"I hope Nasrallah gets a rocket between the legs for what he is doing to me here, for harming grandma and grandpa."

Scare quotes in the title for the foolish troll who's been infesting my comments section for the last few days.

They're the words of an Arab. An Israeli Arab, of course.

I don't think that would be at all disproportionate.

Yes, but that's just Nasrallah. That's different! I won't miss Nasrallah either if he gets killed.

The moral issue isn't Nasrallah himself, or even any of his armed men. It's all of that collateral damage. It's the skirts that Israel has blown up on the theory that terrorists could be hiding behind them. It's the idea that whichever Arabs the Israeli Army kills, we can all just blame Nasrallah. It's the certitude that there is no element of reprisal in Israel's attacks, on the argument that they aren't 100% reprisal. That is the corrupted moral calculus that amounts to bigotry.

Yes, but that's just Nasrallah. That's different!

Nope. You're just a bigot against misunderstood mass murderers.

It's all of that collateral damage.

Wow. I'll bet you'd have really been whining about the brutal "Allies" during WW II.

Wow. I'll bet you'd have really been whining about the brutal "Allies" during WW II.

An outrageous analogy from someone who claims to be opposed to outrageous analogies. Hezbollah is an evil terrorist organization, on the level of the Klan or the IRA. It is not the Nazi Wehrmacht.

You're just a bigot against misunderstood mass murderers.

All right, I'm "bigoted" against mass murderers, misunderstood or otherwise. Gulity as charged. You're bigoted against unarmed Arabs.

Hezbollah is an evil terrorist organization, on the level of the Klan or the IRA. It is not the Nazi Wehrmacht.

That's right. It doesn't possess the weaponry. If it did, it would in fact be much worse. But as long as it doesn't have the means to carry out its vile desires, we can't compare it to Nazis. Well, what will you say when Iran gets the bomb, and slips it to them?

All right, I'm "bigoted" against mass murderers, misunderstood or otherwise. Gulity as charged. You're bigoted against unarmed Arabs.

Unsubstantiated bullshit.

It comes to mind that most of the people who have declared a world war are extremely lazy in relation to the supposed crisis. I'm sure that there are exceptions — Pat Tillman types — but most people saying it are not of that ilk. It's as dangerous as World War II, but for some reason there is no draft. It's as dangerous as World War II, but for some reason the war is paid for on credit, not by taxes.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be Chicken Little and claim terrorism is a world war; and also be Mr. Yuppie Couch Potato and demand tax relief and no draft. When people declare a global crisis without due self-sacrifice, it's usually an excuse to ride roughshod over other people's problems. That is what it amounts to when people say that abortion = genocide, or that animal research = torture, or that terrorism = world war.

Hezbollah is an evil terrorist organization....It is not the Nazi Wehrmacht.

In degree or kind? I mean, are you saying Hezbollah is not as evil on a per-person basis as the Wehrmacht, or are you saying it's just as evil (or even worse) but not as effective or large?

It's hard to believe you're saying Hezbollah is less evil, pound for pound, than the late unlamented Army of the Third Reich. (I'd say even in the more appropriate comparison, to the Gestapo or the KGB, they don't end up being the better smelling organization.)

If so, then it sounds like you're saying Hezbollah may well be just as vicious and nasty as any other organization against whom total war has been justified -- and in which innocents have regrettabl died by accident -- but, ah ha, Hezobollah just happens to not be competent enough or numerous enough to justify it the "normal" actions associated with waging war.

That's a weird argument by me. I'd have a hard time thinking a murderer is less deserving of prosecution and punishment if he murders alone than if he does so in the company of a hundred other murderers. What's the moral basis for this distinction?

Even on a practical basis, one would think the policy of nipping a problem in the bud would advocate a more aggressive treatment of a small problem that could easily grow bigger. You don't treat a cancer more lackadaisically when it's smaller. You'd wage total war on termites in your foundation whether you found thousands or only a couple dozen.

So Mike, how do you propose Israel or other major nations deal with groups that deliberately install their rocket launchers in civilian areas? Give some examples.

You also dust off the old chickenhawk canard about people who argue for military response but who have civilian jobs. I intensely dislike that argument as both undemocratic and because it is a form of bullying.

In degree or kind?

Hezbollah is nothing like the Nazis in either its capabilities or its behavior. They agree with Nazi doctrine about Jews, but then, so does the Klan. Agreement is not the same thing as complete moral equivalence. No historical comparison is perfect, but Hezbollah could be more similar to the American Klan of the 1920s than to any other familiar example.

It should be remembered that the Klan also "hid behind skirts". They committed many acts of terrorism and blended in with the civilian population. But you would have to simply hate Southerners to declare "total war" as a response in the 1920s. It would have been a grievous error, buth morally and practically, to destroy entire apartment buildings in Atlanta just because Klansmen keep weapons there.

So Mike, how do you propose Israel or other major nations deal with groups that deliberately install their rocket launchers in civilian areas? Give some examples.

Great Britain dealt with the IRA of the 1960s a great deal more carefully than Israel is dealing with Hezbollah right now. Just like Hezbollah, the IRA also hides its men and its weapons in civilian areas. Britain did not respond with air strikes and ground invasion.

You also dust off the old chickenhawk canard about people who argue for military response but who have civilian jobs.

No, arguing for some military response is simply logical. Israel does need to have some military response to Hezbollah.

The problem is people who declare WORLD WAR but clearly don't mean it, at least not for themselves. If you argue that it's another World War II, but still want to live like it's the Roaring 20s, with low tax rates and no draft, that's just bogus. Not just bogus, but S.I.O.B. (stupid, ignorant, obsolete, benighted.)

Mike, you are being rather disingenuous at best. Both the IRA and the Klan (evil organizations that openly embraced terror, let us stipulate) were far, far, FAR smaller and more limited in their aims than Hez and its ilk. I would wager that had the IRA hid behind Eire civilians and launched frequent destructive rocket and mortar attacks (one or two bombs don't count, we are talking dozens at a time here, and against a much smaller population), the Brits would have responded with a great deal more 'oomph' than they did. As for the Klan, try to imagine Ruby Ridge or Waco writ a WHOLE lot larger, and I think you get the idea of what any American govt would have done about a large armed insurrection, much less a military force calling for our destruction and taking steps to insure it.

The fact of the matter is that whatever problems one might have with some aspects of the state of Israel, they are engaged in self-defense against an enemy that has openly called for their destruction. No govt on earth (or elsewhere?) could ignore such things with impunity.

As for the Klan, try to imagine Ruby Ridge or Waco writ a WHOLE lot larger

Give it up, Scott. Mike has already foolishly stated an equivalence between Waco and Lebanon.

Both the IRA and the Klan (evil organizations that openly embraced terror, let us stipulate) were far, far, FAR smaller and more limited in their aims than Hez and its ilk.

"Aims" are always a debatable abstraction in politics. Different elements of the Klan have fantasized all kinds of grandiose and grotesque "aims" in its history, including open support for Nazi world domination. A lot of people have forgotten about these Klan aims, because they would prefer not to take them seriously.

If you look at actual deeds instead of hypothetical "aims", the Klan has killed more people than Hezbollah, in particular more unarmed civilians.

Another point not previously addressed. Part of the argument here involves some real historical amnesia about the nature of the IRA or the Klan.

I would wager that had the IRA hid behind Eire civilians and launched frequent destructive rocket and mortar attacks

The IRA certainly did hide behind Irish cilivians and still does. And they did in periods launch frequent attacks, not just "one or two bombs". It is asinine to minimize Britain's experience with terrorism in order to play up your favorite fight.

The one thing that the IRA did not do was fire off everything it had in response to British air strikes against West Belfast, because the British wisely never started such air strikes.

As for the Klan, try to imagine Ruby Ridge or Waco writ a WHOLE lot larger

Yes, the Klan was Ruby Ridge and Waco writ a WHOLE lot larger. That's exactly right. In times past, the Klan was a vast organization that killed a lot of people, and dug itself deep into legitimate politics. Again, it is asinine to downplay the serious history of American domestic terrorism in order to play up the fight of the day.

The one thing that the feds did not do in response to the Klan was raze entire towns for harboring Klansmen. (At least not in response to the reborn Klan of the 20th century; Grant may have done that with the first Klan.)

Wow Mike, the IRA had thousands of rockets hid away in civilian homes? They launched then dozens at a time into England for days on end? We never knew; glad you were here to straighten us out on those "facts".