The Hezbollah and Israel

[Tharan]

Dan, I am curious. When is the last time you heard a head of state openly discuss the destruction of its rival and did not eventually act upon it?

[Dan Rowden]

Um, I don't know, what day is it?

[MKFaizi]

Kelly Jones wrote:

It is occurring in the individual wherever he is, who continues to suckle under the talons of society.

I appreciate your sentiment. However, it has nothing to do with reality. You should kick it upstairs where it may be appreciated. We are not writing philosophy here. This is the dirty ground of politics and religion and war. Smut.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote to Dan:

When is the last time you heard a head of state openly discuss the destruction of its rival and did not eventually act upon it?

Hard to say but what immediately comes to mind is George W talking and talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein -- whatever happened to him? When he intended to get Ossama wats his name. All that wanted dead or alive crap that never happened. Like, I even named my chicken currie after bin Laden -- Ossama bin Laden Chicken or 9/11 Masala.

My daughter has wanted to kill bin Laden since she was thirteen. Just for fun. It is kind of disturbing to see that nothing has been accomplished in that direction. Don't matter now. Ossama could be killed tomorrow and it would make no difference.

Just all this other bullshit.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Tharan wrote:

My victory is your understanding, not your submission.

I understand very well. What you want is submission.

Faizi

[Dan Rowden]

If anyone has cable and a limitless download account, this 1 hour 19 minute video regarding the Occupied Territories might be worth looking at:

Occupied Territories

[David Quinn]

Dan wrote:

Oh, and Kevin, will you stop with the propagandist "destroy Israel" tripe already? The more that overhyped (and literally impossible) crap gets trotted out the more it makes it impossible for Arabs to have their legitimate greivances taken seriously. It is grossly unjust in my view.

I'm not sure that it is "tripe". There seems to be a lot of momentum building towards a sudden large-scale war against Isreal, which could involve many millions of newly-radicalized Muslims, spearheaded by Iran, Syria and Palestine, and possibly involving a number of other Arab states. There is a lot of festering tensions on both sides, which have been building up for years, that could easily erupt into a major conflict at some point - especially now that the concept of jihad against the West is now firmly at the forefront of everyone's consciousness. It could be that events are slowly crystalizing towards this outcome.

I see there is speculation that the current Israeli offensive against Hezbollah is really just a dry run for America attacking Iran in the next few months. If that occurs, then that could be the event which crystalizes a major regional conflict.

I also think that if Arabs want their grievances to be taken more seriously (presumably by America and the West), then they'll have to make a far greater effort in distancing themselves from the Islamic fundamentalists. Their efforts to date have been muted and half-hearted at best, which isn't satisfactory.

I don't think the Iranians are that stupid. People place far too much importance upon rhetoric designed for domestic audiences. What possible advantage could there be in Iran attacking Israel? When has it ever done that in the past?

It's a different world these days. The jihad against the West is gaining momentum all the time. The leadership in Iran is Islamic fundamentalist, which means, in theory at least, that they place a far higher priority on serving the Prophet than any worldly considerations. I'm sure they are itching for a chance to wipe Israel out of existence.

As we can see from 9/11 and the recent thwarted plot to simultaneously blow up ten planes, the Islamic fundamentalists are thinking big these days. Is it really such a leap between the idea of strapping on a bomb and blowing yourself and others up, and that of, say, the entire Islamic Middle East spontaneously deciding to take matters into their own hands and confront the Israel and the West once and for all, come what may?

-

[Tharan]

Um, I don't know, what day is it?

That's not an answer I am going to accept. I need specific examples to understand that you are not talking out of your ass.

Maybe you don't care what I think. Maybe I don't care what you think. Thus we fight.

And you wonder the motivation of Israel?

[Tharan]

DQ wrote,

I see there is speculation that the current Israeli offensive against Hezbollah is really just a dry run for America attacking Iran in the next few months. If that occurs, then that could be the event which crystalizes a major regional conflict.

Yes. Right or Wrong is completely irrelevant at this point.

[sue hindmarsh]

Kevin wrote:

Everyone knows how to stop the Israelis bombing Lebanon: simply stop firing missiles at Israel and stop killing and kidnapping Israeli border troups. The bombing of Lebanon will magically stop.

But then the Islamic yahoos would be deprived of their enjoyment. For most of their history, Islam has derived much of their identity from being in conflict with Christendom and the Jews. They are so culturally bereft they haven’t any other option but to keep on creating conflict with others.

So, when the West talks about peace and diplomacy, the Islamic yahoos just consider the West weak and impotent. This is because they do not have the flexibility of the West to be able to compete culturally or economically with it. The only option left to them is violence. And even the thought that their violence could mean their complete destruction will not halt their action, as only through violence do they feel that their culture is reigning superior over the West’s.

-
Sue

[Dan Rowden]

Um, I don't know, what day is it?

That's not an answer I am going to accept. I need specific examples to understand that you are not talking out of your ass.

Then ask me a question that doesn't contain a logical bias that means I can't give a meaningful answer. "Eventually" can mean a very long time, Tharan. Iran has been speaking crap about Israel - off and on - for most of Israel's existence. They haven't acted on it.


Dan Rowden

[Dan Rowden]

Dan wrote:

Oh, and Kevin, will you stop with the propagandist "destroy Israel" tripe already? The more that overhyped (and literally impossible) crap gets trotted out the more it makes it impossible for Arabs to have their legitimate greivances taken seriously. It is grossly unjust in my view.

I'm not sure that it is "tripe". There seems to be a lot of momentum building towards a sudden large-scale war against Isreal,

Is there? Where? The only real and meaningful problem I see is the possibility that Syria is placing tanks along its borders. Rhetoric is not momentum, David.

which could involve many millions of newly-radicalized Muslims, spearheaded by Iran,

You might want to look at a map. How is Iran going to attack Israel with almost the full force of the US military in between them? There have been no reports that I'm aware of of any military movement in Iran.

Syria

So? Syria is a potential problem, sure. So what. Israel has has had to deal with Syria and other countires in the past - simultaneously. No contest.

and Palestine,

Yeah, 3 million ragheads all throwing stones. That'll scare 'em. The Palestinians can't even feed themselves properly.

and possibly involving a number of other Arab states.

What states and why? You can't just say "a number of other Arab states". That's too easy by half. The only Arab states that have anything resembling real miltary power are Egypt and Jordan and both of them have had a normal relationship with Israel for a while now. And neither of them have meaningfully advanced militarily in the interim. The oil states have no reason whatever to get involved and have never really done so in the past. They need a working relationship with the west so they have someone to sell their oil to. Do you seriously think places like Qatar, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia are going to get involved in a fight with Israel when they have US military bases in their countries? Also, have you noticed that whilst Israel has been bombing the shit out of Lebanon, the Lebanese military and leadership have taken no action nor suggested doing so? Let's not forget that these days Lebanon is 35% Xian. So, when you talk about other states getting involved, I'd like to know who and why.

Also, as a note of interest, the Arab League, at its emergency meeting in Cairo, condemned Hizbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and attacks on Israel as "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts". Egypt, Jordan and certain of the Gulf states agreed with Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, that Hizbollah's attacks "put the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them".

There is a lot of festering tensions on both sides, which have been building up for years, that could easily erupt into a major conflict at some point - especially now that the concept of jihad against the West is now firmly at the forefront of everyone's consciousness. It could be that events are slowly crystalizing towards this outcome.

What events?

I see there is speculation that the current Israeli offensive against Hezbollah is really just a dry run for America attacking Iran in the next few months. If that occurs, then that could be the event which crystalizes a major regional conflict.

In which case we can blame the US. Who is it we really should feel threatened by I wonder?

I also think that if Arabs want their grievances to be taken more seriously (presumably by America and the West), then they'll have to make a far greater effort in distancing themselves from the Islamic fundamentalists. Their efforts to date have been muted and half-hearted at best, which isn't satisfactory.

Hang on, why do they have to do that in order to have their grievances heard? Why do we make hearing them conditional? The reason the fundies are so vocal in the first place is because we refuse to heed those grievances. The reason that so-called "moderates" don't distance themsleves as much as we would like is because the fundies give them a voice. And anyway, what is the point in them doing that distancing when no-one is listening to them in the first place. What's the point in them saying anything when what they say isn't reported or listened to? Did you notice that the latest would-be terrorists were captured with the help of Pakistani authorities? How many people are even aware of Islamic leaders, some of them fundamentalists themselves, who have condemned Bin Laden and al Quaeda? The answer is hardly anyone because no-one actually cares. And also because we wouldn't believe them if and when they did. Why bother speaking if everything you say is going to be disbelieved? Oh, yes, they should do more to stop the criminals and the looneys in their midst. That argument is crap. It's like saying why didn't the Irish stop the IRA, or why hasn't America stopped the mafia. Hell, the Brits can't stop fundies in their own population. Things just aren't as simple as that.

It's a different world these days. The jihad against the West is gaining momentum all the time.

Yes, and the obvious course of action to deal with that is to invade more Mulism nations.

The leadership in Iran is Islamic fundamentalist, which means, in theory at least, that they place a far higher priority on serving the Prophet than any worldly considerations.

So why aren't they at war with anyone? They're letting down their prophet badly, aren't they? And what hope have they got of being taken seriously when there's this automatic view that dedication to the Prophet means wanting to destoy the west? Have you ever seen the guy interviewed?

I'm sure they are itching for a chance to wipe Israel out of existence.

Well it's an itch that they can never scratch so they may as well stock up on calamine...

As we can see from 9/11 and the recent thwarted plot to simultaneously blow up ten planes, the Islamic fundamentalists are thinking big these days.

Really? 9/11 was five years ago (besides which I simply do not believe that 19 Mulsims made that happen by themselves). At this rate their big thinking will wipe out the west in about a million years or so. And in the meantime, you may have noticed that we have invaded two Mulism countries and brought about the deaths of many tens of thousands of Muslims. Who is it that is really undertaking a jihad?

Is it really such a leap between the idea of strapping on a bomb and blowing yourself and others up, and that of, say, the entire Islamic Middle East spontaneously deciding to take matters into their own hands and confront the Israel and the West once and for all, come what may?

It's a leap that even Evel Knievel wouldn't try and make.


Dan Rowden

[Kevin Solway]

Oh, and Kevin, will you stop with the propagandist "destroy Israel" tripe already? The more that overhyped (and literally impossible) crap gets trotted out the more it makes it impossible for Arabs to have their legitimate greivances taken seriously.

You only need to listen to Islamic fundamentalists to know that they want to destroy Israel. So there's no question about that.

As to whether the Islamic fundamentalist have the ability to destroy Israel, I have explained that in my opinion they definitely do have that ability. Simply by continuing with their current guerilla-type tactics: small bombings, suicide bombings, border raids on small groups of Israelis, rockets and mortars, etc, is sufficient to destroy Israel. The superior Israeli military strength cannot prevent these kind of attacks. The Israelis knows this, and that is why they are particularly worried.

And that's if we ignore the nuclear option, which the Islamic fundamentalists may now have. I don't think they will use this option - and if they do use it they will do so for "identity" purposes - but then it's hard to predict exactly what mad people will do.

You might argue that the Islamic fundamentalists are not as strong a force as I am making them out to be. For example, Hezbollah only make up a small minority of the Lebanese government. Yet they are managing to dictate the course for that country.

[David Quinn]

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and could easily become a fundamentalist state. The majority of its population is already composed of fundamentalists, much to the despair of the intellectual minority who value modernity, democracy and individuality. A fundamentalist Pakistan could easily decide to share their nuclear weapons with the "greater Muslim brotherhood".

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As to whether the Islamic fundamentalist have the ability to destroy Israel, I have explained that in my opinion they definitely do have that ability. Simply by continuing with their current guerrilla-type tactics: small bombings, suicide bombings, border raids on small groups of Israelis, rockets and mortars, etc, is sufficient to destroy Israel. The superior Israeli military strength cannot prevent these kind of attacks. The Israelis knows this, and that is why they are particularly worried.

I kind of agree with this but from a different perspective.

Last Sunday Hezbollah fired 250 rockets on Israeli cities. They killed... uhmm.. one 75 year old grandpa, which is still a tragedy for all involved. But if Hezbollah had gone in the city and threw 250 stones they had killed more. Early alert systems and shelters protect most people, although disrupting society.

But the real purpose of these grenade-rockets is not to destroy or kill, but to instill fear, counter-terrorize the Israeli people so that they feel what Lebanese civilians feel. Eye for an eye, fears for fears. Attack can come any moment and maybe next time it's a bigger rocket or the alarm won't go off.

The strategic purpose is to force Israel in two possible reactions:

1. Invitation to escalate, invade, strike back and creating more enemies and destroying the moral high ground of Israel. After these last 30 days, it's clear Hezbollah won on all fronts, they have more support than ever not only in Lebanon but also in Egypt, Iraq (!), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, even in the West, and pressure is put on their governments.

2. Discontent in Israel, strengthening political opposition, weakening position of leaders. Though the reverse happens at first, a long term shelling or war climate often makes people weary, looking for alternatives. This is the psychology of terror-networks (and terror-states incl Israel & USA): not to make victims, but to shake the resolve of people, make them doubt the wisdom of their leaders. Against a bloody price, and it can back-fire easily.

The destruction (undoing) of the state of Israel looks to me still the only solution that could bring peace. A process not unlike South-Africa and Iraq went through (well Iraq is a mess because the US doesn't allow yet a fundamentalist state to arise). Bring down the government, taking out the (neo-)conservative elements who have too much control over the military and intelligence networks, and have new elections with a complete population voting, in this case Jews, Arabs, Palestinians and ex-Israelis together.

It might not work, but I don't see another alternative currently, except more destruction when terrorists get their hands on better weapons and tactics. Which in turn means draconian security measures to keep society safe: which will only make people wonder who and what exactly is the more terrorizing.

All those bloody wars are merely unclean boils erupting above the "peaceful" societies. The real war is not occurring in Iran or Iraq or in whichever neo-Nazi group. It is occurring in the individual wherever he is, who continues to suckle under the talons of society.

He is the ill-famed "muselmanner" of concentration camps: so little ego that he creates hatred wherever he goes.

How true. But why not calling the individuals the merely unclean boils erupting from some societal swamp? I don't see any reason to define one perspective as more real than the other, in this case.

[Tharan]

it's clear Hezbollah won on all fronts, they have more support than ever not only in Lebanon but also in Egypt, Iraq (!), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, even in the West, and pressure is put on their governments.

Won? That is silly. "Won" historically implies the siezing of land, the killing of more people, or the destruction of more villages.

But if you mean this is only another round in this conflict and another is just around the corner, most likely even bigger than this one, then I certainly agree. The issue you sympathizers seem to miss in your rush to place blame, is that you are losing the middle. It is rapidly becoming not important who is to blame. Propaganda can only take you so far.

The Middle Eastern "innocent people" are already there. Now the "innocent people" of the US and eventually Europe will be there. When that happens, your silly moralizing will be forgotten like all pre-fight blather is forgotten after two opponents come to blows.

When you talk of "pressure" on governments, what exactly does that mean? If a government falls under war pressure, what do you think replaces it, generally speaking? A more pacifist, moralizing, equivocating government? Hardly. Check your history.

Israel is the victim here. The state may fail, as Kevin said, but it will fail because so many middle class Jews will leave. And maybe that is for the best. But when the Islamists STILL continue their Crusade, and there is STILL terrorism in the world with, at worst, passive support from the Muslim "innocents," will you sheep continue to blather?

[millipodium]

Now the "innocent people" of the US and eventually Europe will be there. When that happens, your silly moralizing will be forgotten like all pre-fight blather is forgotten after two opponents come to blows.

Don't be so sure, tharan. There's a BROAD segment of the populace these days, tired of the all the neocon/zionist gladhandin', who would be very unhappy about U.S. troops in lebanon too. I'm just saying.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert to Kevin: Why would you care exactly?

Kevin: I would only care insofar is it would have an impact on the survival of wisdom.

Diebert: And where would you base your choice on, the newspapers, the radio, your friends or your attachments?

Kevin: All sources, and I would weigh-up their validity to the best of my ability.

Which wisdom is that, the wisdom in the certain truth that all things lack inherent existence?

For as much as you love to beat the “Muslim fundamentalist” drum, I love to beat the “'heroes' of the Jew victims” drum.

Suddenly, such grand wisdom as Emptiness becomes the instrument of your own self-protection in the guise of the survival of wisdom rather than you one for its protection -- for the survival of wisdom itself. Rather egotistical, I say. As if the infinite requires Kevin Solway, or anyone in particular, for the survival of its wisdom.

If all there was to wisdom in this situation was the act of identifying and promoting “Muslim fundamentalism” as the contemporary root of all evil that must be stomped into oblivion, then I’m afraid George Bush beat you to it -- and many, many more than you otherwise hold are masculine by virtue of their support for such a profound understanding of human nature and the sagely cause of securing the survival of wisdom.

Obviously, G Dubbya is the epitome of Genius: the enlightened, masculine individual.

Fair dinkum, talk about herd mentality.

And here, of all places.

.

[Tharan]

Dan wrote,

Then ask me a question that doesn't contain a logical bias that means I can't give a meaningful answer.

My question matched your statement concerning politicians, and specifically heads of state, and their overt threats against another, in a fair and equitable manner. There was a specific answer there. I even suspect you know what answer I had in mind.

"Eventually" can mean a very long time, Tharan. Iran has been speaking crap about Israel - off and on - for most of Israel's existence. They haven't acted on it.

What is the topic of this thread? For a man with at least an open ear to conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, and for a man who I consider rational and inteligent, how can you not see this "conspiracy" when it is not even covert? This entire drama has been an Iranian/US proxy operation. And I do say "operation" because it is not an entire war. The war is ongoing, only you don't seem to realize or see it.

[Tharan]

Milli wrote,

...tired of the all the neocon/zionist gladhandin', who would be very unhappy about U.S. troops in lebanon too.

This is not about the NeoCons. They had their moment. This is not about "remaking the Middle East" or any other of their ridiculous abstractions. This is about recognizing an overt threat and defeating it.

Eventually, there has to be a political solution. All I am saying is that this latest resolution better be taken seriously because the next time is going to be nasty. But I have my doubts that it will, as proclamations of "victory" are tossed around by both sides like schoolchildren playing kickball.

[Kelly Jones]

But why not calling the individuals the merely unclean boils erupting from some societal swamp? I don't see any reason to define one perspective as more real than the other, in this case.

The image is of a big fight over values, which comes out of the character of the societies.

I have been wondering about how an "intelligent" war can be conducted by treating rational individuals as members of a society, rather than as social slaves who unconsciously hold the group-values to be self-evident. My thoughts:

The real war, within each individual, is a battle between wisdom and ignorance. On a scale of inter-national war, this generally appears as battles of humiliation and overpowering, between societies characterised by the degree of fundamentalism and/or openness to reasoned discussion.

Individuals influence the value-system, and consequently the ruling bodies, who use the value-system to co-ordinate the society. In crisis, members of the society are usually treated as numbers, eg. as fighting agents in war, and their ability to reason is largely suppressed in favour of fundamentalism. So it is usually up to the more rational individuals who are not rulers but capable of influencing the society's value-system, to have a good understanding of the international bodies' and their political movements, in order to prevent a slide into gross animality and thoughtless vengeance.

In dire conflict between value-systems, the use of violence and not reasoned discussion is necessary when dealing with a society of animals (e.g. fundamentalists, those who are strictly and unconsciously against understanding the nature of Reality). Overpowering a fundamentalist nation is the same as empowering a rational nation. The aim of more rational societies should be to overpower fundamentalist nations, until the ability to reason openly is a cultural norm (a better fundamental).

