The Hezbollah and Israel

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote:

Which side of the conflict routinely and intentionally kills women and children?

I know! I know! The Israelis!

I am going to bow out of this discussion. It is rather strange -- as though there are archetypal predispositions at work in the psyches of posters. There are many who simply cannot acknowledge any fault in Israel, no matter what. Kind of seems like this great psychological/archetypal divide. Some kind of below the nailbed cultural etching that most people cannot break past -- no matter one's enlightened state.

I certainly have sympathy with Israelis who have lived with the threat of suicide bombers and the like. That sort of slaughter is always wrong -- no matter who does it. And I see no excuse for it -- neither religious excuse nor political. I abhor the killing of Jewish children as well as Lebanese children.

One more time, I am compelled to point out that in this current conflict, Israel was the one who started the bombing AFTER Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers. Hezbollah started shelling AFTER Israel started.

Tharan, I deplore the suffering of every child or adult killed in every war, not just this conflict. All conflicts. All wars. Your blindnes is beyond sad.

My connection to Muslims comes through Pakistan. Just today, it is evident that Pakistanis are involved in the airline terrorist scare from Britain. Am I surprised by that? Not in the least. There is a lot of hatred for the US from Pakistan. I have no trouble acknowledging that and acknowledging that binny Laden himself is probably living in the tribal areas of Pakistan. If there is another major "terrorist" attack on the US, I fully expect it to involve Pakistanis.

What bothers me somewhat is the complete inability of most writers to this thread to even remotely consider that Israel might also be capable of atrocity. That is an impossibility with the exception of only a handful -- Leyla Shen, Dan Rowden, David Hodges and myself. The emotional zealotry here in favor of Israel is astonishing. No reason at all. Just blind emotionalism and excuse. It is all right to rape young girls because that is what happens in war. It is all right for an Israeli captain to brutally shoot a thirteen year old girl because he was experiencing great stress due to his position.

If an Arab rapes or kills an Israeli girl his action is due to the natural hate and craziness of his religion. No excuse.

I can think of no valid excuse for animalistic behavior for anyone. I see no excuse for the disgusting beheadings of westerners that occurred frequently in Iraq a couple of years ago.

I can think of no excuse for the current killing of civilians in Lebanon by Israel. I can think of no excuse for Israeli mistreatment and oppression of Palestinians.

Hate is a two way street. So is archetypal blindness and cultural unconsciousness. I have great doubt about those who claim to be enlightened but who have scant knowledge of the world and of human differences; human weakness; human frailty; human monstrosity -- the nature of the very beast that is human.

To my mind, it is inconceivable to take a side in human conflict; especially to take a side in cultural blindness. I think that is piteous and a shame. It certainly is not the behavior of an enlightened sage. An enlightened sage should be more worldly aware and knowledgable.

All right. I will stop. The only thing I have left to say goes to the enlightened David Quinn who mentioned something here about George Bush stating that Israel might do better if it was in Alaska.

George Bush did not say that. The current leader of Iran -- whatshisname -- said something to the effect that Israel could move somewhere else -- like the western US.

George Bush would never say such a thing because he is pro-Israel. If he ever said such a thing, he would be lambasted. He is already getting pretty fried and he must be thankful that current events are at last turning his way. If he ever said that Israel would be better in Alaska, he would probably be impeached.

I am not anti-Israel.

But damn. I would not want to live there in completely hostile terrortory. It is like asking to be bombed. By the same token, as a female, I would not go walking down a ghetto street at three in the morning. I have done exactly that. But I knew I was asking for it. I was fortunate enough to make it home alive. It was tricky and I would not do it again -- unless I had a Uzi or an AR15 or grenade launcher. I have lived in hostile territory that is hostile because of the color of your skin or cultural differences.

I cannot imagine doing it for sixty years.

Faizi

[Kevin Solway]

Israel was the one who started the bombing AFTER Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers.

Yes . . . after Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers and demanded a prisoner release. It was an escalation on the part of Israel, because the continued suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc, had become intolerable.

I can think of no excuse for the current killing of civilians in Lebanon by Israel.

Then what do you think Israel should do in response to the thousands of missiles being fired at them? Turn the other cheek?

To my mind, it is inconceivable to take a side in human conflict

In the second world war we took the side of the allies to fight against Germany. If we didn't take sides then Germany would have won the war.

There's nothing wrong with taking sides so long as the choice is necessary and you also choose the right side.

