Question regarding this latest mid-east conflict.

[Semperfi_dani]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

 

[Simpleton]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Because, if you don't defend yourself, you invite further attacks. That's the really short and simple answer.

What would you propose as an alternative? Would you simply expect the invaders to walk away in the realization that you're going to passively allow them to attack? Probably not. Because you know that they'd attack you repeatedly and mercilessly if they believe you won't retaliate.

I agree, it seems rather idiotic to invade a country because someone in that country attacked your country, but the alternative would be truly idiotic. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[BitWhys]

There's no explaining that place.

Probably wouldn't be happenning at all if establishing Israel in the first place wasn't really as much veiled anti-Semitism as anything else. Ever see that movie "Voyage of the Damned"? No one wanted them. Including Canada.

the sins of our fathers...

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Question regarding th

I don't really know simpleton what to suggest. But i just don't see the point in bombing northern parts of lebanon especially because of actions of a few groups closer to the southernn border. Did they not think to maybe go the the lebanese gov't in the first place and ask for their assistance.

I just think that Lebanon seems to alway go one step forward in progressing and than gets pushed two steps back. They kick out the Syrian government , and than this happens.

So what is the problem with Isreal that they are above going to the Lebanon governement or the UN and ask for support on an international level against hezbollah?

But i also agree that if the mid-east countries would jsut RECOGNIZE Isreal as a land, than they could probably just coexist and move on isolated from each other.

Create a nation of palestine. (yes, i get it..isreals lands were stolen in the time of the ox and donkey carts days, but palestine was an established country and that country was taken away to compensate...so why not give Palestinians the southern part and Isreal the northern part. )

I just don't understand the world. You don't bomb a school because of a few bully's in the park.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Question regarding th

I just don't understand the world. You don't bomb a school because of a few bully's in the park.

These days if you're any sort of a man you do. Ask Steve.

 

[Kreskin]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Not only that, the same old failed leadership routine creates more terrorists.

The only resolution will be a political one. State sponsored violence just throws fuel on the fire.

Check the 1915 First World War map.

 

[Freethinker]

If you read enough of the current analysis, you will end up in a position that this was pretty much inevitable in the current circumstances.

Hamas was screwing up at governing and needed to distract by doing what it does best, terrror.

Hezbollah, was finding itself in a Lebanon that was becoming more peaceful and democratic. In this case Israel had given back all Lebanese land, there is no legitimate reason for Hezbollah to attack any more or even exist. Israel has zero interest in Lebanon. But Hezbollah has been building a massive terror empire right up the the border after the Israeli withdrawal. They felt they had to use it or lose it. Thus their interest in starting the conflict.

Israel has a new government, that has leaders not from the military, which is unusual in Israel, and there was some perception that they were weak, a lot of Anaylyst believe a stronger initial response might have kept this from getting out of hand when Hamas first started shooting rockets. But now there are two factors driving Israel forward. First they have to restore credability to their deterence threat. Second in the North, they have been watching the buildup of Hezbollah for years and knew this conflict was inevitable. Now that they have started they will not stop until they significantly cripple or remove Hezbollah, or there is a surrender and return of their people, which would also re-establish Israels deterence credability for a time.

Now with that as background, to your questions, I answer both 1 and 2 together:

When that terrorist organization has such power in that country that the government is powerless to do anything about the threat it present to neighbors, when that terrorist organization actually is part of the governing coalition of that country it further shows complete unwillingness to deal with the issue. Hezbollah still has cabinet positions. If Peter Mckay was a member of terrorist group that was bombing the USA, do you think he would still be in Stephen Harpers Cabinet?? So there is a government connection in Lebanon.

The bombing is not indiscriminate. It has either been transportation infrastructure or terrorist stronghold areas. Another historical tidbit is the last hostage captured by Lebanon was sold to Iran and never seen again, this anguished the people of Israel for years. The damage to the transportation infrastructure is aimed at preventing a repeat of this.

IMO what the Israelis are doing is perfectly justifed from my armchair.

 

[Colpy]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Not only that, the same old failed leadership routine creates more terrorists.

The only resolution will be a political one. State sponsored violence just throws fuel on the fire.

Check the 1915 First World War map.

What is your point with the WWI map?

It is basically ancient history, as well as that fact that I believe "Palestine" was administered by the British.

So a colonial Palestine has been replaced by a modern, democratic state called Israel.......all to the good.

 

[Paco]

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

I think you give a poor analogy when you compare the KKK with Hezbollah.

-If the KKK’s entire reason for existence was hatred for Canadians
-If the KKK had sworn to push Canada into the sea
-If the KKK had continually turned down land and treaties from the Canadian government so it could continue with the killing of Canadians
-If the KKK had continually used suicide bombers to kill innocent Canadian civilians
-If the KKK had thousands of missiles stationed in…oh, say Michigan and pointed those missiles at major Canadian cities.
-If the U.S. government turned a blind eye to the KKK and its military ability to attack Canada and openly wished harm to Canada

If… then maybe the analogy might be a bit of a stretch.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

That sovereign nation was not attacked just “because of a political group…” Lebanon has been complicit in its aid to the terrorists. Iran and Syria for sure have given them the weapons and training, but Lebanon has allowed them to exist in close proximity to Israel. Hezbollah crossed the border, captured Israeli soldiers and took them back into Lebanon.

