The Bright Side?
 

Yes, the euro-socialist left and their comrades in the american democrat party. Wake up appeasers and apologists, this is total war and it won't be won until every last radical Islamist and supporters of the same, whether active and passive, is cold, dead and plowed under (like Rachel Corrie) and all of the instrumentalities of these filthy dog baby killing terror mongrels are destroyed.

Thank G-d the Israelis are leading the charge. the left has turned the once great usa into a nation of quivering pussies.

It was Bazini all along....
 

Yes

The Bright Side?
 

Can yes, should, not so clear.

The Bright Side?
 

Omeonesay eedsnay to etgay ackbay on eirthay edsmay.

The Bright Side?
 

I don't speak arabic, what translation page do you use?

The Bright Side?
 

Flare honey, you're new here and don't really know your way around, so I'll forgive your little ad hominem attack. As you may know, I abhor such tactics and never engage in them myself.

Keep in mind the big picture, sweetmeat. If all the leftists and islamofascist sympathizers and G-dless freedom-hating camel schtuppers were destroyed in the cleansing fires of G-d's just wrath, tell me - where would be the outlet for our hate? We need them so that you and others will keep buying my books. You did know I have one out, right?

But keep posting, you big lump of delicious G-d-fearing righteousness. I like the cut of your jib.

It was Bazini all along....
 

Israel probably wouldn't like the government that would replace the current one in Syria. At least the current one is secular. And Israel can't really "go after" Iran, Iran being hundreds of miles away.

eta: Larry Johnson says that Hezbollah's key backers are Iran, not Syria.

The Bright Side?
 

I agree, that if that is what is happening, that is not appropriate or prudent. But the fact that the NYT used the term appropriate just reconfirms my low opinion of the NYT (and - Slave - reason 167 that I don't read that rag).

The Bright Side?
 

You need to take more drugs. Then everything will seem logical.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

Unfortunately none of my political experiences have ever been even remotely similar to Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

B'bye, Little Ralphie!
 

OH MY - THERE IS A GOD - I think I am taking the rest of the day off. Best news I have heard in a long time. Thanks SHP.

B'bye, Little Ralphie!
 

At first I was going to ask how this could be better than the Bilbray win, but then I realized what a sour taste that must have left in your mouth. This one tastes clean and sweet.

It's good for America that the left and the right can still find common ground. In this case, that Ralph Reed is a pasty-faced dickhead who deserves to fade into obscurity.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

I love that book. I think that it is HST's best book by far (sebby disagrees).

It was Bazini all along....
 

Sure -- because Iran has the money, people, and technology, as well as the motivation, to fund, train and support Hezbollah.

Syrians are tough mothers with all the motivation they need, but since the Soviet Union fell they've been lagging militarily and they're dirt poor.

However, Syria is the major facilitator and middleman. The Hezbollah camps have for years been in the Bekaah Valley in Lebanon -- which until very recently was occupied by Syrian troops. Also, Syria effectively controlled Lebanon while Hezbollah grew and flourished.

Iran drives the train, but the operation could barely happen without Syria.

S_A_M

P.S. This whole mess is one of the stranger unintended consequences of the asassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, isn't it?

B'bye, Little Ralphie!
 

I couldn't care less about a regional election in some southern hellhole like Georgia, but I did sort of encounter this Reed character once.

Back in the early 90s I knew a guy whose brother was an officer or some crap position in the FedSoc and would always invite us to receptions in DC. The chicks were fuglier than the worst of Adder's scores, but the booze was free. So at one of these things, I think it was at the Mayflower, I go to men's room and there is Ralph Reed standing right in front of me waiting for the pisser to open up. He looks like a geeky little kid even though he was in his 30s at the time. So the pisser next to him frees and there I am relieving the lizard right next to the voice of the Jesus wingdings himself.

So, this seems like a pretty boring story eh, but here's the twistedness, the geek never breaks off from staring at his dick when he's watering the urinal cake. His head and eyes are locked down on it like he's terrified its gonna run away. And then he starts to sing. Barely audible. Like a hymn or something. I couldn't make out the words but I was freaked out. He finishes up and leaves, still sort of singing under his breath. Surreal. No wonder he fucking lost.

B'bye, Little Ralphie!
 

