Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What's amusing is how many neo-cons argued the US should
invade Iran the last few years. Skeptics noted the Iranians would
gin up combat via their regional allies. They have hezbollah
running, all they need is to fire up Sadr.

Perhaps the neocons will sign up to fight hezbollah

Posted by anonymous at August 4, 2006 07:53 PM

The article didn't make much sense.

Israel has been bombing Lebanon for three weeks now and the number of rocket attacks launched by Hezbollah has actually _increased_. And today they launched a rocket almost all the way to Hezbollah. In short, Hezbollah doesn't seem to be suffering any serious degradation of their capability to wage attacks.

Posted by David Cherson at August 4, 2006 08:07 PM

"The article didn't make much sense.

David, I know you on the left have serious problems understanding military tactics so I will put this simply in the hope you can comprehend it.

Hezbollah controls less ground today than yesterday, tommorow the will control even less. Eventually, they will run out of missiles, territory and options. The IDF is advancing, Hezbollah are retreating.

This is how wars are won and lost, not by looking for the hidden bigotry.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 4, 2006 08:14 PM

Read me!

The moderate pro-Western Arabs understand this very clearly. Which is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately came out against Hezbollah and privately urged the United States to let Israel take down that organization. They know that Hezbollah is fighting Iran's proxy war not only against Israel but also against them and, more generally, against the United States and the West.
Hence Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron. The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.

Posted by Hammer of the Krauts at August 4, 2006 09:08 PM

I'm tempted to ban the word "neocon" in comments, since it seems to serve as a substitute for thought on the part of all who use it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 5, 2006 05:31 AM

"Hezbollah controls less ground today than yesterday, tommorow the will control even less. Eventually, they will run out of missiles, territory and options. The IDF is advancing, Hezbollah are retreating."

Clearly I'm dealing with a military genius here, so I'll choose my words carefully when I say this: Hezbollah is a guerrilla organization that survived nearly a decade under Israeli occupation, constantly harassed their troop movements and fortifications, had total freedom of mobility while heavily armored Israeli divisions were confined to the main roads, and has broad support throughout Lebanon and Syria. Moreover, Israel has *zero* support in the civilian population or Lebanese government, whereas Hezbollah has mixed support that increases in direct proportion to Israel's operations. The IDF couldn't even eradicate Hamas in the tiny strip of Palestinian territory surrounded on all sides by Israel, despite decades of constant incursions, reprisals, and occupations, so how delusional is it to believe they're going to get rid of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Both the invasion itself and your half-baked defense of it are clear-cut examples of politics trumping military reality.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 5, 2006 05:41 AM

Any day now, I'm waiting for Swiderski to bring out, "Rah Rah, Hezbollah".

I can't figure out what to make of his comment other than the notion that Israel should just give up because they can't stop Hamas or Hezbollah. There's a lot about how Israel has "harrassed", "occupied", "reprised", and done generally mean things to Hezbollah. Not much is mentioned about how Hezbollah started this latest conflict by kidnapping an IDF soldier.

I think that a certain mindset cannot grasp the significance of soldier being kidnapped. If an organization has no quarrel with attacking and holding hostage a soldier, than they also have no quarrel with doing the same to civilians. That is why for it is considered an act of war.

If Hezbollah intends war with Israel, and Israel does nothing, then the Israeli government is useless in protecting its citizens. Alas, this is the support that matters to the Israeli government and the IAF/IDF. In case you missed it, Israel is no longer concerned about Lebanon.

Posted by Leland at August 5, 2006 07:41 AM

(hit post early)...

Israel is not concerned about Lebanon's government, because Lebanon's government has done nothing to secure its land from being used as a battleground. Israel didn't make Lebanon a battleground, Hezbollah did. Hezbollah infiltrated the Lebanese border and used that country as a base to attack northern Israel. Israel stated many times that it would be very happy for the Lebanese to remove the threat of Hezbollah on its own. The political option failed.