Israel attacked Lebanon to destroy the infrastructure that allowed its enemy (Hezbollah) to resupply with military provisions. Israel attacked the airport, roads and power stations all designated to cut off assistance to Hezbollah. It had a secondary reason also. To prevent Hezbollah from moving the Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon and into Iran.

QUESTION: “Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?”

ANSWER: For at least 200 years. At that time America attacked Tripoli because Tripoli allowed pirates to terrorize and capture American merchant ships.

 

[Colpy]

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

I think you give a poor analogy when you compare the KKK with Hezbollah.

-If the KKK’s entire reason for existence was hatred for Canadians
-If the KKK had sworn to push Canada into the sea
-If the KKK had continually turned down land and treaties from the Canadian government so it could continue with the killing of Canadians
-If the KKK had continually used suicide bombers to kill innocent Canadian civilians
-If the KKK had thousands of missiles stationed in…oh, say Michigan and pointed those missiles at major Canadian cities.
-If the U.S. government turned a blind eye to the KKK and its military ability to attack Canada and openly wished harm to Canada

If… then maybe the analogy might be a bit of a stretch.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

That sovereign nation was not attacked just “because of a political group…” Lebanon has been complicit in its aid to the terrorists. Iran and Syria for sure have given them the weapons and training, but Lebanon has allowed them to exist in close proximity to Israel. Hezbollah crossed the border, captured Israeli soldiers and took them back into Lebanon.

Israel attacked Lebanon to destroy the infrastructure that allowed its enemy (Hezbollah) to resupply with military provisions. Israel attacked the airport, roads and power stations all designated to cut off assistance to Hezbollah. It had a secondary reason also. To prevent Hezbollah from moving the Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon and into Iran.

QUESTION: “Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?”

ANSWER: For at least 200 years. At that time America attacked Tripoli because Tripoli allowed pirates to terrorize and capture American merchant ships.

Good post.

And if one is to take the KKK analogy to its logical conclusion, the KKK would have to make up the majority of the House of Representatives.

 

[shannon]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Because, if you don't defend yourself, you invite further attacks. That's the really short and simple answer.

What would you propose as an alternative? Would you simply expect the invaders to walk away in the realization that you're going to passively allow them to attack? Probably not. Because you know that they'd attack you repeatedly and mercilessly if they believe you won't retaliate.

I agree, it seems rather idiotic to invade a country because someone in that country attacked your country, but the alternative would be truly idiotic. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Absolutely agree.

Every nation has a right to defend itself. Lebanon should be asking itself why is this terrorist group openly housed within it's borders? The war on terror has no borders and as such, any nation harboring terrorists will unfortunaltey get caught in the crossfire.

Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has rightfully stated Canada's position on this conflict. Canada will surely not side with the terrorists.

 

[aeon]

What is your point with the WWI map?

It is basically ancient history, as well as that fact that I believe "Palestine" was administered by the British.

So a colonial Palestine has been replaced by a modern, democratic state called Israel.......all to the good.

Ottaman regime, replaced by british, then gave europeen jews the right to come in live in palestine, this is where the problem started, thankx ZIONIST-NAZI.

 

[Colpy]

What is your point with the WWI map?

It is basically ancient history, as well as that fact that I believe "Palestine" was administered by the British.

So a colonial Palestine has been replaced by a modern, democratic state called Israel.......all to the good.

Ottaman regime, replaced by british, then gave europeen jews the right to come in live in palestine, this is where the problem started, thankx ZIONIST-NAZI.

My, my, you are on a roll today, aren't you?

Don't be an idiot.

The problem started with the Roman occupation of Judea, and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem in 136 AD, and from all of Judea by the Babylonians in the 6th century.

Perhaps as a reply the Jews of Israel should expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, eh?

When you started using history beyond living memory as an excuse for actions today, you are starting down a VERY slippery slope.

And I love history.

 

[nana_nayfe_me]

RE: Question regarding th

there are a couple of things that i dont understand, where are you people getting your information from, god hizbollah did not go into palestine to kidnapp the two soldiers if you pay attention to what the news says there is a tank that sits in the middle of the lebanese palestinian terretory, so if hizbollah went in and got the two soldiers from palestinian terretories then why is there a tank in the middle of the two terretories exactly where the two soldiers where captured?

 

[Kreskin]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Not only that, the same old failed leadership routine creates more terrorists.

The only resolution will be a political one. State sponsored violence just throws fuel on the fire.

Check the 1915 First World War map.

What is your point with the WWI map?

It is basically ancient history, as well as that fact that I believe "Palestine" was administered by the British.

So a colonial Palestine has been replaced by a modern, democratic state called Israel.......all to the good.

My point is that this is basicallly the whole point, and last I checked not all was to the good.

 

[elevennevele]

Re: RE: Question regarding th

But i also agree that if the mid-east countries would jsut RECOGNIZE Isreal as a land, than they could probably just coexist and move on isolated from each other.

