Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2006, 05:58 PM   #176
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: an apology

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
OK, a retraction. I would like to retract any comparison btw Daniel's and Mike's posts. The comparison was unfair:
This from the guy who has done nothing "fair" in comparisons during any of his post themes and who repeatedly avoided direct questions asking for him to show where any of his posts were fair or considered both sides.

This from the clown who is advocating a "boycott" of the Jews because they are defending themselves.

This is low comedy from a guy who fools mainly one person... himself. Start doing impartial analyses of situations before you slander a whole nation (Irael) because of your petty biases, Mick.

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-05-2006, 05:23 PM   #177
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
Here's Brian Lehrer of WNYC's commentary on the related subject of academic boycott proposed by some British academics several years ago.
Great. That was then: this is now. Much of his reservation over boycotts is the idea that in the ME there are "bad actors" everywhere; that a boycott is a thinly veiled gesture of anti-Semitism.

Yet, many of the tactics used by Israel WERE the same as those in S. Africa. The author lightly dismisses these arguments as "misleading," and then moves on without exploration.

Sorry, but Israel's attack on Lebanon certainly does earn a boycott, in my book, for their utter destruction of Lebanese infrastructure (and threats of more of the same). They show n inclination of restraint.

Sure, the website listed has some overly harsh words in describing Israeli's and IDF soldiers (ones that I would not use, myself); but I do not need to pledge their vow of allegiance, to march in their parade...if the parade is just.

The second they call for the abolition of Israel, of course, is the second I bow out. But still: a boycott certainly IS merited, in this case.
 
Old 08-05-2006, 05:28 PM   #178
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
None of the parties involved have any plans of stopping what they've been doing so far...
Not, according to the latest news...

Quote:
Nasrallah also told Israel that "if at any time you decide to stop your campaigns on our cities, villages, civilians, and infrastructure, we will not strike with rockets any settlement or Israeli city."
 
Old 08-06-2006, 08:17 AM   #179
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

The Qana "Massacre" is beginning to look more and more like the "Jenin Massacre", which the news media had to grudgingly admit that they'd been duped on (some admitted it.... all dropped the subject of the media's comlicity as quickly as possible).

In the case of Qana, the original number of deaths was greatly exaggerated. The building fell/exploded probably hours after a Israeli strike happened "nearby". Only women and children were in the building... no men. A Lebanese magazine has reported that children were "placed" in the building before the tragedy. The Reuters news agency photographer, an Arab, gave doctored and staged photographs of the aftermath (the same one who did the Reuters photograph that Reuters has had to publicly disavow this morning). Even though it doesn't look right, every sensible person is saying "wait and see when all the evidence is in".

But not people like Neil Mick. The propaganda campaigns that the enemies of the US use are designed to get the anti-Americans out raising hate against Americans and American allies... Neil Mick fulfills this description in most of his posts. No sensible person really considers that Neil is doing anything more than constantly denigrating the US and Neil should just be upfront about it instead of pretending that he's somehow being helpful.

Let's wait and see on Qana. On the levels of disproportionality that the anti-Americans, like Neil, keep wringing their hands about (they're always wringing their hands when Israel or the US is winning, it seems, and wanting to "call a halt to the conflict" in order to give the enemies one more time to regroup)... the "disproportionality" doesn't stand up. Twenty-eight people *may* have been killed in an Israeli airstrike in a response to 150 rockets fired deliberately at Israeli civilians, but is that disproportionate. None of the EU allies decried the "disproportionate" responses they themselves did when Serbs attacked the NATO positions in that war. "Disproportionate" is, let's face it, simply a word in the propaganda war to make Israel quit going after the enemy that attacked it. Everyone knows it. One side, Neil's side, thinks a few lies and exaggerations are worth it if the bad guys can ultimately win.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-06-2006, 10:43 AM   #180
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 688
Israel
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Luc Saroufim wrote:
i grew up in Beirut, I'm supposed to get married there next year. my wedding plans are tentatively cancelled, my family is hiding up in the mountains, and every day i am watching my country, the area closest to my heart, get flattened.

on the flip side, Lebanon is one of the most diverse religious countries in the world. i take pride in this fact. Shi'ites are only a fraction of the Lebanese population, and there are a lot of Lebanese who want Hezbollah out just as bad as Israel does.
on the other flip side, Israeli's are not animals. they do not want to kill civilians, and they are good people. the truth of the matter is that this army seems highly inexperienced. they have the firepower, but this is one of the few times they have reached significant resistance, and their inexperience is showing with miscalculated attacks and a plethora of civilian casualties. they need more training.

on another flip side, it was Israeli occupation that created Hezbollah in the first place. it was also Israeli occupation that created Hamas. again, this does not mean that Israel is not trying to secure peace.

on another flip side, Hezbollah has very little respect for Lebanon by attacking Israel without consent of the Lebanese government. they are not unifying Lebanon, they are tearing it appart worse than Israel is.a

bottom line: your viewpoint is your own, but nobody is right, and everybody is right. they only truth we can agree upon is that war is bad.

i am proud of the fact that i can watch my country get flattened and not have feelings of scorn or hatred. my only concern is that while bridges can be rebuilt, my family cannot.

here's to a quick resolution, a lasting peace, and my close friendship with some good Israeli people.

Hi Luc

I hope by the time your wedding should be, all will be calm and Beirut will return to flourish (as far as I understand, the damage is still rather focused). Wish all your family and friends are well and will stay out of harms way.

I wish all Lebanese were like you, and then peace would have been here a long long time ago. And we could have all met and trained together.



Amir






Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
It is debatable what happened first, whether Hezbollah attacked first or Israel. Even in the story presented 3 weeks ago, some news sources have said that the captured Israeli soldiers were picked up on the Lebanese side of the border. Given the supporting arguments that I've read, I'm more inclined to believe that, but most of you will probably think that's just more bias talking. Maybe it is, but that's the way I see it.
Well, perhaps you had better recheck your facts. The kidnapped were a group of reservists, on their last day on the border line, patrolling inside the border. They were not even fully equipped, let alone crossing the border in some planned incursion. Hezbollah fired rockets on the two vehicles they drove killing 3 soldiers and capturing 2 soldiers. It is true some of the soldiers killed that day did enter Lebanon, in a tank, in pursuit of the kidnap.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1150885976658 [this report was written before all the facts were clear, the identity of one of the captured is assumed to be Druz while he was a Jew, not that this truly matters].
I guess you will doubt such sources, so how about an Islamic board I found in English: http://www.aimislam.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=429
You can also read the top lines of this blog (again, not an Israeli source):
http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutb...lah_why_d.html
Quote:
Nasrallah revealed that Hizbullah "has been planning for this operation for almost five months now. We didn't inform the Cabinet of the plans to capture these soldiers."
If you do read that page, you will note they are reporting not only of a well planned attack but also of a diversion, which was firing rockets and mortars at Israeli villages all along the border. I remember hearing about those rockets on the news that day, before the kidnap was reported.