Ralph Reed is a true gentleman and a warrior in the Holy Crusade against the infidels and the elitist self-hating anti-American media machine. He lost not because he was fascinated by his massive hunk of manmeat, but because of the lies perpetrated against him by the traitorous left and their booty-licking media lackies. I knew as soon as I saw your picture that you are a G-dless communist traitorous self-hating liberal in disguise, but this post proves it for all to see. At least the Hillarys and Kennedys and Tys and fringeys and SHPs of this world do not deny their twisted demented freedom-hating natures, so that they can be identified and someday neutralized, but you pretend to be that which you are not. Honestly, you squick me out.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

Have you read his early 60s stuff- before he learned his formula?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

His magazine pieces, like his stuff for Colliers on South America is probably his best work.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 

The Rum diary- 1959

it's like reading Sebby before he started phoning in these formula Mad-libs

It was Bazini all along....
 

Indeed

The Bright Side?
 

Bombing probably does create some converts. It also may create some pressure or desire to have Hezbollah not operate from a particular area. For the last several years, supporting Hezbollah has been painless.

But this wasn't really my point. I wasn't trying to compare the recruiting benefits of bombing and assassination. I was pointing out that targetted assassinations, even if possible, are difficult, expensive, risky, and time-consuming, and they don't bring any commensurate benefit to Israel. And, I fundamentally disagree with the view that Israel can damage Hezbollah as easily with assassinations as it can with bombing.

The Bright Side?
 

Sorry, forgot to respond to this one.

I reject the notion that the victim of attacks needs to respond with what you call "proportion". Israel does not have to limit its actions to "you kidnapped one person, so we'll kidnap one" or "you killed one, so we'll kill one." No more than I think the US should have limited operations in Afghanistan to killing 3000 people or knocking down a few buildings -- after all, that's "all" they did to us.

I believe in very heavy and painful retaliation to these sorts of attacks.

Walzer
 

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are political parties, not just military/terrorist groups. Citizens of Lebanon and Gaza have voted for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does Israel's response -- making life for those citizens very difficult, in direct response to Hamas and Hezbollah attacking Israel -- create any political pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah to stop?

In the next elections in Lebanon, will Lebanese voters consider that maybe voting for Hezbollah -- a political party that maintains a private army, that attacks and provokes Israel but is incapable of protecting civilians on the territory it controls -- is a mistake? Will Palestinians reconsider the wisdom of voting for a party that insists on annihilating a vastly stronger adversary?

Walzer
 

1. Calling Hezbollah a political party is a little misleading, since the political parties in Lebanon are based on religion. Hezbollah is more like a state within a state.

2. Maybe it creates pressure to stop, but maybe it creates solidarity and rage at those doing the bombing. Proponents of aerial bombing often hope that it will cause civilian populations to throw in the towel -- usually it has the opposite effect (see, e.g., Britain, 1940; Germany, 1944; Vietnam, 1970, etc.).

3. I understand the logic of bombing Lebanese civilians to pressure them to see Hezbollah differently. I don't think it's a whole lot different from attacking civilian populations with other kinds of bombs to pressure them to, e.g., support a withdrawal from Northern Ireland or Iraq, etc. It might work, but it seems wrong.

The Bright Side?
 

Sadly, I am not optimistic that it will.

I just don't believe that Israel can really defeat Hezbollah with bombing, even it bombing causes some short term damage.

The Bright Side?
 

Sorry, Sid, but you know this is a cop out. No one is saying that the response should be exactly equal. After 9/11, we did not nuke the entire middle east. Nor did we invade the homeland of the majority of the hijackers. Why not? Wouldn't it have been "very heavy and painful retaliation?" We didn't do it becaue it would have been unjust, disproportionate, and probably counterproductive.

I would argue that endangering the lives of thousands of civilians (even if they sympathize with your enemy) and taking out a democratically elected government over a single kidnapped soldier is similarly unjust, disproportionate and probably counterproductive.

The Bright Side?
 

just FYI- this writing style is poor advocacy. We all know that everything here is opinion and argument. To highlight it in this manner only lessens what impact there might otherwise be from the argument to follow.

The Bright Side?
 

Clearly you have not read the argument to follow...

The Bright Side?
 

This use of "just FYI" is redundant. We all know that everything you say is designed to impart information to the other, hapless posters here.

Walzer
 

Now not sure what I said is any less misleading, BTW. My point: Shi'as are a third or more of Lebanon's population, and Hezbollah is their government/political party/militia/etc.

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

Posted by Greg Djejerian:

The Bright Side?
 

