Israel bombs The Lebanon

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 22 Jul 2006 16:11

I don't understand how anyone could think that Israel's "surgical" bombing is at all effectual.

I can only imagine that Hezbollah was counting on Israel's overzealous reaction in order to rally support.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Jul 2006 16:48

Israel is being attacked at the moment

durr. no shit. so is lebanon.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 25 Jul 2006 19:51

Bump.

Israeli bombs kill 4 UN observers in Lebanon. There are reports of cluster bombs being used, for example, in Bilda. The Israelis are making it harder and harder to claim self-defense with such actions.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 30 Jul 2006 12:31

what a fucking joke. isreal is on top of their shit for sure. isreal is not only smart but they are doing everything they need to do to defend themselves. fucking hezbollah is wedging itself into civillian concentrated areas to do exactly what was said above, rally support. the american media is all bullshit anyway. if isreal kills 4 UN douchebags up on a mountain its because they connected all the dots and decided that the juice WAS worth the squeeze. not only is there intelligence precision but they are not warmongering-

what the FUCK does isreal have to gain from this???

if isreal stopped all offense, hezbollah would still be firing fucking missles into isreal.

if hezbollah would go the fuck away, isreal would mind its own business.

does it get any more simple?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2006 21:15

One third of casualities in this conflict are children.

I find it incredible how much power Israel and the US are giving to Hezbollah - they're basically saying that Hezbollah can choose to keep the conflict going or not. It seems to me that it is definitely in Hezbollah's interests to keep the conflict going - it means they great more media and international attention and more support from the people of Lebanon. Israel and the US should be trying to take away the support of Hezbollah - not giving it more support.

I think Sam that you should look a little deeper into the situation:

if isreal stopped all offense, hezbollah would still be firing fucking missles into isreal.

It's important to remember that Hezbollah started firing the missiles into Israel after Israel started bombing Lebanon so I don't know why you would think that Hezbollah would continue the offensive if Israel called a cease fire.

if hezbollah would go the fuck away, isreal would mind its own business.

I don't think this is a realistic expectation. Justly or not, organisations like Hezbollah feel like they've been oppressed for years by Israel and they've fed off that perception of oppression amongst the people around them. Things like the 1982 massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps are very hard to forget and I think until Israel takes some responsibility for events like that there will be a large and continued support in the region for organisations like Hezbollah (of course it will be hard for there to be peace in the region if groups like Hezbollah don't equally face some kind of legitimate justice for the actions too).

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 31 Jul 2006 07:09

Jeremy

It's important to remember that Hezbollah started firing the missiles into Israel after Israel started bombing Lebanon so I don't know why you would think that Hezbollah would continue the offensive if Israel called a cease fire.

See, that is simply completely false, Jeremy.

I'll refer you all back to an earlier page of this conversation, some of my rhetoric. (I'd do that whole "quote within a quote" thing, but sadly I don't know how... anyone want to PM me and explain how thats done?)

way back on page 1...
dyalander said

I might be wrong and obviously I expect to be corrected, but wasn't this immediate situation started by Hezzbollah kidnapping two Israel soldiers. I'm not sure that the response can be justified in relation to this action

and I replied...
Outsider

Its true that Hezbollah attacked a military boarder patrol, killing some and capturing others. I guess you didn't know that the raid was directly preceded by a rocket attack on Israeli civilian positions. The rocket attack on civilians was used as a diversion before the attack on the boarder patrol.

It's important to remember

Its important to get your facts straight.

Oh, and one other tidbit...
Two days before Israeli bombs struck that UN outpost, a UN peacekeeper was hit by Hezbollah bullets... Not much reporting on that one though, and no UN condemnation.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 31 Jul 2006 17:19

Seattle shooter put gun to girl’s head to gain entry
The Seattle Times

SEATTLE — The gunman who forced his way into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon put a gun to the head of a 13-year-old girl to gain entry to the building, police said this afternoon.

The man, who described himself as a Muslim American angry with Israel, then opened fire with two handguns, killing one woman and wounding five others before surrendering to police.

The dead woman was identified Saturday morning as Pamela Waechter, 58.

At a news conference Saturday afternoon, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said the gunman was stopped on a minor traffic violation — he had been driving down a street exclusively used by buses, about a half-hour before the shooting. He said he did nothing to arouse the officer’s suspicions.

The man then presumably drove to the federation building, where he hid behind a plant in the lobby for a short time. Kerlikowske said he waited for someone to come in to gain access into the office. When a 13-year-old girl walked up, he put a gun to her head and forced her to take him inside.

