the facts asserted.

Were we really descending into Bull Shit? Isn't that a legitimate dispute?

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

As it happens, I have an Arab friend (Caldean Iraqi) who doesn't have a problem with Israel's existence. He's American (and I suppose, American-ized in his worldview), though his family is also involved in trying to help Caldean communities in Iraq.

I acknowledge that this anecdote demonstrates relatively little, though, and I lack your confidence in extrapolating personal experiences into conclusions about what all Arabs think about Israel.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

Less and I had a couple Caldean friends in law school (for some reason, outside of Detroit, San Diego has the larges Caldean community in the United States - although they don't drink they own ninety percent of the liquor stores in San Diego county) and they were both opposed to the existence of Israel. But it gives me a little bit of hope that there are a few out there.


Actually, I was kind of hoping that someone would cite a poll. As I said, my sample was clearly not a scientific sample, and could be screwed up for many reasons. It could very likely be that Arabs that think Isreal has a right to exist are rather reluctant to share their beliefs or educated Arabs care about "Arabia" but the average Arab could care less etc. Are there polls that show what the average Arab really thinks (I have never seen one), or are there more scientific reports that show how much the average Arab really cares about Israel?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I think the reputation of the reporter and the context matter much more than whether a source is named. The bigger problem with anonymous sources is that they are used by the ruling party to float things without consequence.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Or how about float things that are completely innacurate?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

let me ask you, pre-2003 did you have respect for dan Rather? what if he told you something now?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Depends on whether it was floating.


("Your Honor, I have a cite for that!" "Counsel, that one is a real floater.")

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

Cite, please.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I do not recall having a position concerning Mr. Rather. I rarely if ever watch TV news.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

you are aware there is a medium called television, and many people watch the news on it, though right? are you aware people come to trust those sources? are you aware that "Mr. Rather" tried to highjack an election with blantant document creation- (but not hearsay- alleged official record!)-?

And that's difference from your reliable sources how? Because you find them reliable? fuck Ty- we're back to having to accept any blog you cite- should I choose a word besides "cite"?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

There is no way for me to come up with a cite because the sources are anonymous. But seriously, don't you think that the Bush administration feeds inacurate stuff (that makes the admininstration look good) to right leaning news outlets (like Newsmax) and Newsmax reports it as anonymous sources. I know I have read stuff on Drudgereport where people have reported having inside information from unamed people high up in the administration that is to good to be true. I am pretty sure that at one time the Drudge Report reported that the White House had evidence that the WMDs were moved to Syria and that the information was going to be released soon.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I thought Rather's producer came off looking worse than he did. In any event, a trusted source won't always be right. Doesn't Bush say he relied on the CIA re WMD?

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I don't read that crap, so I wouldn't know, but I guess I was thinking they were finding that stuff under rocks and in sewage mains rather than having it leaked by the administration.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

I don't know you or your work here (are you new? a sock? Are you Adder?) but this is absurd. A poll? Poll for what? If you polled the KuKluxKlan do you think you would find out that they mostly hate blacks? When I studied law there was a concept called res ipsa loquiter. Does that still exist in your universe? If so, apply it accordingly.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

But wouldn't you agree that there is no way to verify the legitimacy of their claims since they refer to "anonymous" sources. And I hear it from reporters all the time, like last night on MSNBC their reporter (that guy that looks like Matt Lauer who is reporting from Tel Aviv right now) said that anonymous sources high up in the IDF told us that thousands of Iranian commandos were working with Hezbollough right near the Israeli border. But of course, since he said high placed sources no one can ask the person in the IDF where they go that information, what they have to back it up etc. They get to throw that information out there without having to back it up.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

Four whole posts and that makes you what - chef? Unless you're a sock, the species you seem to disparage. Either way, you got some ketchinup to do, son.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

I agree that there is no way to verify what they say. When a consumer wanders into the marketplace of ideas, he or she must be wary and prudent. But that doesn't mean he or she doesn't buy anything at all.

Fact vs. Allegatoin
 

OK. I think that anything you buy from an "anonymous" seller, you should assume there is a strong chance it is defective. But we have beat that one to death.

On the other subject, if you were running Israel how would have you responded to the kidnapping of the two soldiers? Or how would you have handled it differently?

To me it seems the goals are getting the soldiers back, stopping the shelling of northern Israel but at the same time not distabilizing the Lebanese government and not killing a lot of civilians. It seems to me that you can't accomplish all these goals so you have to pick and choose. Am I wrong?

The Bright Side?
 

Serious question: How can you make this observation without making the equally obvious observation that bombing also causes converts to the cause? Do you really think that assassination leads to fewer converts, and, just as importantly, sympathizers, as bombing (whether targetted or indiscriminate)?

Are they really defending themselves? Didn't this whole thing start over the kidnapping of a single Israeli soldier? Is invading Gaza and targetting its democratically elected (if despicable) government really proportionate? I have not seen reliable numbers, but it seems safe to assume that tens of Palestinians were killed in effort to save one soldier. Regardless of the fact that such killing were directly counter productive, doesn't it seem at all unjust to you?

Iraqi Death Toll
 

Oh, go fuck yourself.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

You really are a moron aren't you?

I would suggest you talk to more Arabs and Persians.

Lebanon a fait "Boom?"
 

What good would it do to talk to more Arabs and Persians? Have you come across swaths (or even a few) Arabs or Persians that are supporters of Israel or even support Israel's right to exist?

Am I a moron because I don't think there are that many Arabs and Persians that support Israel or am I a moron by thinking that there may be a few out there (which seemed to be the opinion of the Derriere in the face guy)?

The Bright Side?
 

