What is Digg?51 Comments
- parislemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12if login needed, try:
http://www.bugmenot.com/ - neko6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10In Beirut Israel went only after Hizbollah offices and headquarters if I remember correctly, and of course blew up their fuel supplies in Beirut airport.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"I guess they hate us because we're so damn aggressive all the time. (BTW, I've never winessed any anti-Israel/American receving anything resembling the above treatment.)"
Well then you should open your eyes. Read the comments otherland is making in the thread you linked. He's every bit as anti-Israel as you are pro (though he's actually worse, cos as you can see, he reaches straight for ad hominem *****, like suggesting a poster is a pedophile, whereas you are reasonable in that you stick to proper arguments). He got mercilessly buried for every ridiculous comment he posted in there.
The point is that both of you are extreme and one-sided. When it comes to politics, one-sided extremist viewpoints are ALWAYS wrong. If it's possible for people to oppose your views with the passion that you believe them, then it's almost certain that there is some truth in both of what you are saying, and some ***** in both.
You don't get buried because people are all magically anti-Israel. You get buried because most people are moderate, not extremists. You get buried because you refuse to acknowledge that the people you argue with have any valid points. And having a few points that are anti-Israel does not make someone anti-Israel overall. It just makes them moderate. - kozkos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Israel:
doesn't target civilians
uses high precision weapons
kills 1000+ civilians
Hezbollah:
targets civilians
uses 65 year old technology
kills 100 civilians - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Interesting that Beirut was attacked 17 out of 30 days (as far as I know no rocket was fired from Beirut into Israel) while most of the localities in the south of Lebanon were attacked only couple of days (only Tyre was attacked longer).
The number of rockets launched by Hezbollah into Israel remained pretty constant during this period, to me it looks like Israelis didn't go after rocket launchers, they went after other targets. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5arsenal72:
I'm not sure about it being intentional, but I agree with you the map is misleading.
For example, the circle for Acre (Israel) is the same as the circle for Beirut, each representing 17/30 days. But if the attacks by Israel involve 50x the artillery, then the suggested equivalence is meaningless at best, and very misleading at worst. If the number of bombs/rockets used by each side were reflected in the size of the circles at each location, the visual representation would be a much better depiction of the reality of what's happening within each country.
But the graph omits even showing the number of bombs used by Israel, let alone incorporating them into the circles. Whereas the number of rockets fired each day by Hezbollah is clearly represented. There is really no excuse for this kind of omission by the NY Times.
I think the only explanation for it is that if the number of Israel's bombs were also represented in colored bars, the scale would have to go into the thousands, and the extreme dis-proportionality of Israel's attacks and Israel's military strength would be too easy for everyone to see. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@alder
Okay... so they destroy rocket launchers and storage facilities. Fair.
But Hizbollah might be able to bring more rockets into the country.
So they destroy airport runways.
But Hizbollah might be able to bring more rockets via sea.
So they blockade the ports.
But Hizbollah might be able to bring more rockets into the country via roads.
So they destroy bridges and roads.
But Hizbollah might be able to buy more rockets.
So they destroy banks.
But Hizbollah might be able to turn on a TV to see what's going on.
So they destroy power generation facilities.
But Hizbollah might be able to communicate with the outside world.
So they destroy the cell towers.
When does reasonable become unreasonable? - neko6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hizbollah declared that their goal in this war is maximum Israeli death rate before it's over, so there's no much point in hitting airforce bases, they go after civilians.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"This map is intentionally misleading."
I don't understand how you can describe it that way when it is clearly stated what the circles stand for.
"Circles represent the number of days in which each location was reported as attacked." Right. There. On. The. Map.
I mean, really? What the hell? Are you saying they could have done more? Are you saying that that important fact is in some way concealed in plain sight? There's no intention to mislead anyone. - neko6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't think u can put price tags on lives like that. If the war is justified, it's justified wether 0 civilians die or wether 1 million die. If it's not justified, it's not justified.
The allies started WW2 and killed over 2 million Japanese and Germans alone, while the UK and the US lost less then 0.8 million civilians. Does this make the war disproportionate and wrong? They could all have simply hailed Hitler and get it over - with no civilian casulaties! - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@atdigg: I think the Beirut attacks are designed to hit Hezbollah's headquarters, rather than any missile launch site. They are based in one particular district, iirc, and I saw some satellite photos last week showing before and after, suggesting that it's this district that they have been flattening.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Has a single IAF aircraft been fired on during this time, or has a single rocket landed within an Israeli Air-force base or landed within its CEP at an Israeli Air-force base?
This is very important because clearly if Hezbollah has not made any attempt to attack the IAF - the very planes that have been bombing Lebanon, then Hezbollah obviously doesnt care about protecting Lebanese civilians. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Both Nabatiye and Tyre were hit much harder than Beirut, though you can't see that in the graphics because technically all three were bombed for the same number of days."
Actually, the graphics states Tyre was struck 26/30 days to Beirut's 17/30 days, but you are right that the size of the circle differs little between the two.