[MKFaizi]

Kevin wrote:

Then what do you think Israel should do in response to the thousands of missiles being fired at them? Turn the other cheek?

They could defend themselves against Hezbollah without wholesale slaughter of more than 1220 Lebanese civilians -- mostly women and children and the infirm -- in a month. To put it mildly, that is overkill. Even the Israeli government now acknowledges that the air strafing was a mistake. They killed more than a thousand civilians -- Christians and Muslims -- and the bombs are still coming. The excuse was that Hezbollah hides among the populace. Considering that the rockets still blast while eighty five percent of bridges in Lebanon are destroyed -- to the point that aid cannot reach those in need and are often denied access by the Israelis -- my guess is that the Hezbollah rockets are not coming from heavily populated areas.

Like, DUH. Great insight now that most of Beirut has been destroyed.

The rest of what you wrote is pure western Christian hyperbole that is unworthy of address unless from someone such as Jamesh or Tharan or David Quinn.

The thousand of missiles thrown by Hezbollah that you cite have killed about 120 people, most of whom were soldiers.

Then, you have the several killings of UN workers by the Israelis.

What would happen had Arabs or other Muslims killed UN workers?

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Kevin Solay actually wrote:

It was an escalation on the part of Israel, because the continued suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc, had become intolerable.

Of course. It was an escalation. Far different from an attack. Far more civilized. Kind of like a tea party.

When did the last suicide bombing occur? Was the last suicide bombing pulled off by a Lebanese? How does a suicide bombing justify slaughter of civilians by a civilized government?

Faizi

[Tharan]

There is no longer any such thing as "civilized" nor "civilians." Welcome to reality.

I don't think Israel is infallible. Far from it. They need to atone for their many sins over the years through remorse and reparations. But that is not going to happen in the current climate.

Expect more butchered children.

[Tharan]

Marsha wrote,

Then, you have the several killings of UN workers by the Israelis.

And for several hours prior to the final death blow, the UN workers were tryng to contact the Israelis to inform them that the Hizbollah was setting up mortar tripods next to the outpost and shelling Israeli postions, all the time fully expecting a computerized trajectory-tracking response from the Israelis. Because of the UN mandate for the region, the UN observers could do nothing but inform. It was completely premeditated without a single Hizbollah casualty, much like what happened at Qana.

Poor poor downtrodden Muslims. May their souls burn in the fires of their corrupted imaginations, along with their ignorant sympathizers.

[Kevin Solway]

When did the last suicide bombing occur?

I don't know, but here are a few from period January to March of this year:

Jan 19, 2006 - Thirty-one people were wounded in a suicide bombing in a shawarma restaurant near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv. The Jerusalem Battalions of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 30, 2006 - Four people were killed when a suicide bomber hitchhiker disguised as an ultra-Orthodox yeshiva student detonated his explosive device in a private vehicle near the entrance to Kedumim.

Apr 17, 2006 - Eleven people were killed and over 60 wounded in a suicide bombing during the Passover holiday near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv, at the Rosh Ha'ir shawarma restaurant, site of the Jan 19 bombing. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Was the last suicide bombing pulled off by a Lebanese?

There have been bombings, I don't know when.

How does a suicide bombing justify slaughter of civilians by a civilized government?

The deaths of civilians in Lebanon happened after the rocket attacks on Israel began, so far as I can tell.

In any case, a suicide bombing is really just a bombing, like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and still needs to be dealt with in some manner.

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote:

"civilized" nor "civilians." Welcome to reality.

Kiss my ass.

There is such a thing as civilians. A civilian is a person who lives in a particular place. That is it. I am a civilian who lives in the US. I own no weapons. If I am attacked, I have no means of defense.

There is such thing as civilization. You live in civilization. You live in what is a civilized state.

My guess is that you are yet too hung up on that movie.

Get over it.

Welcome to reality. This is not jungle warfare.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Full Metal Tharan wrote:

The deaths of civilians in Lebanon happened after the rocket attacks on Israel began, so far as I can tell.

Then, you are wrong and you need to go back and read or watch some videos. Israel attacked Lebanon full force after the kidnappings. THEN, the Hezbollah rockets began.

I am a news junkie. I listen to it and read it day and night. I go to sleep with it and I wake up with it. I am detail oriented. I am interested in what started when and where and how and why. One morning, I awoke to hear that Israel was attacking Gaza because an Israeli soldier had been kidnapped. Next morning, I awoke to hear that Hezbollah had kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Then, Israel attacked Lebanon full force.