I have never understood the logic of a "proportionate" response. It seems to me that a proportionate response just encourages whomever you are responding to, to transgress again. If your goal is to stop them from seizing soldiers, or if you are trying to get your soliders back, isn't the disproportionate response what you want?

After the Japanese attacked us, was it a "proportionate response" to ask for the total and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, and completely refusing all their attempts at a negotiated peace.

Why would anyone ever want to use a "proportionate response"? What possible use could that serve?

The Bright Side?
 

Umm, isn't there forced military service in Israel?

The Bright Side?
 

A big fat 2.

Was our response in Aphganisan to 9/11 proportionate? AQ killed 3000. Does that mean we are only permitted to kill 3000 AQ? Fucking moronic.

The other thing that bugs me is why no one on the world stage goes after Hezbolla for targeting civilians, but when Israel has collateral damage (due to the fact that Hezbolla purposes integrates among civilians for protection) the world (read: EU) goes apeshit.

I swear to god I feel like I'm living in bizarro universe or Alice in Wonderland.

The Bright Side?
 

We didn't invade China during the Korean War, or use nuclear weapons. So it's not like we never accept limitations on our use of force.

And I'm not sure "proportionate" is the right word (though it is on the front page of the NYT today). If Israel continues to see Hezbollah targets to shoot at, they should keep shooting. My issue is with the damage they're doing to Lebanon's infrastructure. We were talking about the airport the other day. Power stations. I could understand why Israel would want to destroy roads and bridges leading to the south if it were planning to move in ground forces, but since that doesn't seem to be in the cards it more appears that Israel is trying to punish Lebanon for what Hezbollah is doing. Is that appropriate?

Walzer
 

I just saw this, by Michael Walzer:

• Israel is now at war with an enemy whose hostility is extreme, explicit, unrestrained, and driven by an ideology of religious hatred. But this is an enemy that does not field an army; that has no institutional structure and no visible chain of command; that does not recognize the legal and moral principle of noncombatant immunity; and that does not, indeed, acknowledge any rules of engagement. How do you--how does anyone--fight an enemy like that? I cannot deal with the strategy and tactics of such a fight. How to strike effectively, how to avoid a dangerous escalation--those are important topics, but not mine. The question I want to address is about morality and politics.
  
  The easy part of the answer is to say what cannot rightly be done. There cannot be any direct attacks on civilian targets (even if the enemy doesn't believe in the existence of civilians), and this principle is a major constraint also on attacks on the economic infrastructure. Writing about the first Iraq war, in 1991, I argued that the U.S. decision to attack "communication and transportation systems, electric power grids, government buildings of every sort, water pumping stations and purification plants" was wrong. "Selected infrastructural targets are easy enough to justify: bridges over which supplies are carried to the army in the field provide an obvious example. But power and water ... are very much like food: they are necessary to the survival and everyday activity of soldiers, but they are equally necessary to everyone else. An attack here is an attack on civilian society. ... [I]t is the military effects, if any, that are 'collateral.'" That was and is a general argument; it clearly applies to the Israeli attacks on power stations in Gaza and Lebanon.
  
  The argument, in this case, is prudential as well as moral. Reducing the quality of life in Gaza, where it is already low, is intended to put pressure on whoever is politically responsible for the inhabitants of Gaza--and then these responsible people, it is hoped, will take action against the shadowy forces attacking Israel. The same logic has been applied in Lebanon, where the forces are not so shadowy. But no one is responsible in either of these cases, or, better, those people who might take responsibility long ago chose not to. The leaders of the sovereign state of Lebanon insist that they have no control over the southern part of their country--and, more amazingly, no obligation to take control. Still, Palestinian civilians are not likely to hold anyone responsible for their fate except the Israelis, and, while the Lebanese will be more discriminating, Israel will still bear the larger burden of blame. Hamas and Hezbollah feed on the suffering their own activity brings about, and an Israeli response that increases the suffering only intensifies the feeding.

The Bright Side?
 

Yes, but the special forces units and Mossad are both voluntary and highly selective.

The Bright Side?
 

I would have no objection to Israel going after Hezbollah and their camps and training bases, as I have previously stated. Hezbollah is self-identified as a combatant organization and anyone who chooses to live with them is in effect throwing in with their fate.

What you are ignoring (or perhaps it didn't happen in Bizzaro universe where you're hanging out) is that (i) Israel's stated provocation was the killing of six soldiers and the kidnapping of two more and (ii) Israel's attacks on targets in Lebanon generally, not just Hezbollah strongholds.

The Bright Side?
 

By all accounts Hezbolla committed an act of war by crossing the border and killing and capturing soldiers. What is the proper response to an act of war?

Israel's attacks have been in southern Lebanon. Hezbolla controls southern Lebanon. Ergo . . . .

The Bright Side?
 

Israel's attacks have hardly been limited to places Hezbollah controls. E.g., the Beirut airport.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

No. I thought that he was a nut-job. But then again, having read too much Hunter Thompson in my youth, I thought that most mainstream political reporters (Dan made his bones at CBS covering the White House during Watergate) were either lazy hacks who didn't give a shit about what was going on, or brilliant and perceptive students of the game who couldn't tell us what they really knew.

I think that he liked John Chancellor, though.

The Bright Side?
 

So what? Totally irrelevant to what Wonk and I were discussing.

The Bright Side?
 

You said:

• Israel's attacks have been in southern Lebanon. Hezbolla controls southern Lebanon. Ergo . . . .

I was responding to that first sentence. What am I missing?

Does anyone disagree that Israel can and should go after Hezbollah?

B'bye, Little Ralphie!
 

Walzer
 

Yes, and why not give them Geneva protections too, while we're at it?

It was Bazini all along....
 

Does anyone disagree that Israel should go after Syria and Iran, since they are really behind all this in the first place?