Posted by Leland at August 5, 2006 07:47 AM

Leland, I do not doubt the moral legitimacy of what Israel is doing.

Note my comments to one of Rand's earlier posts, saying IDF infantry and combat engineers need to clean out Hezbollah rockets as soon as possible - - both artillery rockets that can hit Israeli towns and those ant-tank rockets that are causing so much trouble right now.

Prudence is the issue to be discussed.

What does Israel do AFTER Hezbollah rockets are eliminated? The occupation of Lebanon was ended because the daily cost to Israel grew too high. Why will that be different now? It would have been prudent for Israel and America to have given more support to the Cedar Revolution last year. A stitch in time saves nine and all that.

Unless good grass is made to grow, pulling weeds is insufficient for victory.

Posted by Bill White at August 5, 2006 08:07 AM

given how little thought the neocons have used in
agitating for war in Iraq, Iran and Syria, it's not
surprising Rand finds the word lacking in intellectual
content. Of course, given Rand is a neocon, he probably
resents being reminded of his prior positions.

nevertheless in regards to the situation in lebanon.
The israeli's abandoned lebanon because it was
too expensive to hold. They are finding that it's
really hard going to occupy hezbollah held positions,
and the rockets are still coming in.

The neocons find it easy to call for war from the comfort
of air conditioned offices, but, they have no experience
with the cost and effort to win wars.

The key issue is whatever happens with israel, it's their
problem not america's problem. Let Israel win their
own fights.

Posted by anonymous at August 5, 2006 08:23 AM

"Clearly I'm dealing with a military genius here"

Clearly we are dealing with an intellectual midget here.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 08:42 AM

"The neocons find it easy to call for war from the comfort
of air conditioned offices, but, they have no experience
with the cost and effort to win wars."

Unlike leftists such as you who hold the sole distinction of having the only experinece in Amercian history with the cost and effort of losing a war. You guys can cut an run like nobody else, you and your patron Saint, Ted the Swimmer, proved that back in 75.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 08:47 AM

from the article:
Since she sees this war as a fight for Israel's very life, and the consequence of losing would be the slaughter of the Israelis, she sees the left as aiding and abetting that slaughter.

If you remove Israel from the article, and replace it with the word, "non-Islamic or non-radical Islamic", you'll sum up where we are in WWIII or WWIV, depending on which school of thought you connect with.

This isn't about just the killing of Jews or westerners, these radical nut jobs are currently, killing ANYONE who doesn't follow their 7th Century, Wahabist trained, dictatorial edicts. They are killing MORE followers of Islam than any other group. They've killed more than the Israeli and the U.S. combined. I can proves this to the lefties currently chewing the ends off their tongues, with sources inside your camp.

How many mornings has the NYT, CBS, NBC, NPR reported something to the effect of"...overnight IEDs killed 2 more U.S. Marines and 40 applicants in front of an Iraqi Police Hiring Office in Baghdad. @ other explosions killed 13 people in a market in Fallujah, next the sports, with..."

That same report plays almost every morning. The radicals are killing or causing to be killed many thousands of people who just want to be left alone, by BOTH sides.

Hopefully this wave of Israeli leftists will over take our homegrown anti-warriors and we'll get some cohesion again in this country. Neither appeasement nor ignoring these radical peoples will make them stop killing anyone who doesn't follow their lead.

Posted by Steve at August 5, 2006 09:33 AM

A top Saudi Cleric issue sedict in support of Hezbollah!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525810323&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

NOT!!!

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 10:04 AM

Hizbullah, which translates as "the party of God," is actually "the party of the devil," said Sheik Safar al-Hawali,...

Would that all the clerics did this or that this story would run wide open on We'll JeerAtYa TV.

There was a time when I doubted that there still existed any sanity among the radical clerical leadership. I never thought we'd see a cleric of this stature come out like this.

Posted by Steve at August 5, 2006 11:23 AM

"Any day now, I'm waiting for Swiderski to bring out, "Rah Rah, Hezbollah"."