As far as looking at fabricated stories, how about the story below: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...286966,00.html
Quote:
Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged



Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
I hate these buzzwords. Israel used them during the whole Gilad Shalit ordeal. "Kiddnapped" and "hostage" were pretty popular. Personally, I like to call them Prisoners of War. Why are the 10,000+ POWs in Israel not called "kidnapped hostages"? The reason is simple: propaganda.
Because many of those people you count were tried and placed in prison for planning to bomb and/or kidnap civilians. Even most of the others did get visitations from their families and the Red-Cross (I seem to remember a recent statements these visitations are stopped until Gilad Shalit will be returned).


Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
Didn't see any Katyusha launchers on the ambulances or in the airport. Nor the hospital, nor in Qana, nor...
Where did you see a Katyusha launcher? Or perhaps Israel has not been hit by over 2000 missiles so far and it is all a propaganda of us Zionists?
So far, I have seen pictures of Katyusha launchers inside Mosques and weapons inside hospitals (both are violations of the Geneva convention and make those places no longer protected). I have seen pictures of multiple launchers in residential neighborhoods.

Is HA hiding among civilians? How about believing a UN official, who is certainly not supportive of Israel (Israelis stopped expecting the UN support a long time ago):
Quote:
At the same time, I repeatedly and publicly appealed from within Lebanon that the armed men of Hizbollah must stop their deplorable tactic of hiding ammunition, arms, or combatants among civilians. Using civilian neighborhoods as human camouflage is abhorrent and in violation of international humanitarian law.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp

or, here, a journalist who actually visited the HA offices:
Quote:
The chief spokesman for Hezbollah is…. His office is on a low floor of an apartment building in the southern suburbs of Beirut, which are called the Dahiya. Hezbollah has five main offices there, and all are in apartment buildings, which helps to create a shield between the bureaucracy and Israeli fighter jets
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...021014fa_fact4


Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
For instance: are the pronouncements of Hezbollah REALLY what they want, or is it empty sabre-rattling? PROVE to me that they REALLY would do all that you say, if they had the weapons.
Sorry, but given this logic. I see no reason to even try and discuss anything with you. Hezbollah and Iran clearly present their intentions to eradicate Israel off the map. So, you choose they can not mean the things they state again and again. Why do you not believe Nasrallah when he states:
Quote:
I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.
example from 2000 http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...t/hzblhnsr.htm
or:
Quote:
If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.
Hassan Ezzeddin, chief spokesman for Hezbollah 2002 (Israel was out of Lebanon)
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...021014fa_fact4



Instead, you judge just by the numbers of dead. Guess what, I am happy less Israelis die, I care less for Lebanese civilians then for my fellow soldiers of which I know some and some belong to my family. Still, I would prefer the Israeli army to cause less civilian death in Lebanon, and pictures of dead children are an horror in my eyes, be they Lebanese Shiite, Israeli Jews or Israeli Arab (many of which were killed).

There is a reason for the ratios of death:
* Israeli Jewish and Jewish-Arab combined areas are better sheltered.
* Many of Israeli Arabs died because they did not expect to be bombed and therefore cared less for installing shelters (and many of them built without required permits and such and so avoided the extra cost of building a shelter for every family in new/renovated apartments and houses).
* Lebanese are rarely sheltered in an organized way. Plus, the Israeli munitions are more modern and thus have more penetration.

However, related to the number of munitions fired at Lebanon, the Lebanese death toll is also quite small. The reason for this is Israel is not seeking how to kill as many Lebanese as possible.


Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
And, from my limited knowledge of international law: "intent" to attack certainly IS a justification to attack first: but you have a long, long way to go, before you prove that Hezbollah "intends" to invade and attack Israel, in the same manner that Israel is doing to Lebanon.
Another presentation of the same "logic":
I see, it is allowable to preempt against intent, but not to retaliate after an attack. Any response to an attack must be proportional to the attack, so if I attack you with a multitude of blows and I am weak and inexperienced, you may not defend yourself since you are an Aikido Yundasha, and you must only evade or absorb all my attacks until after you will find out I "accidentally" scratched one of your eyes? If you hold me in a lock and I resist, you must release me before I am damaged since the damage I gave you so far is minor.

The concept of proportion was never there once a war has been declared. Guess what, it so happens Israel and Lebanon are already at war, since 1948. For the convenience of the readers, I will give some examples for proportion of other countries, just of my memory:
how about the US response to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor? Oops, mentioning WWII and assuming you support the US -- I guess you'll just claim it was not justified and the US should have negotiated.
How about the "righteous" French?
France, sinking a Green-Peace ship which intended to sail into French-Guinaa (wait, isn't French in Europe, how can it have land in the so far away, is this not colonialism? Naah, can't be. Only Israel is a colonialist country towards adjacent areas it is attacked from, European countries can not be colonialist). French bombing in Africa after some soldiers were shot. French president his country has nuclear weaponry to deal with terrorist threats.
Need I continue with England and Falkland. Spain threatening with war in reaction to Morocco trying to take sovereignty on some minor islands hundred of meters from Morocco shore which Spain holds as its own (You do know of Gibraltar being Brit and the cities opposite it in Africa being Spanish). Russia in Chechnya …

I think I will stop here, anyone with eyes in his head can see the concept of proportion has never been adhered to by any nation under attack. In fact, most European and other countries react to attacks on their conceived interests, as strongly as they react to attacks on their civilians, army or soil.



Going home. I hope I will be here tomorrow, and Nasrallah will not live up to his threat of throwing rockets at Tel-Aviv.


Amir
 
Old 08-06-2006, 02:29 PM   #181
Huker
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
Canada
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Amir,

If you really want to get into sources, we can. I just don't really see it going anywhere. We've both read news reports supporting either side as well as seen plenty of photos. Personally, I've seen fewer photos of piles of dead Israeli civilians as opposed to Lebanese, but that's just me.

We've also been through numbers and intentions etc..., so I'm going to skip on a bit.

Quote:
Instead, you judge just by the numbers of dead. Guess what, I am happy less Israelis die, I care less for Lebanese civilians then for my fellow soldiers of which I know some and some belong to my family.
That's fine. I'm sorry to hear you care less for people who have nothing to do with the conflict than for those who have signed up to put their lives on the line for their country. A ground invasion would have had many casualties on both sides, no doubt, but I'd rather see that than the massive destruction to civilians and their infrastructure, regardless of their country of origin.

Quote:
how about the US response to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor? Oops, mentioning WWII and assuming you support the US -- I guess you'll just claim it was not justified and the US should have negotiated."
That's true. That is among the worst atrocities in history. The creators of the bomb and those who dropped it are traitors to humanity. Could it not have been dropped in a more remote location? Like the sea of Japan, or somewhere nearby, but not on civilians? I'm sure the Japanese would have noticed a huge ball of light off in the distance.

Israel is not the only colonialist country. Again, words are being put into my mouth. French colonialism led to the First and Second Indochina Wars, as well as other conflicts. England's colonialism led to quite a few wars throughout history as well. I guess we can both agree that colonialism is bad.

Sorry for the short post, I'm busy at work until 5pm. Talk to you soon.
 
