All Hank, all the time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're referring to this:

• The IDF said that the Beirut airport constitutes a transportation and shipping station of arms for Hizbullah.

You could make the same claim about most roads and bridges in Lebanon, or about the power and water and sewage utilities. And yet, bombing any of those to deny their use to Hezbollah seems much more likely to kill and affect civilians. The IDF does not claim that it was interdicting arms supplies, which it could do by blockading the airport instead of bombing it.

How do you blockade an airport?

Serious question -- I can see how you blockade a port but blockading an airport without troops nearby seems impossible -- unless you start shooting down planes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How do you define civilian airport? What percentage supplying terrorists turns it into a target- because what I'm reading there's a decent percent of that going on there.

What Ty said. Because I haven't seen any of that either. What I have been reading is that it's part of an overall effort by Israel to break down all of Lebanon's infrastructure. And when I also read that they've bombed power stations and television stations, the infrastructure thing sounds pretty credible.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there has been US pressure for years- you don't think Clinton tried to get them out of Gaza? and the second sentence of your post shows that it was a brave move- and a studied choice- not an unavoidable decision forced by Daddy US.

Much as it was a brave move of the Northern Alliance to attack the Al Queda stronghold at Tora Bora. Nothing at all to do with the presence of US troops and air support.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
How do you blockade an airport?

Serious question -- I can see how you blockade a port but blockading an airport without troops nearby seems impossible -- unless you start shooting down planes.

If you tell the airport that it's closed and that you'll be shooting down planes that attempt to take or or land, that does the trick. Because commercial pilots are not usually interested in testing those assertions.

Or if you were trying to close the airport, you could crater the runway. Destroying the fuel storage facilities -- which is what made the really black smoke in the pictures of Beirut that are all over the place -- seems calculated to different ends.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What Ty said. Because I haven't seen any of that either. What I have been reading is that it's part of an overall effort by Israel to break down all of Lebanon's infrastructure. And when I also read that they've bombed power stations and television stations, the infrastructure thing sounds pretty credible.

See also the destruction of bridges and the power station in Gaza a few weeks ago. I agree that the launching of missiles from Gaza (or Lebanon) is intolerable and deserves some reaction. But the massive destruction of infrastructure upon which the civilian population relies is a disproportionate and, in the long run, counterproductive response.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And taking a different route decreased hostilities... except for the persistent rocket fire and kidnappings, of course.

I'm sorry. It was hard to tell from the context of your sentence whether you were talking about Hamas's or Israel's constant kidnappings and rocket fire.

Yep. And Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to have two states -- provided that neither one is dropping bombs on the other. It is Palestinian factions, and supporting Arab states and Iran, that insist that Israel be driven off the map. As they have done for at least 40 years now. ...


...Israel has repeatedly demonstrated, over the decades, a willingness to allow a Palestinian state. But far too many Palestinian, Arab, and Irani leaders insist that Israel cease to exist.

Not true. It is only very recently and very grudgingly that Israel has indicated a willingness to have two states. Except that Israel gets to control the borders exclusively and Israael gets to cross the border into Palestinian territory to conduct raids. Oh, and Israel gets to shoot rockets into crowded slums because they think there might be one guy there who is wanted in Israel.

You know, it really isn't impossible to support Israel and still acknowledge that they are a ruthlessly violent nation willing to pound the shit out of anyone who threatens their existence. In fact, given what they're up against in the Middle East, one can even admire them for it.

But treating Israel as the weak puppy in the fight is a bit absurd, don'cha think?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you tell the airport that it's closed and that you'll be shooting down planes that attempt to take or or land, that does the trick. Because commercial pilots are not usually interested in testing those assertions.

Or if you were trying to close the airport, you could crater the runway. Destroying the fuel storage facilities -- which is what made the really black smoke in the pictures of Beirut that are all over the place -- seems calculated to different ends.

Do you really think that the world -- or you, personally -- would respond more favorably to a threat to shoot down civilian airliners, than it would to the destruction of runways? Please.

Israel in particular could not make such a threat, when Israel and Israelis have faced attacks on civilian planes so many times in the past.

And I beg to differ -- I would not be shocked at all to see Iran (for example) send a plane, empty but for two pilots with martyr fantasies, to "test that assertion."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You know, it really isn't impossible to support Israel and still acknowledge that they are a ruthlessly violent nation willing to pound the shit out of anyone who threatens their existence. In fact, given what they're up against in the Middle East, one can even admire them for it.

This is pretty much what I do believe. Though calling Israel "ruthless" is somewhat laughable. The country is exercising about 5% of the destructive power that it has. You see any Palestinian factions exercising similar restraint? And the only reason that Syria is exercising that level of restraint is because, historically, things have not turned out so well when Arab states that have failed to exercise such restraint.

But treating Israel as the weak puppy in the fight is a bit absurd, don'cha think?

I don't, and if you would actually read what I am writing rather than simply lumping it with your notion of what "pro-Israel people" are saying, you would have to admit that to yourself. Israel is clearly the only significant military power in the immediate region.

Now, ask yourself: If the balance of military power between Israel and Syria, or Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad were reversed, what would happen? Would it be more or less violent than what we are seeing now? More or fewer dead civilians? Bombs on an empty airport runway, or missles launched into downtown Tel Aviv at rush hour?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is pretty much what I do believe. Though calling Israel "ruthless" is somewhat laughable. The country is exercising about 5% of the destructive power that it has. You see any Palestinian factions exercising similar restraint? And the only reason that Syria is exercising that level of restraint is because, historically, things have not turned out so well when Arab states that have failed to exercise such restraint.