Leland,
Any day now, I'm waiting for you to respond like an intelligent adult, but neither of us should hold our breath. The issue being addressed is both the state of and prognosis for Israeli operations in Lebanon, not whether they're excusable (they are) or wise (they're not). You weighed in with your 1 cent on the issue by declaring that a religious guerrilla war could be judged like WW1 on the basis of territorial gains, which no one in their right mind could believe unless they were woefully ignorant of history and logistics. Now, the simple fact that Hezbollah will not be eradicated by invading Lebanon is not changed by curling up in ideological denial, nor will it become more likely because you hurl childish insults at anyone who makes the observation. The only thing that can eradicate groups like Hezbollah and Hamas is being made useless and burdensome to the populations they leech off of, which in this case means Israel should not endear Hezbollah to the Lebanese people with this kind of campaign. If these subtleties don't satisfy right-wing simian reflexes, that's just too bad; it's how Israel can win, and that's what should be important. Not talking up war because you find the concept entertaining.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 5, 2006 11:42 AM

Brian: [Leland] weighed in with your 1 cent on the issue by declaring that a religious guerrilla war could be judged like WW1 on the basis of territorial gains, which no one in their right mind could believe unless they were woefully ignorant of history and logistics.

Talk about building a strawman. I never made any such claim about guerrilla warfare, WWI, of territorial gains. Any careless reading of what I wrote doesn't come close to making such an argument.

Brian: The only thing that can eradicate groups like Hezbollah and Hamas is [to make them] useless and burdensome to the populations they leech off of, which in this case means Israel should not endear Hezbollah to the Lebanese people with this kind of campaign.

Now there is genius... the way to defeat terrorist is to stick your head in the sand. This probably explains why you missed my argument.

Posted by Leland at August 5, 2006 12:35 PM

Bill, you make a good point about lack of support for the Cedar Revolution. I have an idea that Israel and the US still would have caught hell from the "International Community" if they supported it, but then what else is new. They should have done it anyway, for as you say: A stitch in time saves nine and all that.

As for what to do after the attack... Push until Lebanon sues for peace. Make a condition that Lebanon request UN peace keepers to protect its southern territory. Then see if the "International Community" will put action to their words.

Posted by Leland at August 5, 2006 12:41 PM

The only thing that can eradicate groups like Hezbollah and Hamas is [to make them] useless and burdensome to the populations they leech off of,...

Thus far Brian we agree, the solution is different to me. This cannot work

...which in this case means Israel should not endear Hezbollah to the Lebanese people with this kind of campaign.

Just like the socio-economic nightmare to our south is not ours to solve, it IS NOT Israel's job to solve the problems of the people in Lebanon. The notion that the average Lebanese local is "endeared" to Hamas and Hezbollah is just hogwash.

The Iraqi people DID NOT rise up in defense of Saddam, the Afghan people DID NOT rise up in defense of Al Qaida or the Taliban, the Lebanese WILL NOT rise up in anger over the IDF killing people who are causing their woes. And they are not stupid, they know the IDF came to town over the rockets that Hezbollah has hidden in their towns.

Brian, isn't it condescending to the Lebanese people to assume that they believe everything about Israel, they hear on Al Jezeera? I thought the only truly mind numbed, media fooled people were the Limbaugh listening ditto heads?

Posted by Steve at August 5, 2006 01:40 PM

Brian, isn't it condescending to the Lebanese people to assume that they believe everything about Israel, they hear on Al Jezeera?

It's the other way around, Steve. It's condescending, and ultimately S.I.O.B. (*), to reject widespread and perfectly human sentiments among Arabs in general as propaganda invented by Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is really a lot like Fox News. If you said "isn't it condescending to the American people to assume that they believe everything that the hear on Fox News", the question itself would be equally condescending, say in the context of how Bush got reelected. Fox News and Al Jazeera may be biased, but they are popular for deep-rooted reasons.