Old 08-06-2006, 04:21 PM   #182
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

This grasp-at-straws idea that Israel is somehow "disproportional" because it kicks the butt of the country/faction that attacks it is being ridiculed in any serious legal circle in which it is mentioned. Here's a pretty good column responding to a previous article by a couple of liberals who were misusing the "disproportional" idea as a furtherance of the attack on Israel:


The column by Sullivan and Atwood contains a fundamental mischaracterization of what jus in bello, the law of how armed conflict must be conducted, says about proportionality. Wars may be fought to defeat the military capabilities of an enemy aggressor and not only as an actuarial exercise. As Joshua Brook put it in an excellent piece in the New Republic Online, whether the amount of force employed by Israel is proportionate to the amount of force used by Hezbollah and whether the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is proportionate to the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah may or may not be legitimate policy questions, but have nothing to do with the concept of proportionality as that term is used in international law. Once armed conflict develops, a state is simply not limited to responding only in kind. An attacker risks that its armed forces will be dealt a blow disproportionate to its initial attack. As my Wall Street Journal column discusses, Israel is not violating international law in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran are continually violating international law in this conflict.

In addition, Israel's conduct compares favorably to how its most powerful accusers -- Russia, China and the EU have behaved when their own interests have been threatened.

China killed hundreds of peaceful Tiananmen Square protestors in 1989. It has for five decades occupied Tibet, slaughtering tens of thousands; and it vows to invade Taiwan if it declares independence. Neither the Tiananmen protesters nor Tibet nor Taiwan has ever threatened to "wipe China off the map."

Russia has fought since 1994 to suppress Chechnya's independence movement. Out of a Chechen population of one million, as many as 200,000 have been killed as Russia has leveled the capital city of Grozny. Chechen rebels pose no threat to "wipe Russia off the

All of the leading EU countries actively participated in NATO's 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. The military goal was to stop Yugoslavia from oppressing its Kosovar minority. NATO bombs and missiles hit Yugoslav bridges, power plants and a television station, killing hundreds of civilians. Yugoslavia posed no threat to the existence of any of the EU countries that bombed it.

Compared with how China, Russia, and the EU have dealt with non-existential threats -- and despite the law-flouting behavior of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria -- Israel's responses to the threats to its existence have been remarkably restrained rather than disproportionately violent.

Do Atwood and Sullivan believe that the U.S. was acting disproportionately when it took over all of Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda terrorists based in that country? When the U.S. killed thousands of civilians in and conquered Germany and Japan following Germany's aggression in Europe and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? In none of these cases was U.S. existence at stake the way tiny Israel's is in the face of the stated determination of Iran and Hezbollah to wipe Israel off the map. If Atwood and Sullivan are holding Israel to a double standard, my question is why? Their op-ed certainly does not make a case for such a double standard.

Professor Orde Félix Kittrie
The Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Arizona State University
orde.kittrie@asu.edu
web page: http://www.law.asu.edu/Kittrie
 
Old 08-06-2006, 05:25 PM   #183
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Tanner wrote:
A ground invasion would have had many casualties on both sides, no doubt, but I'd rather see that than the massive destruction to civilians and their infrastructure, regardless of their country of origin.
Just a thought - Tanner, what makes you think a massive ground operation would have resulted in less civilian casualties? How many civilians in southern Lebanon, even only south of Litani, would've ended up in the midst of it - say 150,000? What would happen in Tyre, population 117,000, if IDF were to enter it with all its might, searching for rockets, launchers and Hezbollah militants? I'm no military expert, but I'm not so sure the civilian casualties would be smaller.

Well, the draft of the UN resolution has been released, but it's not clear how implementable it is, even if it were to pass the vote. IDF is not going to withdraw from southen Lebanon before UNIFIL is reinforced, Hezbollah is not likely to stop attacks before IDF withdraws, and new UN troops are not likely to arrive until some sort of cease-fire is in place.

Daniel
 
Old 08-06-2006, 05:27 PM   #184
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
Hi Luc

I hope by the time your wedding should be, all will be calm and Beirut will return to flourish (as far as I understand, the damage is still rather focused). Wish all your family and friends are well and will stay out of harms way.
Given the stated aims of the IDF and Olmert: this wish grows increasingly unlikely (and a tad schizophrenic, considering your later claim that you don't really care about the Lebanese: but more on that, later).

Quote:
Well, perhaps you had better recheck your facts. The kidnapped were a group of reservists, on their last day on the border line, patrolling inside the border. They were not even fully equipped, let alone crossing the border in some planned incursion. Hezbollah fired rockets on the two vehicles they drove killing 3 soldiers and capturing 2 soldiers. It is true some of the soldiers killed that day did enter Lebanon, in a tank, in pursuit of the kidnap.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1150885976658 [this report was written before all the facts were clear, the identity of one of the captured is assumed to be Druz while he was a Jew, not that this truly matters].
I guess you will doubt such sources, so how about an Islamic board I found in English: http://www.aimislam.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=429
You can also read the top lines of this blog (again, not an Israeli source):
http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutb...lah_why_d.html
It's so easy to pick and choose your timelines, isn't it? You're in good company, Amir: if you read my earlier post about how the Israeli PR manages the news that both you and I see on the mainstream.

Poor, poor Israel. It was simply minding its own business, when these eevel Hezbollah terrorists swooped down, and kidnapped two reservists.

But the devil is in the details, isn't it? If you look back to the beginning of this mess: Hezbollah didn't just wake up and decide it was a good day to kidnap some IDF reservists, did they?

No: what they stated was that they were

Quote:
"Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails,"
Arab prisoners? Perhaps Hezbollah didn't start this game of kidnapping...hmm.

Quote:
There are still three Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails, among them the longest held Lebanese prisoner Samir Kantar, who was captured in 1979 after killing an Israeli scientist and his daughter during an attack on a northern Israeli coastal area.
Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers

So, rather than being the blameless party...there certainly is cause to suspect that Israel is just as guilty of playing the kidnapping for points sweepstakes; as is Hezbollah.

But really, it's silly to try and scream, "They started it!!" as if that's a justification to commit human rights violations. Let's move on.


Quote:
many of those people you count were tried and placed in prison for planning to bomb and/or kidnap civilians.
Yes, this is the stated excuse. Of course, many are ALSO placed in indefinite "Administrative Detention," with no trial, no charges, no word to their families. Just poof! Disappeared, into a black bureaucratic hole.

Quote:
Where did you see a Katyusha launcher? Or perhaps Israel has not been hit by over 2000 missiles so far and it is all a propaganda of us Zionists?
I have no doubt that you've seen Katyusha launchers by the score, on TV. What I imagine you've not seen much of are the levelled Lebanese city-blocks or the HRW Report on the needless and excessive targeting of Lebanese civilians.

Quote:
Since the start of the conflict, Israeli forces have consistently launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military gain but excessive civilian cost. In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians.
Please, Amir: feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:
So far, I have seen pictures of Katyusha launchers inside Mosques and weapons inside hospitals (both are violations of the Geneva convention and make those places no longer protected). I have seen pictures of multiple launchers in residential neighborhoods.

Is HA hiding among civilians? How about believing a UN official, who is certainly not supportive of Israel (Israelis stopped expecting the UN support a long time ago):
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp

or, here, a journalist who actually visited the HA offices:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...021014fa_fact4
Fog of War is No Cover for Causing Civilian Deaths

Quote:
"Hezbollah should bear responsibility for civilian deaths because it mixes its fighters and arms with the civilian population."