I agree with you, but I've seen some very wrenching stories in the past couple of days -- complete with interviews and pictures -- of civilian Lebanese families (multiple generations) getting blown up in missile attacks as they were trying to evacuate North out of the combat areas -- driving along with white flags on the roofs of their cars. [I'm thinking in particular of one WaPo story today.]

Bad stuff. Makes me wonder what in the Hell Israel hopes to accomplish with that kind of targeting. I would assume that these vehicles were "targets of opportunity" seized upon by aircraft flying around above. Maybe just mistakes, but I wonder what orders/RoE they are operating under.

Seemingly random attacks on civilian targets are terrible for Israel's image [not that they care much], but also really bad for the soul, self-image and identity of the nation.

S_A_M

Walzer
 

You are correct that Hezbollah is more than just a political party -- but they run candidates in Lebanese national elections and hold seats in their Parliament.

I agree. I suspect that, caught up in that kind of conflict (which we are not, really), Israel has decided that the moral calculus has changed, and that survival must take precedence over conventional morality (which they will try to accomodate to the extent they can).

It seems to me that it is open to debate whether this will actually help Isreal in the long term, but they have clearly decided to seize on the opportunity/excuse provided by Hezbollah to try to radically change the conditions on the ground. This conflict is about so much more than the kidnapped soldiers, that the concept of "proportional response" makes no sense.

S_A_M

Walzer
 

I am sure you are right. But I just don't see a threat to Israel's survival at the start of the current hostilities.

Okay, so, in other words, you seem to be saying that you think that there is a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East. I am more than a bit surprised that you would think so.

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

Krauthammer is but one example of the current Neocon Batshit Crazy Patrol. It's fun, though a little scary, to watch them tear their President a new asshole because he hasn't shown enough willpower to simply nuke Damascus and Tehran because of Hezbollah's aggression. After all, those ICBMs aren't doing us any good just sitting in their silos, right?

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

To their credit, most neo-cons seem to think that the use of nuclear weapons would not be proportionate.

Walzer
 

It was not so threatened -- at least by anything Hezbollah did. As Dr. Breszinski pointed out in an NPR interview I heard this morning, Israel has not faced any kind of real conventional threat to its survival since its peace accord with Egypt in the late 1970s.

The unconventional warfare is very problematic for them -- and Arab nuclear progams _could_ threaten Israel's existence -- but that 's not what we are talking about.

No. That is not what I said. What I was saying is that Israel seems to think that there is a combined military/political solution to Hezbollah and, perhaps, its wider conflict.

I also think that Israel probably thinks the first step is this kind of military action, with the goals of both substantially degrading the enemies' offensive capabilities and trying to convince Arab governments that the conflict isn't worth it anymore.

In the current context where Islamic radicals threaten (or are seen to threaten) the continuing existence of these Arab regimes, Israel's policy of escalation (which will mobilize and radicalize the populations) has a chance to get the Arabs to pull back and try to restrain or cripple Hamas and Hezbollah. I think Israel figures that it can't get much worse for Israel -- it can't be more hated or more threatened. Therefore, Israel has decided to show how they can make it worse for the Arab countries, if they want to keep this going.

Iran is a huge fly in this ointment, however.

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

I have a membership card that says that. This isn't to just you but everyone that is criticizing Israel's actions:

1) I agree that the bombing of purely civilian targets is not a good idea (if that happened - with this stuff it is always hard to know what was intentional - or just a mistake, what was faked and what really happened)

2) The bombing of Lebanon will just piss off the entire Lebanese population and make them all hate Israel and sympathies with Hezbollah. In other words Israel’s action will make the entire Lebanese population hate Israel even more.

3) These actions may destablize the current moderate government so it is replaced by a more radical government. And if the moderate government stays it will definitely be more hostile to Israel.

4) But isn't the first priority of the Israeli government is to protect its citizens? How else is it going to stop the bombing of Northern Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers without massive retaliation?

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

Perhaps by not invading Gaza in the first place?

Needed: More anti-Hezbollah pixie dust.
 

Perhaps a silly question, but anyhoo...does the Arab hatred of Israel and Jews predate the establishment of the Israeli state? Is the basis of the fundie Muslim objections that this is holy ground, such that any group who occupied that land would be now hated (e.g., Mennonites, Yankee fans, African-American Muslims)? Or would they still hate Jews (perhaps slightly less) even if the state of Israel did not exist, or existed outside of the old Caliphate?

I'm trying to figure out how much of this conflict is historical (as in pre-1948) and how much of it has to do with (rightly or not) the perceptions of injuries inflicted upon Muslims in the half century since then.