Israel is exercising restraint because it has to. Nobody else even comes close in military capability. Syria and Jordan may have weapons, but they have no competent troops to know how to use them. When I refer to Israel as being ruthless, I am simply saying that it uses whatever froce is necessary to stop a threat in short order.

The terrorists use their tactics because they have nothing else. And they learned their tactics from men like Ariel Sharon and his predecessors, who used the same tactics against the British.

...if you would actually read what I am writing rather than simply lumping it with your notion of what "pro-Israel people" are saying, you would have to admit that to yourself. Israel is clearly the only significant military power in the immediate region.

Now, ask yourself: If the balance of military power between Israel and Syria, or Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad were reversed, what would happen? Would it be more or less violent than what we are seeing now? More or fewer dead civilians? Bombs on an empty airport runway, or missles launched into downtown Tel Aviv at rush hour?

I am reading what you are saying. I am noting also what you are not saying. Israel has the means to attack with a heavy hand and it has most often done so. It is doing so now. However, it is also tearing down one of the few democracies in the region to get at the people who are undermining that democracy. By attacking Lebanon as a state, rether than surgically attacking Hezbollah, Israel is seeding the clouds for future conflict at thje expense of a natyion that may not be an ally, but is a fellow enemy of Syria and Iran.

[ltl/fb]

Comments?

At a few dozen other sites across the country, day laborers have set minimums, usually $8 or $10. But only at this corner in Agoura Hills, a well-to-do town 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, experts say, have they been bold enough to insist on $15, nearly three times the federal minimum wage. Some laborers who are particularly skilled at plumbing or hanging drywall get $18 or more.

NYT article, which requires registration or whatever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you really think that the world -- or you, personally -- would respond more favorably to a threat to shoot down civilian airliners, than it would to the destruction of runways? Please.

Israel in particular could not make such a threat, when Israel and Israelis have faced attacks on civilian planes so many times in the past.

And I beg to differ -- I would not be shocked at all to see Iran (for example) send a plane, empty but for two pilots with martyr fantasies, to "test that assertion."

If so, they still didn't need to come back to bomb the airport's fuel installations after they had already cratered the runway. Here's the NYT:

• The Israeli attack on the Beirut airport — the first such attack by Israel since 1982 — blasted craters into all three runways, but did not hit the main terminal. Israeli planes later attacked the fuel stores at the airport, setting at least one tank on fire and filling the night sky with flames. And early Friday, another air strike severed the main road between the airport and the capital.

That said, I am sympathetic with the rationale of closing the airport to keep Hezbollah from flying the two soldiers to Iran. I just don't see a need to do so much damage to Lebanon's infrastructure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If so, they still didn't need to come back to bomb the airport's fuel installations after they had already cratered the runway. Here's the NYT:

• The Israeli attack on the Beirut airport — the first such attack by Israel since 1982 — blasted craters into all three runways, but did not hit the main terminal. Israeli planes later attacked the fuel stores at the airport, setting at least one tank on fire and filling the night sky with flames. And early Friday, another air strike severed the main road between the airport and the capital.

That said, I am sympathetic with the rationale of closing the airport to keep Hezbollah from flying the two soldiers to Iran. I just don't see a need to do so much damage to Lebanon's infrastructure.

Nice dodge. You propose that, rather than bomb runways and fuel tanks, Israel should simply threaten to shoot down civilian and commercial airliners. (And then, presumably, if Iran or Syria decides to test the threat by sending a jetliner, purportedly loaded with food for the citizens in Lebanon and piloted by two willing martyrs .... Israel should shoot it down?)

I ask if you really think that making such a threat -- to kill civilians by the hundreds who fly on airplanes -- would be more palatable to world opinion, or to you personally.

And you respond that they didn't need to bomb the airport twice.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That said, I am sympathetic with the rationale of closing the airport to keep Hezbollah from flying the two soldiers to Iran. I just don't see a need to do so much damage to Lebanon's infrastructure.

Um.... so what do you suggest? Israel check the flight monitors to determine what gate the next plane for Tehran is departing from, and just hit that one?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Comments?

At a few dozen other sites across the country, day laborers have set minimums, usually $8 or $10. But only at this corner in Agoura Hills, a well-to-do town 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles, experts say, have they been bold enough to insist on $15, nearly three times the federal minimum wage. Some laborers who are particularly skilled at plumbing or hanging drywall get $18 or more.

NYT article, which requires registration or whatever.

California's an expensive place to live. If the folks don't want to pay a skilled laborer $18/hour, they're more than welcome to contact the union local.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
California's an expensive place to live. If the folks don't want to pay a skilled laborer $18/hour, they're more than welcome to contact the union local.

Since it's you, where do you come out on the no tax w/h etc.? I guess they are probably legitimately independent contractors, and the total amounts paid are under the amounts for which it would be necessary to file a 1099, so maybe that's not an issue. But I wonder a bit about the ind. cont. issue because they are using the hiring person's materials, and are probably acting under their direction in some if not many cases.

Do you think a day laborer could install a faucet for me? I can't get the, uh, bolts (?) to loosen. I did figure out how to turn off the water, though.