Not so quick. International humanitarian law does prohibit the deliberate use of civilians to shield fighters and military assets, and it requires all parties to do everything feasible to station their forces away from civilians. Clearly Hezbollah sometimes is violating these prohibitions, but despite the Israeli military's claims, that doesn't begin to account for the high Lebanese death toll. In many cases, Lebanese civilians who have survived air strikes on their homes or vehicles have told Human Rights Watch that Hezbollah was nowhere nearby when the attack took place.
In any event, even the use of civilian structures alone isn't enough to justify an attack. They become legitimate military targets only if Hezbollah troops or arms are present at the time, and the military value of their destruction outweighs the civilian cost. Human Rights Watch's research shows that repeatedly that wasn't the case.

Quote:
Sorry, but given this logic. I see no reason to even try and discuss anything with you.
And so you reveal the inflexibility of your position. Too bad.

Quote:
Hezbollah and Iran clearly present their intentions to eradicate Israel off the map. So, you choose they can not mean the things they state again and again. Why do you not believe Nasrallah when he states:
example from 2000 http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...t/hzblhnsr.htm
or:
Hassan Ezzeddin, chief spokesman for Hezbollah 2002 (Israel was out of Lebanon)
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...021014fa_fact4
Oh, I have little doubt that Hezbollah would dearly love to do terrible things to Israeli's, en masse. But this is hardly a justification for collective punishment.

Quote:
The obligations to respect international humanitarian law, including to refrain from deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians and to take all feasible precautions against civilian casualties, persist regardless of the conduct of one's opponent. Grave breaches remain war crimes. Otherwise, it would take just one side's charge of abuse, one side's claim to have been the victim of aggression, to return to the era of total war in which all civilians are fair game.
Quote:
Instead, you judge just by the numbers of dead.
You know: I was thinking about your last post, where you asked how I'd feel if some yahoo's rocketed my country with Katyusha's. But it's difficult to put it in geopolitical context, considering the relative positions of the US and Israel.

But here goes: suppose an extremist group of Mexican guerilla's decided that Mexican territory was unfairly wrested from it by the US (all true). Suppose they got a little sick of the eternal chants of "Remember the Alamo!!" across the Texan border and decided that a little payback was long overdue.

So, these fellows...with a little startup from Cuba and Venezuala (stretching the point, I know) kidnapped a few National Guardsmen and began shelling Las Cruces and other border-towns with some poorly guided rockets.

Now, under these circumstances, is it OK for the US to

1. Ignore international law and indiscriminately fire upon Mexican cities, even when the extremists were nowhere near?
2. Target civilian infrastructure, promising total annihiliation if Houston gets hit?
3. Refuse to allow full access to international aid, even going so far as to hit Red Cross ambulances?
4. Invade Mexico?
5. Target nearby UN observation posts, shelling repeatedly even after calls to stand down were made?

Not, according to international law. But, this seems to be less of a concern for you, and for your and my political leaders.

Quote:
Guess what, I am happy less Israelis die, I care less for Lebanese civilians then for my fellow soldiers of which I know some and some belong to my family.
Now, THAT is a real tragedy. I cannot say how I'd feel, given the above hypothetical scenario. But, I would hope that I could see past the national boundaries and feel sorrow for the deaths of anyone: no matter what their nationality.

Quote:
Still, I would prefer the Israeli army to cause less civilian death in Lebanon, and pictures of dead children are an horror in my eyes, be they Lebanese Shiite, Israeli Jews or Israeli Arab (many of which were killed).
I would prefer the Israeli Army, AND Hezbollah, to cause NO civilian deaths. YOU might see some positive benefit for Israel coming out of this: but I don't. In the end, IMO: Israel will suffer, too.

Quote:
There is a reason for the ratios of death:
* Israeli Jewish and Jewish-Arab combined areas are better sheltered.

* Many of Israeli Arabs died because they did not expect to be bombed and therefore cared less for installing shelters (and many of them built without required permits and such and so avoided the extra cost of building a shelter for every family in new/renovated apartments and houses).
Not according to what I heard:

"Absence of Air-Raid Shelters in Arab Neighborhoods in Haifa
Al Jazeera, Qatar"


Quote:
* Lebanese are rarely sheltered in an organized way. Plus, the Israeli munitions are more modern and thus have more penetration.
And, mayhap they were caught unawares, being bombed as they slept.

Darn those Lebanese civilians! Getting in the way of good US/Israeli craftsmanship! It must be THEIR fault, for the high civilian casualty-rate: it COULDN'T be the IDF's fault! After all: your bombs are laser-guided "smart" bombs, right?

Quote:
However, related to the number of munitions fired at Lebanon, the Lebanese death toll is also quite small. The reason for this is Israel is not seeking how to kill as many Lebanese as possible.
Oh, thank gods for that! I suppose the nation of Lebanon should get on its knees and be thankful, that the collective punishment is dealt out so mercifully, right?

Quote:
Another presentation of the same "logic":
I see, it is allowable to preempt against intent, but not to retaliate after an attack. Any response to an attack must be proportional to the attack, so if I attack you with a multitude of blows and I am weak and inexperienced, you may not defend yourself since you are an Aikido Yundasha, and you must only evade or absorb all my attacks until after you will find out I "accidentally" scratched one of your eyes? If you hold me in a lock and I resist, you must release me before I am damaged since the damage I gave you so far is minor.
You know that you're on slippery-slope-land, when you start comparing Aikido technique, to indiscriminate bombings and military operations.

Sorry, but pre-emptive attack simply does not exist as a justification for attacking another nation.

If you insist on putting it in misleading metaphors..OK, here's one for you. I'm walking down the street, and I see my old enemy coming towards me, with a bad look in his eye. He started things off nasty (in my view) several years ago by playing his music too loud, and since then its only gotten worse. He's kidnapped my dog, made nasty comments to my girlfriend, and now he's putting his hand in his coat pocket, reaching for what is obviously a knife.

So, it's OK to pull out my .38 and blow him away, right? Too bad he was only reaching for a cigarette...

Quote:
The concept of proportion was never there once a war has been declared. Guess what, it so happens Israel and Lebanon are already at war, since 1948.
Oh, so that makes it all OK, right? Well, don't mind ME, Amir: you and Israel can just blow away anyone who stands up, right? For that matter, pardon me while I urge the US President to drop a nuc on N. Korea! After all, we've been at war since the '50's (in spite of N Korea's repeated attempts at normalization).

You've been at constant war since '48, and so why bother with a silly detail like international law, or collective punishment?

Quote:
For the convenience of the readers, I will give some examples for proportion of other countries, just of my memory:
how about the US response to Japan attack on Pearl Harbor?
Actually, if you knew your history: Japan was fully justified (according to the dictates of pre-emptive attack) in attacking Pearl Harbor, as the US media and US politicians at the time were making a big stink about the merits of invading Japan, at the time.

Japan had much more cause to fear a US attack, than the converse.

You see where slippery-slope arguments get you?

Quote:
Oops, mentioning WWII and assuming you support the US -- I guess you'll just claim it was not justified and the US should have negotiated.
I guess you'll give incorrect and misleading glimpses into a history that you obviously require more study.