“She could not have kept him out,” Kerlikowske said. “She was a hostage.” The man carried two semiautomatic handguns and extra ammunition into the federation’s offices, the chief said.

“Once inside, he immediately started firing at people.”

He rattled off anti-Israel slurs and commanded people not to dial 911. But shooting victim Dayna Klein, who is 17 weeks pregnant, ignored him.

Seconds after being shot in the arm, she crawled across the floor toward a phone and called for help.

Within minutes, police were at the building and the man put down his two semi-automatic handguns and surrendered.

Police identified the suspect as Naveed Afzal Haq, 30, who until recently had lived in Everett, Wash. A law-enforcement source said Haq apparently has a history of mental illness. Haq, described as a studious loner, was raised in southern Washington state, and his family has close ties to the local Muslim community center.

Muhammad Ullah, a close family friend and a senior member of a mosque founded in part by Haq’s father, described Haq as a quiet loner with few friends.

At a bail hearing Saturday afternoon, King County District Court Judge Barbara Linde set bail at $50 million and found probable cause that Haq could face one charge of first-degree murder and five charges of attempted murder.

The shooting came a day after the FBI had warned Jewish organizations nationwide to be on alert after Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and al-Qaida’s second in command urged that the war raging in the Middle East be carried to the U.S. However, the law-enforcement source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there is no evidence that Haq was involved with any group.

“He said he hates Israel,” said the source, who is part of the Seattle Joint Terrorism Task Force, which was called in to help investigate the shootings.

David Gomez, the assistant special agent-in-charge of the Seattle FBI office, said there is “nothing to indicate he is part of a larger organization.”

“We believe he is a lone individual with antagonism toward this (Jewish) organization,” Gomez said.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 31 Jul 2006 17:45

Outsider wrote:Two days before Israeli bombs struck that UN outpost, a UN peacekeeper was hit by Hezbollah bullets... Not much reporting on that one though, and no UN condemnation.

I guess it didn't get much reporting because it is not too much of a surprise that Hezbollah would do such a thing. I have not seen reports of the incident, but from the way you worded it, it sounds like it just could have been crossfire. I feel like the UN condemnation came about since it wanted to distance itself from the actions of one of its member nations.

There is a line between self-defense and aggression (for lack of a better term). On one-end of the spectrum, you have something like deploying nuclear weapons on Beirut. On the other, you have something like not doing anything in response. Israel's actions fall somewhere in between those. I think lots of people are upset with the Israelis because they feel the Israelis' actions fall on the wrong side of that line.

Guest_2 · Post by **Guest_2** » 01 Aug 2006 18:27

lol, all hezbollah has to do is give back the soldiers

Robert wojci · Post by **Robert wojci** » 05 Aug 2006 06:11

well number one, i think the news is biased here towards israel. But no one is "right" in this war and i dont understand why there is such a big deal about who is right. how about just stopping the fighting! both of the militant orgs are being stupid, and the world needs to do things and yes they are trying, but the us and israel are just saying no to the cease-fire basically so hezbollah can be destroyed, not to forget innocent civillians which i think is bullshit. i say immediate cease fire, then immediately afterwards, political negotiations between sides.
See Lebanese people will continue to join hezbollah out of hatred of israel so i doubt bombing lebanon will work. Also hezbollah is doing the exact same horrible things on israel and both are wrong, but thats not what should be focused on i think, as it is in the news. lets just focus on a cease-fire.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 05 Aug 2006 16:51

well number one, i think the news is biased here towards israel.

Actually, from what I've read and watched (And it hasn't been too much), the media seems more biased in Lebanon's favor than in Israel's. Really no way to say either way without studies and what not, but that's what I've concluded.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Aug 2006 18:24

I think it could be that the media isn't biased at all - but that as many people are saying - Israel's response really is over proportionate to the attacks against them.

Jon wrote:See, that is simply completely false, Jeremy.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Luckily my mistake didn't lead directly to the deaths of a bus load of children. I am grateful for that.

Also while I make mistakes, I do not support anybody who kills children.

I do not support anybody who kills children.

You still haven't told us why you do support people who kill children...

Regarding the killing of UN people - There's a clear difference between one UN peacekeeper being shot and a UN outpost being fired at - resulting in 10 calls asking Israel to stop which leads Israel to fly a plane over and drop a bomb on the outpost. I really don't think you can compare those two different actions at all.

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 06 Aug 2006 20:01

About the child death toll's it's to be expected. Not ony that. I'm quite sure that Hezbollah knows exactly what it's doing and has either inflated the death toll, held those children in the place where they kept their mobile armouries, or most likely both. When the Lebanese government condones such actions with their apparent INACTION.