The truth is that Arabs are about as happy with the Israeli war on Lebanon as Americans are with the 9/11 attacks. Seeing the war on television is a kind of political por-nography. It makes their blood boil. Its effect goes far beyond the number of people killed. The fact that Arabs also fight each other elsewhere is beside the point, just like the ordinary homicide rate in America does not diminish the anger created by 9/11.

It is true that some Sunnis, typically those who consider Shiites to be infidels, also blame Hezbollah for what is going on. But you can't expect a Sunni Muslim who is that suspicious of Shiites to like Jews any better. Anti-Hezbollah does not translate to pro-Israel.

(*) S.I.O.B: stupid, incompetent, obsolete, benighted.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 5, 2006 04:04 PM

If you said "isn't it condescending to the American people to assume that they believe everything that the hear on Fox News", the question itself would be equally condescending, say in the context of how Bush got reelected.

Not that it's a surprise, but the king of idiotic analogies comes up with another one.

The (many) reasons why are left as an exercise for the commenters. Mike Johnson will flunk the test, of course.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 5, 2006 04:07 PM

"David, I know you on the left have serious problems understanding military tactics so I will put this simply in the hope you can comprehend it."

Mike, I'm not a leftist. Pointing out that Israel's tactics are failing doesn't make me a leftist. I support Israel. My problem is that they're not succeeding. There's an old saying that if you're in a hole you should stop digging. They are not achieving their ends and it's not only "leftists" who are recognizing that. Read a newspaper once in awhile. Watch the evening news. You'll see that even in Israel there is a growing belief that Israel is not achieving their stated goals here.

And Hezbollah is firing more missiles now than they were at the beginning of this conflict. Clearly Israel is not making the advances you think.

And has been pointed out time and time again--do you ever bother to read history books?--Israel occupied Lebanon for 18 years. They controlled plenty of territory then. It didn't stop Hezbollah, it created it.

"This is how wars are won and lost, not by looking for the hidden bigotry."

"Looking for hidden bigotry"? What the heck does that mean? Explain yourself.

Posted by David Cherson at August 5, 2006 04:17 PM

Pointing out that Israel's tactics are failing doesn't make me a leftist.

But in a way, in certain circles, it does make you a leftist, David. You might have thought that you weren't a leftist, and I might have thought I'm not a leftist, but times have changed. As Bush said, "You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror." So a lot of people are leftists now. Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Paul O'Neill, Eric Shinseki, Richard Clarke, Anthony Cordesman, even Tom Clancy are all leftists. They are leftists because they aren't with Bush in the war on terror. They think that he's losing that war, which puts them just a step away from the people who want him to lose.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 5, 2006 04:33 PM

So 'The Man' is keeping you down eh?

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 07:25 PM

Hey guys! Any comment on the deal Condi appears to be pushing in the U.N.?

Billmon thinks its a lousy deal for Israel:

Personally, if I were Sheikh Nasrallah, I'd take the first part of the resolution (the immediate ceasefire part) and not worry too much about the second part. If the IDF's footholds in southern Lebanon are as precarious as I think they are, the Israelis will be looking for ways to give them up before too long -- particularly if the proposed multinational force never materializes or (as I suspect) proves to be not much more than a glorified version of UNIFIL. And most of the other conditions set for a "permanent" solution (disarmament, Lebanese Army control in the south, the arms embargo) can either be evaded, tapdanced around -- for example, by simply grandfathering Hizbullah units into the Lebanese Army -- or just plain ignored. I mean, who exactly is going to seal the Syrian border against resupply?
In other words, this may be a case where it's in Hizbollah's interests to throw the Anglo-Israelis a fig leaf, and pocket the tremendous victory a ceasefire would represent. But, given Hizbullah's military success so far, and the fact that a big part of organization's newfound political hegemony in Lebanon is based on the psychology of war time, Nasrallah may not be in any hurry at all to see peace break out. The neocons only think they're ruthless Machiavellians willing to do anything to advance their cause -- but by all appearances, Nasrallah really is one.