There's a REALLY good reason to consider Godwin's Law, and to avoid references to WW2. It's an emotionally charged and unique historical event, and mischaracterizations to contemporary events are easy (see W's Attempts to Cast Himself as Churchill, during the Invasion of Iraq).

Quote:
How about the "righteous" French?
France, sinking a Green-Peace ship which intended to sail into French-Guinaa (wait, isn't French in Europe, how can it have land in the so far away, is this not colonialism?
And you think that this was justified, why??

Quote:
Only Israel is a colonialist country towards adjacent areas it is attacked from, European countries can not be colonialist).
And I implied that this was true, when??

Quote:
French bombing in Africa after some soldiers were shot. French president his country has nuclear weaponry to deal with terrorist threats.
And this is a positive development,,,why??

Quote:
Need I continue with England and Falkland.
Oh, please do. So far, you've hit a perfect score of zero on the hit parade.

Quote:
Spain threatening with war in reaction to Morocco trying to take sovereignty on some minor islands hundred of meters from Morocco shore which Spain holds as its own (You do know of Gibraltar being Brit and the cities opposite it in Africa being Spanish). Russia in Chechnya …
Multiple abuses by others, do not make it right. Does Guantanamo, Baghram and Abu Ghraib suddenly give a green light for all nations to open up their own, private gulags??

Quote:
I think I will stop here,
Oh, please, why stop here?? You were just taking a merry ride down that slippery-slope-slide!! You looked like you were having such fun!

Wheeeeeeeeeee!!!

Next, I imagine you'll be on about why Sabra and Chatilla were such a grand idea by way of the Bataan Death March!

Quote:
anyone with eyes in his head can see the concept of proportion has never been adhered to by any nation under attack.
Wrong.

Quote:
The Germans destroyed the village of Lidice Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) and killed 340 inhabitants as collective punishment or reprisal for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by commandos not from the village during World War 2. The British used collective punishment against villages which concealed Communist rebels in Malaya in 1951.

In 1956, Britain officially used collective punishment in Cyprus in the form of evicting families from their homes and closing shops in an area where British soldiers and police had been murdered, to try and get information as to the identity of the attackers.

In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
Quote:
Going home. I hope I will be here tomorrow, and Nasrallah will not live up to his threat of throwing rockets at Tel-Aviv.

Amir
Yes, Amir: I hope the same, for you. As I do, for the Israeli's hiding in their shelters, and for the Lebanese running from their oppressors, and for those who are dying at this moment, cut off from all international aid, far away from their homes.

Good night.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-06-2006 at 05:36 PM.
 
Old 08-06-2006, 05:43 PM   #185
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
It's so easy to pick and choose your timelines, isn't it? You're in good company, Amir: if you read my earlier post about how the Israeli PR manages the news that both you and I see on the mainstream.
Actually, every survey and study in the last 5 years has shown that the mainstream media is undeniably liberal. It's possible that distorting the news and lying about the facts is simply considered acceptable if it's in the cause of being liberal.... here's a good example of how the press doesn't report something in Israels favor, in an article from the "Quarterdeck":
*******************
A Hezbollah rocket blast also injured three Chinese peacekeepers on Sunday, the Chinese state media reported, citing a Chinese officer. The report not specify where the attack occurred or whether the peacekeepers had been hospitalized.
The attack came hours after China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a telephone conversation that the world body should take tangible measures to ensure the security of U.N. peacekeepers, according to the official Xinhua News Agency.



When Israel hit a UNIFIL/UNTSO post a couple of weeks ago, Kofi Annan went on worldwide television to express his anger at the "deliberate targeting" of UN personnel by the IDF. He demanded access to the area for an independent UN investigation. Only when Canada, whose soldier was among the four dead, insisted that Israel had not deliberately targeted the UN position but a Hezbollah launching site that the UN had allowed them to build nearby did Annan finally shut up.

Now Hezbollah has attacked and injured a UNIFIL contingent -- and where is Kofi Annan's outrage? Where is the worldwide media coverage? Where is the global diplomatic condemnation?

Oh, wait a minute -- Hezbollah aren't Jooooooooooos. I forgot.

******************

Here's an example of Neil Mick deliberately lying. Despite it having been pointed out several times previously in the thread that Hezbollah not only kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, but also killed 6 other soldiers, and then began bombarding Israel, here is how Neil continues to lie about what happened:

Quote:
Poor, poor Israel. It was simply minding its own business, when these eevel Hezbollah terrorists swooped down, and kidnapped two reservists.
Would anyone want to listen to or take "Aikido" lessons from this sort of person. Aikido is supposed to be about balance, not lies.

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-06-2006, 05:44 PM   #186
Luc X Saroufim
 
Luc X Saroufim's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Offline
Re: World War 3?

to those of you that still question proportionality, maybe this analogy will help:

Hezbollah move like lice. they bomb Israel, then at 6 o'clock, they're home watching tv. they're radical militants, not military. they are highly mobile, and bounce around very quick.

here is why Israel is failing in the air: every try and hit lice with a sledgehammer? not gonna happen, which is why Israel switched to ground fighting to begin with.

and obviously, Israel does not know the land, especially Northern Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah.

this is why they're making mistakes.

i don't defend Israel fully. i support their cause against Hezbollah, because i think Hezbollah is nothing but a virus to Lebanon. Iran and Syria are too scared to take on Israel and the US, so they finance Hezbollah to do it. Lebanon gets destroyed, but Iran and Syria remain intact. cowards.

at the same time, enough is enough. both sides have proved their point, and a stalemate is inevitable. the question is, how many more Israeli and Lebanese civilians have to die?

this started off as a potential war, and is turning into nothing more into a game of chicken between the US and Iran. either Iran stops backing Hezbollah, or US tells Israel to stop.
 
Old 08-06-2006, 06:20 PM   #187
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
It's so easy to pick and choose your timelines, isn't it?
Neil, aren't you doing the same thing by dragging a terrorist captured by Israel in 1979 into this argument? You know this timeline can be extended indefinitely, and it's not going to help resolve the immediate situation at hand. You gotta start the timeline somewhere. The current hostilites between Hezbollah and Israel were initiated when Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil, while launching rockets at civilian areas in northern Israel. Is this in dispute?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
So, these fellows...with a little startup from Cuba and Venezuala (stretching the point, I know) kidnapped a few National Guardsmen and began shelling Las Cruces and other border-towns with some poorly guided rockets.
So what is ok for the US to do in this case? How is the US to stop the shelling of the border towns? Is it ok to shell back, or is it considered an invasion, which is not ok? If the shelling back doesn't help, since the experience shows that smaller, mobile rocket launchers are hard to hit, what's next? And let's add one more thing to the equation: the Mexican government is either unwilling or unable to rein in those guys.

Quote:
Neil wrote:
But the devil is in the details, isn't it? If you look back to the beginning of this mess: Hezbollah didn't just wake up and decide it was a good day to kidnap some IDF reservists, did they?
This pattern that seems to be present in your argument - periodically acknowledging that what Hezbollah did was bad, and then proceeding to variations of "they did it because Israel is bad too" - can't this be used the other way around too, for a never-ending tit-for-tat argument? "Israelis bombed civilians, that's bad, but they only did it because rockets were fired from the same area 10 minutes ago".