TIME magazine (not sure if you Australians get it >_>) has had articles on all this stuff since it started. One I remember reading stated that the Israelis clearly drop pamphlets that tell people to leave a certain area. According to that article, some people don't leave because it's simply their residence. Some have already left. Some maged to send their children and such away to safer parts before all of this escalated so badly. The majority? They are physically forced by Hezbollah to stay in their homes. When what is the equivalent of the government threatens to kill their citizens if they don't leave an area where they will probably die if they stay. That's by far the greater wrong.

Israels actions are not overproportionate. Compare the amount of people killed each year in terrorist attacks with the amount of Lebanese citizens who die because they are forced to do so by their government to generate sympathy for their so-called plight.

About those UN peacekeepers? What use are they? Israel plays by the rules unfortunately, but mistakes happen. What I don't understand is why does Israel have to be handicapped whie their enemies given an advantage? Why is it worse when Israel fucks up and is already handicapped...than when Hezbollah kills a UN peacekeeper because it is to be expected of them. A "Oh. Well you were just in the way" is far better received than a "I'm sorry but we made a mistake, etc. so and so...".

Israel has been playing by the rules for a LONG time. Like that has done any good. Fact is that they still are and the UN is not close to helping.[/quote]

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Aug 2006 20:13

Lets be clear - the UN told Israel 10 times that they were firing on their position and that it was dangerous - Israel responded by flying a plane over and dropping a bomb directly on the building.

Also what are the deaths from terrorism compared with the deaths in Lebannon?

--------------

Quantifying Deaths By Terrorism in the World

By Gideon Polya

Al-Jazeerah, July 17, 2005

Violent democratic imperialism dominates or threatens much of the Middle East and Central Asia. The Oxford Dictionary defines "terror" as "intense fear" and when "terrorists" "terrorize" by applying "terrorism" to a society they attempt to impose their views or further their goals by "coercive intimidation" i.e. by "inducing intense fear" in the subject people.

Of course we should be clear at the outset that "terrorizing" innocent people is unutterably VILE.

In order to QUANTIFY (measure) the degree of "terror" in fearful subject populations (e.g. Iraqi mothers or London commuters) one could subject them all individually to some kind of sophisticated, comparative psychological and electrophysiological analysis - a task that is beyond our reach in practice.

However since "degree of terror" is related to "increased likelihood of death" , we could ATTEMPT a naive quantification of "terror" by determining the "probability of avoidable death" for various inhabitants of Spaceship Earth. "Avoidable death" or "avoidable mortality" (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths EXPECTED for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics [1, 2].

Using United Nations Population Division data [3] one can calculate the avoidable mortality (excess mortality) for every country in the World over the last 55 years. Under-5 infant mortality is a major component of mortality in Third World countries and using UN data we can calculate the under-5 infant mortality for every country in the World since 1950. Updated UNICEF reports [4] also provide estimates of infant mortality and other key social statistics.

Thus the latest UNICEF report (2005) [4] estimates that in 2003 the under-5 infant mortality was 110,000 in Occupied Iraq, 292,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 1,000 in the invading and occupying country Australia, noting that in 2003 these countries had populations of 25, 24 and 20 million, respectively [4] and the under-5 year olds in these countries totaled 4.2, 5.0 and 1.3 million, respectively [3].

From this information we can see that the probability of under-5 infant death in a calendar year at the moment is about 2.6%, 5.8% and 0.08%, respectively, for Occupied Iraq, Occupied Afghanistan and the occupying country Australia.

We can immediately see that the probability of infant death is negligible in Coalition country Australia but very high in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories. Would you cross a busy road without using the traffic lights if the probability of death was about 4% or 4 deaths for every 100 people doing so? Would you have "intense fear" for the life of your infant if you were a parent or mother in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories where on average about 4 out of every 100 under-5 year old infants die each year? Of course this appalling infant mortality in these occupied countries is associated with non-provision of life-sustaining requisites by the US-led Coalition and represents horrendous "passive genocide" in utter dereliction of the Geneva Accords [5].

Under-5 infant mortality is not just low in Australia, it is also extraordinarily low in other Overseas European countries (USA, Canada, New Zealand and Israel) and in Western European countries. There can be very little "terror" in Western countries on account of infant mortality.