I think you need to have a look at the written and video accounts. Use whatever source you choose -- CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC.

Kind of appalling that you have not done so before now.

In any case, a suicide bombing is really just a bombing,

No kidding! Really?! I had no idea that a suicide bombing involves bombs. I have seen many tapes of the effects of such bombings but I had no idea that a suicide bombing is a bombing.

I'll be damned. Until now, I thought all those people were killed with sparklers or a water hose or something. I thought a suicide bombing was some sort of soft explosion that only killed people with a gentle breeze -- kind of like a dandelion in spring.

God, I am grateful to you, Full Tharan, for enlightening me to the fact that these things were real bombs. Until now, I wondered why they called them bombs. I had no idea whatsoever that suicide bombers actually killed many numbers of CIVILIANS.

l

ike the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and still needs to be dealt with in some manner.

Like wholesale strafing of Lebanese -- even many Lebanese Americans on vacation -- on the pretense of bombing Hezbollah living among the population.

The heavily populated areas of Lebanon have been straffed and destroyed. The Hezbollah rockets still flare.

Way to deal with 'em. Slaughter as many as you can. But don't snuff out the rocket launcher. If you do that, there will be no excuse.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Full Metal Tharan wrote:

Poor poor downtrodden Muslims. May their souls burn in the fires of their corrupted imaginations, along with their ignorant sympathizers.

My guess is that you are currently undergoing some sort of emotional crisis.

You have no idea about Muslims. You are strictly commercial.

I was Muslim. I have an idea of what that means. You are hoping for Hell for a segment that you have only heard about stemming from the World Trade Centers attack.

Your hatred is palpable. In all honesty, you should be ashamed of your ignorance.

I have not written here about poor, poor downtrodden Muslims. I have written here about social and cultural blind mindlessness that breeds the kind of hate that nurtures what we call acts of terrorism.

You need to read more rather than watching movies.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Kevin:

The deaths of civilians in Lebanon happened after the rocket attacks on Israel began, so far as I can tell.

That is wrong.

Faizi

[Leyla Shen]

“Oh, me! Oh, my! [clasps the sides of her face with her hands] Whatever shall I do? Tharan -- knowing himself oh-so well -- thinks I am emotionally crippled the way he is [hops around on the spot in frenzied circles]...”

Obviously, he will never know. The fear must be unrelenting.

Mother, do you think they’ll drop the bomb -- on Tharan's head…

~

David,

There is always a chance when discussing Woman that people wlll have significant breakthoughs in their philosophic understanding, greater insights into Reality, clearer understanding of humanity's deeper psychology, stronger resolution to give up all attachments and leave the ego behind, etc.

Possibly. Most people are cowards when it comes to the thought of taking their last breath. Much less cowardly when it comes to promoting that of others.

There is virtually no chance of this happening with heated discussions about tribal squabbles in the Middle East.

It’s been quite revealing, though. I will certainly bear it in mind when Woman comes up again.

In fact, the reverse is more likely to be the case. People are more likely to sink even further into the mire of their emotional attachments and the root causes which generate all these tribal squabbles in the first place are likely to become even more entrenched.

I’m not sure that people so close to such entrenchment are more likely to understand anything, let alone Woman.

~

Kevin, really. Whatever happened to at least attempting to demonstrate the full complement of your ideals? All these, “I don’t know”s. I mean, I just don’t know…

.

[Leyla Shen]

Marsha wrote:

My guess is that you are yet too hung up on that movie.

Scary, but true. He's not alone, though.

This is what happens to men when they're too afraid to fight their own wars -- they become more than happy to commit others to fighting them at any opportunity. Obvioulsy, they can't even channel all that wonderful "masculine" energy into a simple, reasoned conversation. Course, that's totally justified when they are speaking to a woman, as you may have noticed once again in more recent times to the last. You see, Marsha, as you know, we as females can never hold a position without it being irrational by default -- unless you're agreeing with them, that is.

Pathetic, really.

.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin, really. Whatever happened to at least attempting to demonstrate the full complement of your ideals? All these, “I don’t know”s. I mean, I just don’t know…
.

The thing is, I know for sure that I can't believe what is reported on the news, or on the internet, or by anyone who has an attachment to one side or the other, so there's much about what is happening in the middle east that I simply don't know.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, I understand. Compounding that is the fact, also, that 99.9 (or whatever, but thereabouts) per cent of the world is not enlightened/is feminine-minded and is therefore bound to have some kind of sordid attachment to one or the other side.