Last edited by DanielR : 08-06-2006 at 06:30 PM.

Daniel
 
Old 08-06-2006, 07:55 PM   #188
Luc X Saroufim
 
Luc X Saroufim's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
"they did it because Israel is bad too" - can't this be used the other way around too, for a never-ending tit-for-tat argument?
+ 5,280.

who *really* discovered North America?

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

who fired the first bullet between Israel and Hezbollah?

only a lifetime dedication to these issues can remotely begin to give these answers. there's no point in going there.
 
Old 08-06-2006, 08:02 PM   #189
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Luc Saroufim wrote:
who fired the first bullet between Israel and Hezbollah?

only a lifetime dedication to these issues can remotely begin to give these answers. there's no point in going there.
I don't think there's any moral equivalency between Israel and the Arabs who have attacked them since Mohammad put it in their "holy book" that there was to be constant jihad against Christians and Jews... and killed all of them he could get his hands on. It's sort of like saying "who fired the first bullet between the Cops and Robbers" as far as I'm concerned.

The Arabs are still fighting a 7th Century war and the rest of the world had moved on to making microchips while the Arab countries are at most making potato chips. Let's stop with the equivalency stuff and just call a spade a spade. If there wasn't oil in Arab countries, none of these equivalency discussions would be going on today.

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-06-2006, 11:50 PM   #190
Luc X Saroufim
 
Luc X Saroufim's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Let's stop with the equivalency stuff and just call a spade a spade.
yeah, it's that simple


Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
It's sort of like saying "who fired the first bullet between the Cops and Robbers" as far as I'm concerned
not a surprise, given your linear view of a complex situation. if you're trying to convince me that my homeland is nothing more than a glorified oil refinery, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Last edited by Luc X Saroufim : 08-06-2006 at 11:58 PM.
 
Old 08-07-2006, 02:35 AM   #191
Luc X Saroufim
 
Luc X Saroufim's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
I don't think there's any moral equivalency between Israel and the Arabs who have attacked them since Mohammad put it in their "holy book" that there was to be constant jihad against Christians and Jews...
furthermore, by putting "holy book" in quotes you're basically insulting every Muslim in the world.

i wonder if you've ever heard of this book called the Bible. people have been slain and slaughtered over religion *WAY* before Mohammed ever stepped foot in this world.
 
Old 08-07-2006, 03:06 AM   #192
Luc X Saroufim
 
Luc X Saroufim's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
I wish all Lebanese were like you, and then peace would have been here a long long time ago. And we could have all met and trained together.
it takes two to tango.

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
I care less for Lebanese civilians then for my fellow soldiers of which I know some and some belong to my family.
and i spend my nights praying that every Israeli is not like you.
 
Old 08-07-2006, 03:42 AM   #193
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
I don't think there's any moral equivalency between Israel and the Arabs who have attacked them since Mohammad put it in their "holy book" that there was to be constant jihad against Christians and Jews... and killed all of them he could get his hands on. It's sort of like saying "who fired the first bullet between the Cops and Robbers" as far as I'm concerned.

The Arabs are still fighting a 7th Century war and the rest of the world had moved on to making microchips while the Arab countries are at most making potato chips. Let's stop with the equivalency stuff and just call a spade a spade. If there wasn't oil in Arab countries, none of these equivalency discussions would be going on today.

Mike Sigman
And you have the cheek to call Neil one sided Mike, you've just let your inadequecies spill out for all to see.

Like your president you see things as simplistic as "the good guys and the bad guys", pathetic.

You're constant references to "Jews / Joooos / Jooooz" shows some pathalogical problem you have, no one else here is mentioning anything other than the Israeli position in relation to Hezbullah and Lebanon.

Don't bother defending yourself.

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
 
Old 08-07-2006, 06:48 AM   #194
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
And you have the cheek to call Neil one sided Mike, you've just let your inadequecies spill out for all to see.

Like your president you see things as simplistic as "the good guys and the bad guys", pathetic.

You're constant references to "Jews / Joooos / Jooooz" shows some pathalogical problem you have, no one else here is mentioning anything other than the Israeli position in relation to Hezbullah and Lebanon.

Don't bother defending yourself.

Mark
Well I'm not defending myself, Mark. However, I'd make a note that you're confusing me jerking someone's chain with me really being concerned with an issue. It's you that seems to have some heavy emotional investment in this stuff... not me. And when you get to tossing in the obligatory shot at our prosaic president, I can only shake my head.

"No one here is mentioning anything other than"....????? Probably you didn't notice, but Neil has insulted a whole nation constantly, their PM, our president, etc., etc..... you don't see anything fun about pulling the chain of someone who supposedly teaches Aikido who is so politically biased toward one side? Actually, I think you don't.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-07-2006, 07:02 AM   #195
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Luc Saroufim wrote:
furthermore, by putting "holy book" in quotes you're basically insulting every Muslim in the world.

i wonder if you've ever heard of this book called the Bible. people have been slain and slaughtered over religion *WAY* before Mohammed ever stepped foot in this world.
I've heard of the Bible. It doesn't call for constant war on anyone who is not a follower of Yahweh or Christ. It was not the "revelations" of only one man. There is an order and logic to the Bible, not vague ramblings with no beginning or end.

There a some things that happened long time ago in the Bible and in Christianity (BTW, I'm not very religious and I'm not Jewish... but I did have to take a number of mandatory religion courses in college).... however Islam today has its followers killing and conquering others in Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Middle East, Pakistan/India, etc., etc. Pretty much every large terror group in the world is now Islamic. The equivalency that "other people used to do it, too" simply doesn't work.

Now that Islam has got its energy back from the horrendous barbarities that led to its breakup in World War I, it's back on the road. This is NOT a "religion of peace". Everyone is beginning to understand that, now. Instead of looking just at "terrorism", the actual religion itself is coming under scrutiny. Instead of trying to point the finger at what is wrong with Israel, the US, etc., Islam needs to look at itself. If the hatred of Jews wasn't written into the Koran, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-07-2006, 07:56 AM   #196
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
It's you that seems to have some heavy emotional investment in this stuff... not me. And when you get to tossing in the obligatory shot at our prosaic president, I can only shake my head.
I'm wondering which part of my post, that was primarily to point out the hypocrisy inherent in your posts, that belies my heavy emotional investment?

The fact that I take a pop at someone for being overly simplistic is just as I see it. I doubt if I am alone in this view.

Quote:
"No one here is mentioning anything other than"....????? Probably you didn't notice, but Neil has insulted a whole nation constantly, their PM, our president, etc., etc..... you don't see anything fun about pulling the chain of someone who supposedly teaches Aikido who is so politically biased toward one side? Actually, I think you don't.
Two points, 1, Neil may or may not have been insulting, but if you call him to task, and then go on to insult others yourself, ( your simplistic views of Islam will insult many muslims, your simplistic view of arab nations also ) well.....don't be surprised when the bird of hypocrisy flies overhead and offloads onto your pate.

2, So someone can only (supposedly?) teach aikido if they are politically neutral? give me a break.