My (Bill White's) opinion is that Hezbollah cannot be defeated either by airpower or diplomacy and Israel needs to send its infantry up into those hills and into those village in southern Lebanon and eliminate the missiles (both anti-tank and artillery missiles).

Riddle me this, as billmon asks. Based on the current ceasefire proposal: "Who exactly will interdict the re-supply of Hezbollah via Syria?"

= = =

Now, if Israel says "Yes" and Hezbollah says "No" that might sway public opinion towards Israel. But if Nasrallah also says "Yes" how can Israel keep Hezbollah from building itself back up in secret?

Posted by Bill White at August 5, 2006 07:29 PM

"So a lot of people are leftists now. Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Paul O'Neill, Eric Shinseki, Richard Clarke, Anthony Cordesman, even Tom Clancy are all leftists. They are leftists because they aren't with Bush in the war on terror."

No, you are making empty strawman arguments about things I never said. I never called them moonbats because they disagreed. I called you a leftist because you are one. It isn't that you disagree, its the WAY you disagree that betrays your true motivations. In spite of your protestations, we know what you are. At least quit weasle wording and be honest about it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 07:29 PM

You might notice Bill White is a Democrat.

I have never called him a moonbat. He can disagree without being a child about it. He does not cop a persecution complex if he does not get his way and he does not use couched racist catchphrases like 'neocon' or throw out empty words like 'bigot'. He and I can agree to disagree.

Some of you really could take a lession or two from him.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 5, 2006 07:35 PM

The notion that the average Lebanese local is "endeared" to Hamas and Hezbollah is just hogwash.

It is absolutely true that Israel's attack on Lebanon has boosted Hezbollah's approval rating. A quote from the papers:

A poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that 87 percent of those surveyed supported Hezbollah’s battles with Israel. That included 80 percent of Lebanese Christians surveyed.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 5, 2006 09:11 PM

Quote from David Cherson: "And has been pointed out time and time again--do you ever bother to read history books?--Israel occupied Lebanon for 18 years. They controlled plenty of territory then. It didn't stop Hezbollah, it created it."

Actually, there were as many as 4 major players involved with the civil unrest in Lebanon. I'm not entirely certain if taking Israel out of the equation wouldn't have altered the course of Hezbollah's creation. While yes one of their primary stated goals is the resistance against Israeli occupation of Lebanese soil they also have taken part in actions that aimed to instill a Islamic republic in Lebanon.

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 5, 2006 10:10 PM

"Just like the socio-economic nightmare to our south is not ours to solve, it IS NOT Israel's job to solve the problems of the people in Lebanon."

Yes, that's true. However, it is in Israel's interests to (at bare minimum) try to ensure the Lebanese people are more antagonistic toward Hezbollah than Israel, and noting that Hezbollah is to blame for the bombings just doesn't work. "Hearts and minds" can't be an afterthought, it has to be the strategic centerpiece if they're to achieve any meaningful and lasting gains.

"the Lebanese WILL NOT rise up in anger over the IDF killing people who are causing their woes."

If Israel becomes frustrated and keeps widening the battlefield, the Lebanese will be killed in large numbers and many key cities badly damaged. Whatever they think of Hezbollah, a lot of people will not forgive a broad assault on their country, and would accept Islamist alliance to defend it. The comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan you made is in my opinion a false analogy; the Lebanese do not live under Hezbollah control, but their government doesn't interfere with it because of its military power and political capital from the first Israeli occupation. Most Lebanese view Hezbollah as a dubious, foreign-controlled guerrilla element, not a tyrannical occupying army, and as such they WILL support them if they feel their country is under general attack.

"Brian, isn't it condescending to the Lebanese people to assume that they believe everything about Israel, they hear on Al Jezeera?"