Using violence in this way cannot help but generate compromised reason in the subdued and still fundamentalist loser. But this is a definite development in the education of the fundamentalist, who only responds to signs of power. Thus, though it seems reason is being degraded via the will to power, in fact it is helping the fundamentalist to learn to classify things more coherently. And this is a far better technique in war than the Nazist method of annihilation, and avoiding the need to educate. A more intelligent international war is about how individuals, grouped within value-systems, can be educated to find the most rational value-system.

[Kevin Solway]

Diebert to Kevin: Why would you care exactly?

Kevin: I would only care insofar is it would have an impact on the survival of wisdom.

Diebert: And where would you base your choice on, the newspapers, the radio, your friends or your attachments?

Kevin: All sources, and I would weigh-up their validity to the best of my ability.

Which wisdom is that, the wisdom in the certain truth that all things lack inherent existence?

Not just that. I am speaking of wisdom of the Infinite. Wisdom of Reality. Enlghtenment.

As if the infinite requires Kevin Solway, or anyone in particular, for the survival of its wisdom.

What I do is what the Infinite does. So if I want wisdom to survive, then that's what the Infinite wants. How could I possibly be acting in contradiction to the Infinite?

If all there was to wisdom in this situation was the act of identifying and promoting “Muslim fundamentalism” as the contemporary root of all evil

The ignorance that leads to beliefs like Christianity and Islam - especially the fundamentalist versions of those religions - is the root of all evil.

Obviously, G Dubbya is the epitome of Genius: the enlightened, masculine individual.

He would be if he was also attacking the Christians and the deep love of ignorance in his own country.

[Dan Rowden]

Kevin wrote:

Everyone knows how to stop the Israelis bombing Lebanon: simply stop firing missiles at Israel and stop killing and kidnapping Israeli border troups. The bombing of Lebanon will magically stop.

But then the Islamic yahoos would be deprived of their enjoyment. For most of their history, Islam has derived much of their identity from being in conflict with Christendom and the Jews. They are so culturally bereft they haven’t any other option but to keep on creating conflict with others.

You see, these are the sorts of generalisations I am finding impossible to tolerate in this debate. Sure, Islam is a bullshit religion; sure, Islamic fundies are horrible and their terrorists elements must be dealt with wherever possible. However, it is total crap to accuse Muslim nations of being culturally bereft. What does that mean exactly? That they disagree with certain western principles? That they don't want to partake of the multudinous western idiocies? Who can blame them?

So, when the West talks about peace and diplomacy, the Islamic yahoos just consider the West weak and impotent.

Haven't seen too much talk of peace and diplomacy coming out of the west in a long time.

This is because they do not have the flexibility of the West to be able to compete culturally or economically with it.

Economically they can't for all sorts of reasons. Culturally is a question whose answer depends on what nation you're talking about. Does anyone remember what Iraq and Afghanistan were like culturally before Russia and the US fucked them up?

Here's a neat little pictorial of a culturally bereft Islamic nation:

Iran

[Kevin Solway]

After these last 30 days, it's clear Hezbollah won on all fronts

Their support may have increased, but I think you will find that their enemies have also become stronger and more polarized.

The way I see it, nothing at all was achieved except a lot of death, pollution, and a huge increasing of bad karma.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Iran

Great pictures. I've seen similar galleries on the Web and collections from friends showing cities in Iraq, before sanctions and the occupation finished them all off. Former Serbia-lead Yugoslavia was an industrial as well as cultural powerhouse before NATO bombed it into submission, fermenting civil war for generations to come. Maybe there's a pattern here? The biggest law in business is: finish any real competition before it ever can arise. The greatest problem within the unlimited capitalism of the Western world: return of a legalized mob.

How many people know the size and modernity of a Dubai or a Singapore? Most Western cities when compared look like old stinking problematic drab.

I agree with Tharan in a way, but I think that "recognizing an overt threat and defeating it" is happening with greater clarity in other parts of the world and the illusions the West has entertained itself with the last century might become its downfall over the next decades when it just won't work anymore. Lack of realism. Loss of power.