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
 
Old 08-07-2006, 07:58 AM   #197
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 688
Israel
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Well, I did wake up this morning at 06:00 hearing a large Bum, but, it was not a missile.

I decided I am not going to argue with Neil his "slippery slope" and strange setting of "time-lines", nor will I argue with facts I find to be absurd and conspiracy assuming at best. I also can not find any common ground with a person who truly cares as much for all, a person who does not place his family, friends, relatives and country folk -- first. A person who believes all wars are wrong on all sides, and those side carry equal blame, regardless of their reasons, the impossibility of a peaceful solution sometimes, or one side actually being attacked.
I find it strange such a person can live with his conscious when he knows and believes he lives on occupied ground (by his own admission), yet he does nothing about this. But who am I to judge?
There is no point for a common discussion here, his values are so different to mine, we could not communicate. Sorry, I am not going to descend to an argument of deaf, and as far as me and him are concerned, this is the situation.

As I previously wrote, I find much more common ground with Luc Saroufim, who is Lebanese, but recognizes the difficulty on both sides of the border. I am sure he would tell he cares more for his Lebanese country men then he cares for Israelis. I would not expect anything else.

I will however bring some facts and some of the Israeli view-point on some of the issues related to this war:

Facts: Samir Kuntar, one of 3 Lebanese currently held in Israel was never kidnapped from Lebanese soil! Rather, he is a Lebanese who was apprehended, in Naharia, several kilometers south of the border, on April 22 1979, after inserting from the sea to attack this city and murdering with his own hands an Israeli civilian and his daughter, another policeman was killed in this terrorist raid, he commanded. He was sentenced to serve 542 years (life imprisonment). He never disavowed his actions and kept


Quote:
one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
The words of Smadar Haran Kaiser, whose husband and daughter Kuntar murdered, and whose second daughter died while hiding from the raid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true




Israeli perspective - Looking at this war as a separate issue:
Israel occupied Lebanon at 1982. While I do believe Israel had good reason to enter Lebanon at the time -- the PLO used it as a staging ground for firing Katyusha missiles at Israel North on a weekly basis. I also believe the reason of some in the Israeli government were wrong -- trying to control the Lebanese government. And I am certain Israel should have retreated from Lebanon shortly after the incursion, rather then occupying some section of south Lebanon and making very slow retreat until the year 2000.
At the spring of 2000, Israel withdrew fully from Lebanon, even the UN acknowledged it (Israelis do not consider the UN to be a friendly organization, since it has some 47 countries which vote against Israel on an Automatic basis and refuse to recognize Israeli existence). There is one rather small area -- Shabaa (2x14 km is the larger estimate of it, and it is unclear) that Lebanon claimed belongs to it, while the UN claims it is not Lebanese but rather Syrian and Israel should therefore give it to Syria once a peace treaty is achieved.

Since 2000, Israel has been attacked 60 times until the current conflict. Those Attacks passed across the internationally recognized border.
In one of those attacks, done in October 2000 (shortly after the withdraw), 3 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and later died from wounds, there is some evidence that for this attack the Hezbollah masqueraded itself as UNIFIL officials. Further, UNIFIL "peace keeping" soldiers in Lebanon saw and took video of Hezbollah preparing the ambush, they chose not to report this and prevent the attack, and it took 2-3 years for the UN to acknowledge it has those tapes and let Israeli intelligence watch them. The end of that kidnap situation was only achieved a couple of years ago, in a prisoner swap after which Sammir Kuntar (I think there was another one but not sure) were the only Lebanese left in Israeli prison. Israel even promised to release them if Hezbollah would give Israel definite knowledge of the captured Pilot Ron Arad, who is missing since the 80s (he was not kidnapped but captured, there is a distinction).

During those 6 years Israel has violated the Lebanese airspace with aerial reconnaissance flights into Lebanese air-space, but Israel only retaliated to Hezbollah attacks in a measure for measure way, "proportionally", responding to artillery on army outposts in returning fire only, and not initiating anything. All initiative was in Hezbollah hands and they have tried several additional capturing of soldiers.

The Lebanese government did not take control of the south after Israel withdrew from its borders. For the first few years, one can not blame Lebanon as it was in fact occupied by Syria (who still holds 300 Lebanese without trial), but since last Year Lebanon is free. And still the Hezbollah hold the Lebanese side of the border and build its own outposts along it, and the Lebanese army is nowhere insight. The Hezbollah has two ministers in the Lebanese government and about 14 parliament members selected in democratic elections. Hence, trying to make a distinction between Hezbollah attacking Israel and Lebanon doing it as a nation is not so simple from the international Law point of view -- a country has responsibilities towards its neighbors.

During the last decade, Israel is looking for diplomatic solutions for the conflicts with Arabs. The Israeli Lebanese dispute over the Shabaa farms was handled by the UN, had UN decided otherwise, Israel would have retreated. Thus, Israel wsa in a state of war with Lebanon, but only because the Lebanese were not willing to officially recognize Israel existence, accept the UN decision, and make peace. Instead, they kept the state of war and let Hezbollah attack Israel with impunity.
Seeing the retreat was not helpful to achieving peace or even calm, since Israel has continued to be attacked from the area it retreated from, forced a change of paradigm.

Israel has tried the diplomatic approach for the last 6 years. Israel protested to the UN more then once (you will not find any UN decisions on this, did I not mention the automatic majority?). Hezbollah has not changed its behavior throughout this time, it kept harassing Israel and preparing for a larger conflict, the Lebanese did nothing to stop this. For a variety of reasons, the Israeli government found this attack to be the trigger, I'll admit, Israel had a choice here, it could have negotiated and keep waiting for the next attack, which would have surely come (see HA spokesmen describing their agenda in my previous message).

A country has the right to exist peacefully, without attacks from across international borders. Even if neighboring countries does not agree with some actions or policies, it does not give them the right to attack from across the border. Once an attack across a border is applied, it is an act of war, and the attacked country has the right to consider it as a Casus-Beli and attack. As I demonstrated previously War is never proportional when counting the body bags. Thus, Lebanon has not a right to attack Israel due to the Palestinian situation. An organization such as


These are some of the reasons Israel treats this kidnapping differently then previous occasions. I'll not deny this, there were other reasons for the government deciding to act now, some international\military considerations (before Iran has an A-bomb, US placement and opinions, Syria milary situation …) some internal politics, and some personal, I will elaborate on the last since I suspect it is the very relevant:
- Ehud Barak initiated the retreat, he had to make it appear like a success.
- Sharon was the initiator of the previous incursion into Lebanon, and the driving force with all the wrong reasons. Further, he was implicated in letting the Lebanese Christians kill Palestinians at the Sabre and Shatila massacre, Israeli committee found he could have stopped the massacre yet did not, his punishment was not to be minister of defense ever again (strangely enough, he was chosen to be PM and was relatively successful).


I hope this gives some perspective as for the reasons of the Israeli attack.


I do hope I can still find some common ground wit Tanner, and wish to keep trying.