A third of the Lebanese people believing it would be ample, and that is generally the proportion of far-right extremists in any given society. Those who refused to take up arms against Israel certainly wouldn't take them up to fight Hezbollah, so what you end up with is Lebanon throwing in its lot with Hezbollah by default. Unless Israel wises up real fast.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 5, 2006 10:17 PM

Good commentary, here by an Israeli army veteran.

Posted by Bill White at August 6, 2006 06:03 AM

David says: Mike, I'm not a leftist. Pointing out that Israel's tactics are failing doesn't make me a leftist. I support Israel. My problem is that they're not succeeding.

How do you know? Really, why is it that if victory doesn't come in a day, then you must be losing. Armchair quarterbacking doesn't win either. Of course there's more rockets coming now, its that desperation factor rearing its head. Hezbollah is getting rooted out and hammered by the IDF, so they're pulling out all the stops and lauching every rocket they can. It a classic case (to me at least) of realizing poking a hornet's nest will piss off a lot more hornets than you thought you would. The IDF is being methodical in their progress.

Posted by Mac at August 6, 2006 06:48 AM

And in the case of the rockets, use them before Israel bombs them into debris first.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 6, 2006 09:41 AM

Brian says: A third of the Lebanese people believing it would be ample, and that is generally the proportion of far-right extremists in any given society. Those who refused to take up arms against Israel certainly wouldn't take them up to fight Hezbollah, so what you end up with is Lebanon throwing in its lot with Hezbollah by default. Unless Israel wises up real fast.

Ever the Socialist. The left is always the experts at how people think, when they have only guesses. You have no idea other than a hypothesis and no way to prove it. Perhaps the Lebonese will "wise-up" and realize the danger is within their own house and help clean it. Until the action plays out, you're just an expert on guessing.

Posted by Mac at August 6, 2006 10:26 AM

You might notice Bill White is a Democrat.

I don't see that he has said either way, actually.

It sounds like it is more about personalities than positions to you. As for 'bigot', it's not by any means an empty word. In this context, it means people who don't really care when Westerners kill Arabs, and who have no respect for real Arab opinion. (Though they may feign respect for convenient distortions and selections of Arab opinion.)

He and I can agree to disagree.

Not to knock Bill White, because his comments are reasonable up to a point; but "agreeing to disagree" often doesn't accomplish anything. Hannity and Colmes agree to disagree every day, but in their case, it's outright fake.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 6, 2006 11:00 AM

He puts lie to your assertion that I claim anyone who disagrees with me is a moonbat. It takes more than simple disagreement to earn that title. It takes a complete disregard for reality.

"As for 'bigot', it's not by any means an empty word. In this context, it means people who don't really care when Westerners kill Arabs, and who have no respect for real Arab opinion. (Though they may feign respect for convenient distortions and selections of Arab opinion.)"

Yes it is empty. I could care less about the racial characteristics of the group in question any more than I cared what breed Ole Yeller was when Travis had to shoot him. travis loved Ole Yeller but still put him down because one cannot tolerate mad dogs within civilized society.

When a group such as Hezbollah acts like a Mad Dog orginization, they deserve to be treated like a mad dog and put down.

Race has zero to do with it, actions have everything to do with it.

You cheapen the word bigot by misusing it and is a form of soft bigotry in and of itself.

But again, your mantra is: "The ends justify the means."

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 6, 2006 11:11 AM

SIOB, I love that kind of shorthand, it's so...meaningful. (imagine a Mortimer Snerdish voice for this) and I'll astrisk an explanation at the bottom for you, you SIOB jerk. ahut ahut ahut ta hooooo

A poll by the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that 87 percent of those surveyed supported Hezbollah’s battles with Israel. That included 80 percent of Lebanese Christians surveyed.

I believe this to be an honest poll, just like the one that said 80% of Americans thought George Bush should be impeached for lying to the country. From someone, like the Beirut Center for Research and Information, who has no axe to grind or point to make, why would I doubt their numbers.