So, what does a wise man do?

What does he have to go on?

If he has spent no time with any Muslims and some time with several Jews -- who no doubt have their attachments, more than likely not being enlightened -- can he fairly discern the situation on the basis of experience of this sample?

Does he just go by their respective Holy Books -- perhaps a combination of the Holy Books and emotionally attached news reports?

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I bet this dude [Ahmadinejad] has short persons disease - compulsive attention seeking and lying. Probably has a mind akin to that of Hitler.

That's extremely funny coming from people suffering from a president like Bush who is considered world wide the most corrupt, underdeveloped and deranged president that ever came in power. Perhaps this is about president-envy!

Ahmadinejad is interesting, for example he's still teaching engineering classes at a college. He's like many in his government a 'technocrat': precise, conscientious and very difficult to catch lying. Hyperbole yes, provocation yes but lying: no. He'd never come far in Western politics, that's for sure.

Why the hell folks like him don't get assassinated in these days of superb surveillence technology and long distance weaponry, that could kill him from a safe distance, is beyond me.

I heard it's very difficult to get any good intelligence in Iran. The population is too loyal and they have a good understanding and use of technology. I remember Saddam couldn't get killed after decades of trying as he was moving around daily, never stayed in the same place, year after year, even traveled with the tribes often on the plains.

In general I consider the Arabs and Persians as smarter, more experienced and hardened, street-wise, as their Western counterparts. They could easily get out of this conflict victorious, in the end. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes . . . after Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers and demanded a prisoner release. It was an escalation on the part of Israel, because the continued suicide bombings, kidnappings, etc, had become intolerable.

Kevin, your argumentation is contradictionary. Because you also say later on:

There have been [Lebanese] bombings, I don't know when.

And then:

The thing is, I know for sure that I can't believe what is reported on the news, or on the internet, or by anyone who has an attachment to one side or the other, so there's much about what is happening in the middle east that I simply don't know.

So where did you base the first statement on then, that it was an escalation and it had become intolerable. Were you saying things you didn't believe yourself to be true?

Then what do you think Israel should do in response to the thousands of missiles being fired at them? Turn the other cheek?

An illogical question since it's already established several times in this discussion that the 'thousands' of missiles came after the bombing of Beirut and other Lebanese areas by Israel. The correct question would be to ask what Israel should do living in the shadow of thousands of potential (small) missiles in reach of civilian targets. Or ask what Lebanon must do living in the shadow of a huge stockpile of WMD in Israel perhaps.

In the second world war we took the side of the allies to fight against Germany. If we didn't take sides then Germany would have won the war.

Would that have impaired your philosophy, I wonder. What reason would you have to take side of the Alliance, assuming you weren't aware of what was going on in the concentration camps, as most weren't. Why would you care exactly? And where would you base your choice on, the newspapers, the radio, your friends or your attachments?

[Tharan]

Sorry to disappoint, ladies. No emotional crisis here. It is just me, as it always is, being a good father to my lovely daughter and dutifully paying my taxes like the extraordinary citizen that I am. You may call me SuperCitizen.

BTW, Marsha, you accredited me (Full Metal Tharan) with Kevin's writings in one of your postings.

Oh, and did you all notice the news yesterday? Another Israeli mother and her baby were killed from a Hizbollah Katuysha. But, not so suprisingly, there was no extensive, pornographic write-up of the nasty incident for you sympathizers to enjoy. No accounts of the mother's leg landing some 10 meters away, still smoldering. No accounts of the little girl dragging what remains of her torso a meter or two before collapsing. Only a quick mention on National Public Radio. Let me know, ladies and Dan, if you would like me to write something more for you.

Really, they should learn to revel in the gore if they expect to get anywhere in this sad world. It is a big propaganda game, afterall. Reality and truth are secondary, haven't you silly ladies discovered this yet?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin Solway wrote:

In the second world war we took the side of the allies to fight against Germany. If we didn't take sides then Germany would have won the war.

There's nothing wrong with taking sides so long as the choice is necessary and you also choose the right side.

Kevin you have a very conventional view of warfare, there were some people that didn’t participate in these conflicts at all, In Canada there were many men who didn’t enlist and hid in the woods as hermits.

Who was wiser?