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
If you really want to get into sources, we can. I just don't really see it going anywhere. We've both read news reports supporting either side as well as seen plenty of photos.
Well, in some case the conspiracy theories do amaze me, but, whatever,

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
Personally, I've seen fewer photos of piles of dead Israeli civilians as opposed to Lebanese, but that's just me.
There are more Lebanese dead then Israeli, nobody is disputing this. As I said, I would prefer no civilian casualties at all, but if there must be, I prefer my side to have less, I will not apologize for this. And I doubt you would have felt otherwise if we were talking of Canadians.
I would not accept the body bag counting as a sole criteria for who is right. Again, think of Aikido or empty handed conflict -- if you beat an assailant, does it make you guilty?
In a war, when armies clash, civilian people die. Unfortunately, more of the socially weak die, the wealthier Israelis fled to the center, away from the rockets (on their own account) the government (trying to be capitalistic and for other reasons I do not support) is not subsidizing this, hence, the socially weak stay and get hit.
Civilians death is particularly true in this type of war, with an enemy that immerses itself in sympathetic civilians, an enemy who only wears uniforms if it will give an advantage and knows even the death of its own civilians will act in its favor (it does -- look at your own opinions) and uses it. I believe this thread has multiple examples of war and its consequences for civilians, can you point to a single war in which civilians were not harmed? The civilian numbers are only lower when the war is in unpopulated areas, but once the war zone is populated, all wars had such costs. This is a sad fact, Israel being one side in this conflict has nothing to do with it. I wish we could have found a better solution that would have been followed by all.


Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
I'm sorry to hear you care less for people who have nothing to do with the conflict than for those who have signed up to put their lives on the line for their country.
I live in Israel, military service is mandatory. Perhaps this is one reason we care for our soldiers at least as much as we care for our civilians. As we speak, I have a brother serving in the army (he is not a combatant to my great relief). I served several years and so did my other brother. My work room-mate was already called once to army reserve in this conflict, and I might be called too.
Hence, Israelis do not view our army as "they", unlike some countries who send only "volunteers" (who for some reason are mostly from some socio-economical background).
I would have been ashamed of myself had I considered the lives of my fellow country-men as less important then those of others. From my point of view it is very clear: Israelis first, others later.
I do admire Israeli soldiers who are willing to endanger their lives in order of saving civilian lives, my education actually brings me to expect this of our soldiers, but I would never dare to demand such behavior (risking oneself for another) and I do not think anyone else has that right.

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
A ground invasion would have had many casualties on both sides, no doubt, but I'd rather see that than the massive destruction to civilians and their infrastructure, regardless of their country of origin.
Actually, I suspect the ground invasion will cause much more destruction in any area it reaches. HA is fighting back fiercely, and this makes this war even more devastating.

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
Israel is not the only colonialist country.
I disagree, [b]Israel is not a colonialist country[b]. Some of the countries calling against Israel are. Israel did occupy some territories and keeps hold to them, but the reasoning behind this occupation is not similar at all to the colonialist agenda. If you do not understand even this basic fact, and recognize the differences between Israel reasons and actions and the colonialist agenda, your entire judgment of the situation is far more then flawed:
Colonialist countries grab territories they were not attacked from. Those territories were not adjacent to those countries. The main reason for holding those territories is economical, not fear for existence.
You could argue the Israeli fear for survival is unjustified, but you should acknowledge it and accept it as a part of the conceptual reality. Just like I accept the Palestinians [b]feel[/B[ they were robed of their land though I disagree with this feeling.

Have a nice day and may all wars find a long term peaceful end soon.

Amir
 
Old 08-07-2006, 08:10 AM   #198
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
I'm wondering which part of my post, that was primarily to point out the hypocrisy inherent in your posts, that belies my heavy emotional investment?
Please, Mark... look at your various posts and worries about how bad the US is. I'm afraid to get into a discussion about politics with you because you might burst into tears, you're so emotional.

Quote:
The fact that I take a pop at someone for being overly simplistic is just as I see it. I doubt if I am alone in this view. Two points, 1, Neil may or may not have been insulting, but if you call him to task, and then go on to insult others yourself, ( your simplistic views of Islam will insult many muslims, your simplistic view of arab nations also ) well.....don't be surprised when the bird of hypocrisy flies overhead and offloads onto your pate.
Please. I'm not being overly-simplistic about Muslims, Mark. They are the people running the top 10 terrorist groups around the world. That's a fact. The call for Jihad and the diatribes against Jews, Christians (and you're aware of the Hindu thing, right?) are facts of life.... there is nothing in Judaism or Christianity that even remotely can be honestly compared in this moral equivalency charade. People haven't been honest enough calling this out... the "let's hide it an not offend the Muslims" approach has only resulted in more killing around the world. YOU play "let's not offend the Muslims" if you want.... just don't act like that's the correct course everyone should take and therefore we'll make them do it, as you chaps in England are so happy to do in order to be politically correct.

Let's quit worrying what we can do for the Muslims to make them happy.... let's step back and see what they can do to straighten out their own messes. Frankly, although I was fairly even-handed about Islam some years ago, and I'm sure there are a percentage of Muslims that are "good people", I'm getting a little tired of the constant warfare and bickering and slavery and genocide that their religion seems to bring about. And I have no idea what to do about it other than say.... "you guys have a problem; fix it; then you can complain".

And Mark, I admit that I make these posts with about the same emotional engagement as I do in throwing a dart at the board... but you don't. Please don't pretend that you're not fairly emotional about these issues. It would disappoint me.

Cheers.

Mike
 
Old 08-07-2006, 08:23 AM   #199
statisticool
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 534
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Would anyone want to listen to or take "Aikido" lessons from this sort of person.
Perhaps they have actually studied with teachers for a time and are not just internet loudmouths.

A secret of internal strength?:
"Let your weight from the crotch area BE in his hands."
 
Old 08-07-2006, 08:45 AM   #200
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Amir,

thanks for your insider perspective on this crisis that we are all focussed on right now.

My hope is that both sides will cease hostilities before things become 'out of control'. The longer the destruction goes on, the longer it will take to gain any lasting settlement, if that is even possible.

I believe the document needed to be accepted by all parties for a ceasfire is being rewritten by the US & France so that all sides can make that first step.

I can't even begin to understand the complexity of the middle east, and the west usually learns to it's peril that when they try to impose their own version of how it should be done in this arena, they usually get bitten on the backside.

What are the solutions? Bombing the crap out of each other is not a viable long term option, is it?

Europe after WW2 was a battered and broken place, after so much hurt, there was only one sensible way forward, to link together in a co-dependant collection of free states. Something that has proven to be very successfull in terms of 'peace' for its citizens. The countries that supported facism then, are productive partners in the union now.

Is there any optimism that this type of solution would be possible for the middle east?

Are centuries old religious divisions insurmountable? Is the middle east doomed to endless years of war?

If I was religious I'd pray for all in this region, but as I'm not, all I can say is, I hope for your own sakes, you can work this out with the minimum of further bloodshed.

Peace

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omoto-kyo Theology senshincenter Spiritual 77 12-04-2005 09:50 PM
The Real World: How to Reconcile? Anonymous Anonymous 24 05-18-2005 02:01 AM
"Real world Situations" ravered General 27 12-09-2004 07:38 AM
Aikido in the World Games jon_jankus General 0 08-24-2004 09:55 AM
Aikido in the International World Games L. Camejo General 4 08-12-2004 09:13 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate