The Islamic Crusade comprises several groups, some Sunni and other Shia. It has sponsors such as the Baath party (and previously, the Soviets) in Syria, and previously in Iraq, who share some goals, such as striking the US and Isreal. Sometimes these various groups fight each other, but they always find time and resources to fight the US and Isreal.
Perhaps the US and Isreal should have continued with their previous policies of tolerating dozens of annual deaths each year, and occassional big splashes like 911, and just wait for the appeal of civilization to finally win over the populace, as it did in Northern Ireland. Today I'm about 60% certain that Isreal should not have invaded Lebanon. Nadir thinks Isreal invaded soley because of the two captured soldiers, rather than as a response to a total means of conduct over the past several years. Nadir also thinks that the Isrealis are targetting civillians, UN officials, and reporters, which I find perposterous, as well as his assumption that Isreal poses any threat to Lebanon except to squash the threats in Lebanon against Isreal.
However, at this point I think that Isreal has made a political and military mistake by invading Lebanon. Before the invasion, the islamic retards in southern Lebanon had a civilization to their south and a growing civilization to their north. Over years I believe that the appeals of these civilizations would have had a better chance of eliminating Islamic retardation than an Isreali invasion, which both feeds islamic retardation, and destroys the Lebanese civilization that was finally growing. If Isreal could have simply tollerated a dozen or so annual deaths and hostage-taking each year along its northern border, I believe that successive generations of muslims in that area would have turned away from retardation and embraced civilization.
This represents a shift in my view, and I'm not 100% convinced of it.
2006-07-28
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Nadir thinks Isreal invaded soley because of the two captured soldiers, rather than as a response to a total means of conduct over the past several years."
You are absolutely incorrect about my position here. I think the capturing of the two soldiers was an excuse. Soldiers have been traded back and forth between Israel and Hezbollah often since 2000. Israel has even crossed the Lebanese border to kidnap Lebanese fighters. There has been aggression on both sides for sure, but Hezbollah was founded in response to the 20 year Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, not because Israel was in Palestine. It has gained power because it has become a successful resistance operation that provides social services and security to the Lebanese people.
"Nadir also thinks that the Isrealis are targetting civillians, UN officials, and reporters, which I find perposterous, as well as his assumption that Isreal poses any threat to Lebanon except to squash the threats in Lebanon against Isreal."
You obviously aren't reading the news reports that come out of Lebanon daily.
"This represents a shift in my view, and I'm not 100% convinced of it."
Though your shift has nothing to do with a greater sense of sympathy for the innocent civilians dying in Lebanon and in Israel, I applaud you for coming to your senses.
Now can you convince your government that more deaths in Lebanon will only result in the further isolation of the US by the world and an escalation in Western/Islamic tensions?
But why did Isreal ever occupy Lebanon? Not because it wanted to annex it as part of pan-Isreal. Hezbollah could have caused Isreal to abandon Lebanon even faster had Hezbollah devoted itself to spreading amoungst the Lebanese an acceptance of Isreal, rather than violent opposition its existance. Isreal didn't suddenly invade Lebanon as an act of conquest and territorial expansion back in 1980 or whenever it was. It invaded for the same reason as now: to squash people in Lebanon attacking Isreal in an attempt to eradicate Isreal.
Nadir keeps equating Isreal's attempt to maintain its democracy with various Lebonese groups attempting to conquer Isreal and transform it into a totalitarian regime.
Nadir, if you don't believe that Isreal invaded now purely in response to two captured soldiers, then stop saying that "Isreal over-reacted to the capturing of two soldiers." You are taking to conflicting positions in different postings. If you agree here that Isreal invaded for a reason other than the two captured soldiers, then let's talk about that reason. What reason do you cite? Six and I believe this reason: to squash a group that constantly attacks Isreal in an attempt to eradicate Iseral.
When Hamas or Hezbollah troops cross into Isreal to capture troops, they are doing this as part of their goal to eradicate Isreal and replace it with a dictatorship; when Isreal crosses the other way to capture Hamas or Hezbo troops, they are doing so to stop the effort to eradicate their democracy.
How do you equate these actions?
Post a Comment