And for the record I don't believe all the polls from the right either. Unless I can see the questions I suspect them all. The few I've had an opportunty to get into had questions for example, concerning marital abuse. "Are you still beating your wife?" Is she beating you, in self-defense?"

Figures don't lie, bur liars can figure.

Posted by Steve at August 6, 2006 11:47 AM

As for 'bigot', it's not by any means an empty word. In this context, it means people who don't really care when Westerners kill Arabs, and who have no respect for real Arab opinion.

So when I lack respect for the opinion that I should convert or die, or that Jews are pigs and apes, or that 911 was a US government conspiracy, or that Israel is an illegitimate state and that the Jews should to back to Europe, or die, I'm a bigot? Those are all "real Arab opinions."

Sorry, in your idiotic usage, it's empty and meaningless (and as already noted) a sign that the user of it has no real arguments.

Also, like the Israelis, when innocent Arabs die in a war created by Araby, I mourn, so your comment that I "don't really care when westerners kill Arabs" is equally stupid.

But you've posted enough here for the past few days that we now simply consider the source.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2006 11:49 AM

There is no question that there is a lot of prejudice among Arabs. More than in the United States, I would say. But prejudice is only human nature. I doubt that the average Arab is more prejudiced than you are. After all, you've been talking about the OKC bombing as if it's an Arab conspiracy. If most Americans were like you, it would be pretty symmetrical.

If you could recognize that prejudice is a basic (if regrettable) form of human nature, you could then realize that you can't bomb prejudice out of people. If general Arab prejudice is the problem, Israel is not going to solve it by bombing Lebanon, not unless it went all the way and killed everyone in every Arab country.

Also, like the Israelis, when innocent Arabs die in a war created by Araby, I mourn

That's right, you mourn if and when you can say that Arabs brought it onto themselves. The part that you can't handle is Western responsibility.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 6, 2006 01:57 PM

But prejudice is only human nature. I doubt that the average Arab is more prejudiced than you are.

[laughing]

Now we introduce a new defamatory word for me in lieu of argument, "prejudiced."

No, I'm not prejudiced. I'm postjudiced.

After all, you've been talking about the OKC bombing as if it's an Arab conspiracy.

No. Read for comprehension. I've been talking about it as there's some reason to believe that Iraq may have been involved, and that there's been a concerted effort on the part of the federal government to look the other way with regard to any evidence to that effect. Unlike the wackiness about 911, this is not an unreasonable belief, on the evidence.

Note again the asymmetry. I don't deny that McVeigh was involved. I simply put forth the proposition that there were others involved besides Nichols and whathisname. Some Arabs, on the other hand, simultaneously believe that Al Qaeda isn't capable of doing 911 because Arabs are too unsophisticated, that Al Qaeda didn't do it because the US government did, and that it was a great achievement of Al Qaeda. This goes beyond nutty conspiracy theories to actual cognitive dissonance. To think this nuts is neither bigotry or prejudice (words which you apparently are unfamiliar with the meaning, so you use them to toss smoke into the discussion instead). It's simply a cold clinical diagnosis.

you could then realize that you can't bomb prejudice out of people.

Well, if I had ever proposed that one can "bomb prejudice out of people," there might be some weight to this statement. Unfortunately, as is often the case with you, it's an idiotic strawman.

If general Arab prejudice is the problem, Israel is not going to solve it by bombing Lebanon, not unless it went all the way and killed everyone in every Arab country.

What a preposterous and illogical statement.

...you mourn if and when you can say that Arabs brought it onto themselves. The part that you can't handle is Western responsibility.

I mourn every case in which innocent Arabs die, regardless of who's responsible, just as most Israelis do (though Israel bears no responsibility, as far as I can see, in the present crisis). The enemy cheers innocent civilian deaths, when they are lucky (it's rarely through competence) to achieve them.

What's your point? Are you saying that I should mourn when guilty Arabs (or Turkmen, or Persians) die as well?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2006 02:11 PM

Israel bears no responsibility, as far as I can see, in the present crisis.