Nevertheless the West is paranoid about "terror" on account of about 5,000 Western civilian deaths over the last 20 years due to jihadist and Arab insurgent violence (mostly in Israel and USA , with the remainder due to the Lockerbie, Bali, Madrid and London atrocities) [1, 2]. Knowing that the total current population in the Western European and Overseas European countries is about 760 million [3], we can accordingly estimate that the annual probability of Western civilian death from terrorist attack has averaged about 0.00003%. To put this miniscule probability in context, the annual deaths from car accidents and from smoking-related causes total about 40,000 and 400,000, respectively, in the US (population about 300 million), from which we can estimate annual probabilities of deaths from car accidents and from smoking-related causes in the US at about 0.01% and 0.1%, respectively [6].

The "terror" imposed upon Iraqi and Afghan mothers by Anglo-American democratic imperialism can thus be seen to be about 100,000 - 200,000 times greater on this naive quantitative basis than the "terror'" imposed on Western civilians by jihadists and Arab insurgents. The overwhelmingly major players in global "terrorism" (as defined by the Oxford Dictionary) are clearly the UK and US - the jihadists (while dangerous and violent) are extremely minor players (indeed their efforts have had the effect of prompting vastly greater UK-US state terrorism). Yet the UK-US "terrorist" administrations and compliant Anglo-American mainstream media have hijacked the word "terror" to make it mean "people we don't like and want to kill" and have turned reality on its head.

Let there be no mistake - any terrorism is vile. Indeed the normally rather subdued Australian Labor Leader and Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, denounced those responsible for the senseless and wicked London atrocity in extremely strong terms: "These terrorists are subhuman filth and must be captured and eliminated" [7]. How then should one describe the US-led Coalition leaders with direct, criminal responsibility for a post-invasion avoidable mortality and under-5 infant mortality of 1.9 million and 1.5 million, respectively, in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories [1, 2]?

Milosevic was tried at The Hague for complicity in Balkans war crime deaths totaling 0.25 million [6]. When will the Coalition leaders be GENERALLY identified and successfully indicted in person or in absentia before the International Criminal Court? Indeed I and others have made formal complaints to the International Criminal Court over Coalition war crimes [6]. A continuing under-5 infant death toll in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories of 0.4 MILLION EACH YEAR and over 1,000 DAILY [1, 2, 4] must be addressed by an indignant World. Peace is the only way but decent people are obliged to INFORM OTHERS and to ETHICALLY ASSESS their dealings with people and countries complicit in mass murder and terrorism against mothers and children.

[1] Gideon Polya Global Avoidable Mortality blog (see: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/)
[2] Gideon Polya website (see: website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gpolya/links.html)
[3] United Nations, Department of Economic & Social Affairs, Population Division, "World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision Population Database" (for the latest 2004 Revision update see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1 )
[4] UNICEF report, 2005 (see: http://www.unicef.org/index2.html)
[5] Gideon Polya, Countercurrents, 11 March 2005, "Passive genocide in Iraq" (see: http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-polya110305.htm)
[6] Gideon Polya, News Central Asia, October 2004, "Coaltion war crimes in Iraq - Australian scientist moves International Criminal Court" (see: http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules. ... e&sid=1019)
[7] The Australian, 8 July 2004.

Dr Gideon Polya
29 Dwyer Street, Macleod, Melbourne, Victoria, 3085, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gpolya/links.html
Day & night telephone: +61 3 9459 3649
Credentials: Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently writing a book on global mortality - numerous articles on this matter can be found by a simple Google search for "Gideon Polya" and on his website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gpolya/links.html

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 07 Aug 2006 12:32

Why should the deaths of U.N. target-keepers matter any more than the lives of anyone else killed in the conflict?

You would think that after complaining 10 times that they were being hit, and seeing that they were being played the fools as shields , the interest of self-preservation would have motivated them to withdrawal from their position.

Maybe we can agree that having unarmed targets, with blue helmets sitting in between warring parties is foolish.

Additional it would be seem un-necessarily dangerous to place an "international peacekeeping force" between these two groups.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 07 Aug 2006 18:30

When George Bush uses the word "comprehensive" to describe the solution to be attempted, we know that it is doomed to failure.

When France and the U.S. agree on something that goes before the U.N., we know it is doomed to failure, or be ignored outright.

-n

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 07 Aug 2006 19:27

Any plan termed "comprehensive" is doomed to fail.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Aug 2006 22:46

HighDemonslayer wrote:Why should the deaths of U.N. target-keepers matter any more than the lives of anyone else killed in the conflict?

Good point.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 16 Aug 2006 15:40

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... hotos&only

Here's a link to a page with video showing the "Green helmet guy" , and others moving and staging dead children for maximum press coverage.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 16 Aug 2006 15:43

That actually wasnt the video I thought I was linking to, but it was the same scene, and clearer than what i thought it was.

-n