The confident teenager with a hero complex who strongly took the sides of the allies and swore to defeat Hitler.

Or a hypersensitive man who instinctively knew that the entire conflict was irrational and ran for the woods as a hermit.


I would say the man who fought against Hitler had the lowest intelligence in that his fear was not in the right place...]

Evil attracts Evil. Ignorance attracts Ignorance. When one is truly rational, there is no participation.

[Tharan]

Unless you happen to be Polish and the Nazis cast you from your own home, much as the Israelis did to the Palestinians in '48. Both are causes worth fighting for.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tharan wrote:

Both are causes worth fighting for.

These are only worth fighting for to the stupid dull mind.

To the intelligent mind, there is 'no' human conflict 'worth' fighting for.

Fighting is a worldly affair done by worldly people with worldly values.

The intelligent man doesnt participate at all and he is superior to the world for it.

he is not attached to property, family, reputation and race so he inheritely has no reason to fight.

[millipodium]

Tharan wrote:

Both are causes worth fighting for.

These are only worth fighting for to the stupid dull mind.

To the intelligent mind, there is 'no' human conflict 'worth' fighting for.

Fighting is a worldly affair done by worldly people.

The intelligent man doesnt participate at all and he is superior to the world for it.

More proof that postmodern/mystical idiocy is a suicide meme, designed to reduce people to docile little imbeciles.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Milli wrote:

More proof that postmodern/mystical idiocy is a suicide meme, designe to reduce people to docile little imbeciles.

I don’t think so, it is simply seeing that every reason humans have to fight each other is by definition irrational.

The wise man has no reason to fight another, he has fully understood all the possible causes of violence by observing the psychological stupidly of other humans.

He is beyond good and evil.

For instance: In WW2, the allies would be considered good and Hitler and the whole gang would be considered evil.

But when you are caught in that duality, both are irrational victims.

Jiddu Krishnamurti traveled throughout the world during the war giving dialogues into the nature of violence.

As a man, I would say that he was beyond good and evil. He was in a sphere of intelligence that very few men on this planet have ever known.

He was not attached to nation, property, woman, family, reputation, etc and so on.

There was absolutely no reason for Jiddu Krishnamurti to pick up a gun, not like he ever would. The man wouldn’t even kill a spider.

[millipodium]

Milli wrote:

More proof that postmodern/mystical idiocy is a suicide meme, designe to reduce people to docile little imbeciles.

I don’t think so, it is simply seeing that every reason humans have to fight each other is by definition irrational.

The wise man has no reason to fight another, he has fully understood all the possible causes of violence by observing the psychological stupidly of other humans.

He is beyond good and evil.

For instance: In WW2, the allies would be considered good and Hitler and the whole gang would be considered evil.

But when you are caught in that duality, both are irrational victims.

Jiddu Krishnamurti traveled throughout the world during the war giving dialogues into the nature of violence.

As a man, I would say that he was beyond good and evil. He was in a sphere of intelligence that very few men on this planet have ever known.

He was not attached to nation, property, woman, family, reputation, etc and so on.

There was absolutely no reason for Jiddu Krishnamurti to pick up a gun, not like he ever would. The man wouldn’t even kill a spider.

So if someone wants to kill you because of some warped belief system, even though you have not harmed him, and do not intend to harm him, you would allow yourself to be killed, because you're above at all? Like I said, your worldview has reduced you to a docile imbecile.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Milli wrote:

So if someone wants to kill you because of some warped belief system, even though you have not harmed him, and do not intend to harm him, you would allow yourself to be killed, because you're above at all? Like I said, your worldview has reduced you to a docile imbecile.

Suppose someone breaks into my home and attacks me in my sleep then obviously I'm going to defend myself, this is almost an automatic reaction.

However if my nation is going to war i would flee into the woods because I dont identify with the symbol of "nation" and I dont think it is an intelligent thing to participate in.

I'm not attached to any particular nation or territory so I will flee to wherever there is peace, I have no ties to any point in space.

This is why organized war is complete insanity, usually fought at the hands of men who are terribly territorial, with strong emotional beliefs who are attached to woman, family and attached to the image of nation-state.

They actually believe there is a separate thing called nation-state, but this is only an idea and a feeble one at that.

ideas are not the real. I will not die over an idea or at the hands of an irrational antagonist.

I will flee and that is the most intelligent thing to do.

If your being is order, you cannot be a part of disorder because if you become a part of disorder then you are that disorder, you are not separate from it.