Create a nation of palestine. (yes, i get it..isreals lands were stolen in the time of the ox and donkey carts days, but palestine was an established country and that country was taken away to compensate...so why not give Palestinians the southern part and Isreal the northern part. )

I just don't understand the world. You don't bomb a school because of a few bully's in the park.

It's the same way Canadians would have a hard time living down the international community partitioning Canada for any historic land claims by the Native Community.

Then it would be like if the US armed the Natives with superior weapon technology and nuclear capability and with it the Natives decided that the partition wasn’t enough. So they started to take additional parts of Quebec, Alberta, and Ontario, built a wall to ensure possession, occasionally sent a missile strike on those they felt posed a threat (occasionally killing civilians without apology; somebody's grandmother - no big deal), bulldozed homes around territories to ensure buffer zones, created checkpoints that hindered the mobility of Canadians to travel from BC to Ontario, cut down farmers orange trees in Niagara so that shooters couldn’t hide in them, continually ignore international UN resolutions of compliance for abuses, etc.

And when Canadians are a little fanatical with the situation and blow themselves up in Native Market Places, the communities of the western world who can not identify at all, express disgust toward such an action (which is an affront to their sensibilities). So the west then condemns the Canadians for not creating peace in the region regardless of the reality, or whether actual statistics reveal that more lives have been lost by Canadians under the situation from the attacks that transpire by each side.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1086

I think there is a cause/effect situation with peoples hearts. I don’t think people generally want to do bad things but hatred swings both ways. The Jews have had a history of being victimized, but I don’t think that means it’s admissible for a historic victim to then be the abuser of another ethnic group. To then do things that Jews condemned others for when they were once on the receiving end.

 

[elevennevele]

RE: Question regarding th

Yes, I know there is also religious extremism. That also occurs on both sides however. Once again we tend to only view the Islamic side.

 

[SaintLucifer]

Re: RE: Question regarding th

I don't really know simpleton what to suggest. But i just don't see the point in bombing northern parts of lebanon especially because of actions of a few groups closer to the southernn border. Did they not think to maybe go the the lebanese gov't in the first place and ask for their assistance.

I just think that Lebanon seems to alway go one step forward in progressing and than gets pushed two steps back. They kick out the Syrian government , and than this happens.

So what is the problem with Isreal that they are above going to the Lebanon governement or the UN and ask for support on an international level against hezbollah?

But i also agree that if the mid-east countries would jsut RECOGNIZE Isreal as a land, than they could probably just coexist and move on isolated from each other.

Create a nation of palestine. (yes, i get it..isreals lands were stolen in the time of the ox and donkey carts days, but palestine was an established country and that country was taken away to compensate...so why not give Palestinians the southern part and Isreal the northern part. )

I just don't understand the world. You don't bomb a school because of a few bully's in the park.

Palestine was never an established country. It had been part of the Ottoman Empire. There was no such thing as Palestine as a sovereign state before the British destroyed the Ottoman Empire and took control of the new state it called Palestine. It was not even a country then. It was a British mandate.

Splitting the Palestinian mandate in two was the plan. North for the Jews and south for the Arabs. The 'Palestinian' Arabs would have none of this so they attacked the Jews. This is why they have no land of their own. They lost it. Spoils of war and all that. Strange that the 'Palestinians' never complained when they were ruled by the Ottoman Turks who basically took over their land but when the British hand a portion of that same land over to the Jews who were the original settlers eons ago they complain. Why the difference? Simple. Anti-Semitism.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I am going to state right here that international politics is not my strong point, and i understand mid-east politics even less.

But i have two questions.

1) Why is it acceptable to bomb a country because of a terrorist organiztion within that country? That to me would be like bombing the US because they had the KKK.

2) Since when is it acceptable to attack a sovreign nation because of a poltical group within that country?

I really don't see any justifcation for bombing lebanon because of the actions of hezbollah. And i definately do not see the point of destroying a sovreign nations infrastructure because of the actions of a group that is not a part of the government. Especially over the kidnapping of a few soldiers.

Can someone explain this whole process to me?

Ah. A fellow Canadian albeit a misguided one. What is a liberal doing in a conservative province?

Anyhoo how about this scenario. The KKK is in Detroit lobbing rockets into Windsor killing many civilians. Using your logic would should just sit there and continue to let them do it because if we retaliate we are therefore striking the sovereign territory of the US. We should let so many Canadians die at the hands of your KKK for this reason alone? No, no. Fire up those CF-18 Hornets at Cold Lake and send them over the skies of Detroit and reduce that city to cinders. Protection of the Canadian people is what we have a Canadian Forces for in the first place.

It is acceptable at any time to send forces in a sovereign country in order to get at a 'political group' within that country. Since when is Hezbollah a political group? They are a terrorist organisation. The mere fact Lebanon allows Hezbollah fighters to fire rockets at Israeli civilians from within their own territory and they have Hezbollah members in their own government gives the Israelis carte-blanche to destroy Lebanon if they so desired.

 

[Kreskin]

But the KKK lobbying rockets from Detroit has nothing to do with Windsor blowing up the airport in Philadelphia.