EXACTLY. You just can't see the responsibility. Blaming the United States or Israel for killing Arabs is exactly what you can't bring yourself to do. I know full well that you think you can bring yourself to do it, and maybe one day you'll be right about that. But so far you simply haven't. Not in the present crisis, nor in any crisis.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 6, 2006 02:20 PM

Blaming the United States or Israel for killing Arabs is exactly what you can't bring yourself to do.

It's not a question of "bringing myself to do it." I don't do it because a rational analysis indicates that Hezbollah, not Israel or the US, is to blame for innocent deaths in Lebanon, by instigating a war against an enemy that they want to destroy, and by cynically using Lebanese civilians, about whose lives they are utterly indifferent, as human shields, which both reduces their chances of getting killed (because Israel really does hesitate to attack if there is a concern about a loss of innocent life), and because it serves their propaganda purposes, showing how "evil" Israel (and by extension) the US are when innocents die, and increasing the pressure for a ceasefire that is to no one's advantage except theirs, so they can have a breather to get resupplied.

And useful idiots like you lick it up like ice cream in August.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 6, 2006 02:30 PM

It seems to me that the only Israeli response that makes sense is to forcibly evacuate as much territory as it takes to stop the rockets falling, and then demolish every single building, basement, and item of infrastructure in that area, so that it is impossible for the terrorists to move back in without very significant effort.

And if they do make that effort, blow it up again.

People who are prepared to use noncombatants as shields deserve everything that's coming to them; and those who let them do it deserve the same, whether it's because they agree with the killers or simply lack guts.

Israel could, in many different ways, have solved the problem in a few minutes and had it stay solved for several years. The fact that they didn't is a measure of the difference between Islamic terrorists and Israel.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at August 6, 2006 04:00 PM

What's "amusing" - in a strictly black-humorous way - is that you find this amusing. If the West attacked Iran, as some urged, you say, the "skeptics" warned that Hezbollah would be activated. Ooooo, can't have that!

Well, the West hasn't attacked Iran but Hezbollah was activated anyway. That, you see, is the thing with jihadis - they attack you if you don't give them what they claim to want and, especially, if you do (Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon & Gaza - land for peace - has been rewarded by cross-border attacks and rocket barrages).

Given that these people are unappeasable in any rational fashion, do we have your kind permission, now that they have undeniably shown their true colors, to KILL them? Why do I suspect the answer is still no?

Perhaps the neocons will sign up to fight hezbollah

I'm neither neo nor con, but - hell yeah - sign me up. I'm too old and creaky to be worth anything in a fight, but I can cheer from the stands.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at August 6, 2006 04:18 PM

"The left is always the experts at how people think, when they have only guesses."

I've personally never been wrong about foreign policy, since I don't form opinions until I'm confident I understand the factors, but of course that can't be known to you. Suffice it to say I'm not surprised by developments in Iraq, unlike the people responsible for invading it, and the red flags are even more glaring in this situation.

"You have no idea other than a hypothesis and no way to prove it."

Well, firstly it's a conditional hypothesis, and the condition is just one of several possible decisions Israel could make--I've outlined the consequences of just one of them. But if the condition does occur, the simplest way to prove my point is just to wait and watch. There are other forums full of very bitter, resentful Iraq war supporters whom I never tire of showing copies of their own posts prior to the invasion, and my responses to them.

"Perhaps the Lebonese will "wise-up" and realize the danger is within their own house and help clean it. Until the action plays out, you're just an expert on guessing."

The deciding factor will be how Israel moves, whether they just keep up the invasion or start talking to Lebanon with the UN's help. Lebanon will not move against Hezbollah while Israeli bombs fall on their cities and IDF troops stand on their soil; it is just not politically feasible, and it will take a lot of time even after it stops for the political capital Hezbollah has gained from the Israeli invasion to wear off.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 7, 2006 07:58 AM

Post a comment