Probably the most important part of the graphic are the bar graphs on the side, and the note that bodies are still being recovered in Lebanon. One may argue that the Israelis were right to respond, but trying to minimize the impact on the Lebanese or show equivalence in death/destruction is sheer spin, It's simply not true. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Clearly the Hezbollah's rockets are not very accurate in any case. BTW, if the Hezbollah wanted to attack soldiers, they could fire on almost anything, since Israeli soldiers were also staying in civilians' homes for some reason.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5640864 - fquednau, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, thank God they abstracted the killing of humans performed by other humans into nice cute Flash graphics, that way I can sooth my analytical, Western mindset and I can rationalise about it in a lovely, non-significant way.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3alder:
"I believe the Israeli people have the right to live. I believe in peace between Israel and its neighbors. I believe Israel should live and let live."
You misrepresent your own views here. If they were as reasonable as your quote here, I assure you that the vast vast majority of people on these boards would agree with them wholeheartedly.
What you consistently ignore is the fact that by any measure, Hezbollah cannot hold a candle to Israel's military. (There was never a doubt about this, and the recent conflict proves it again.)
Skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israel have been regular occurrences along the border for years, and Israel regularly makes incursions into Lebanese airspace and territory. Hezbollah does not have the ability to respond in any militarily significant way to Israeli aggression. On the other hand, if Hezbollah acts aggressively, Israel is clearly capable of destroying all of Lebanon (again, there was never a doubt about this, but the recent conflict proves it yet again.)
It could be argued that Israel's action of ENTERING Lebanon has resulted in more Israelis (soldiers) being killed than Hezbollah could have inflicted otherwise. (And do not forget that in the most recent action, the recent rockets didn't start firing until Israel started bombing.)
Since Hezbollah has no ability to threaten Israel in any militarily significant, Israel's recent invasion has nothing to do with self-defense, or as you suggest, Israel's right to exist or the Israeli's people's right to live. It's an opportunistic act of aggression, based on Israel's policy of maintaining its total military hegemony over the region in general, and over Lebanon in particular. Israel believes Israelis are the only people in the region who are entitled to security. Its actions repeatedly show that it is not interested AT ALL in the latter half of your "live and let live" principle. - arsenal72, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Thanks for the bugmenot tip.
This map is intentionally misleading. The circles, used to represent the number of days under attack, give the impression that damage caused by these attacks is comparable.
There is other information on the page, but to the casual viewer (most Americans) it would seem that the damage to Beirut was about the same as the damage done to Haifa.
Nothing in Israel looked like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8NA3BoBRtCM - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are plenty of websites and pictures available for those who would like to have a little more reality...
- Moonpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate.'
source - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2289232,00.html - decay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4A map of war and death is "sweet" ?
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The two separate linear rates could be explained by a relatively constant rocket barrage followed by a persistent death rate during the land phase, which would involve mainly soldiers.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3kozcos,
Two things to remember. First, the "1000+" figure is NOT only civilians. This is understandable given the fact that terrorists don't wear uniforms or carry identification. One could even call them civilians if one were inclined to be exceptionally dense.
There are two basic reasons for the low number of deaths in Israel. First, the rockets are so inaccurate, a large percentage of them hit nothing at all... many of them fall into the sea. The other reason is that the Israeli civilians have for the most part evacuated. For weeks, the rockets have been hitting empty buildings. Even prior to evacuation, they were able to take refuge in bomb shelters.
By contrast, it appears that Hezbollah may be actively preventing civilians from leaving the area. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Oh, some other thoughts...
If Israel knows their attacks result in the killing of civilians. And Israel says it regrets the deaths of innocent civilians. How can it justify its actions if it continues to attack and kill civilians? How many innocent civilians need to be killed and displaced before it becomes unjustifiable? - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@theo: They certainly attacked an Israeli military boat. I dunno if that counts towards whatever point you are trying to make.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@alder: You obviously failed to read the part I put in brackets, where I covered everything you said. He is ragingly anti-Israel, you are ragingly pro-Israel. But as I noted in brackets, the symmetry ends there because he is everything you said he was, or as I put it "ad hominem", whereas you are reasonably well argued. He is racist, you are not, etc etc etc.
So um, no offense, but I'm not sure what you're telling me, other than what I already said. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Notice, that after Iran gains nukes, their fear of retaliation is greatly diminished."
I disagree with this point. Possession of WMDs is an effective defense against pre-emptive aggression, but not against retaliatory action. If Iran has had a hand in WMD use elsewhere, possessing its own WMDs won't prevent it being attacked.
"So the WMD issue won't effect the rest of the analysis."
Indeed, I agree. I merely wanted to address that specific issue, because I think it's things like that - the more extreme, outlandish suggestions - that undermine your argument and make it easier for people to dismiss what you are trying to say. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks pretty linear for the Lebanese to me. Israeli deaths seem perhaps a little exponential but it's on far too small a scale to be sure. An alternative interpretation would be that it was linear for the first two-thirds and then linear again for the final third, but at a higher rate. This would be consisitent with the rocket attacks numbers, which suggest that Hezbollah paused to rearm and then stepped up the intensity of attacks at around the same time as the growth in casualties picked up.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"They might very well be armed with WMD warheads (perhaps not nuclear, but very possibly chemical and/or biological, both types currently possessed by the Iranians)."
These kind of hypothetical situations are always a stupid foundation to build an argument on. Your argument is stronger without them.
If Iran was going to give Hezbollah WMD, it would have done it already. But it won't, becuase right now it can use Hezbollah as a proxy - it can attack Israel without having to get directly involved itself. If it gave Hezbollah WMD and they used them, there would be no question that Iran would be attacked, certainly by the US and probably by huge numbers of other Nato countries too. If Iran wanted to directly fight a war, it would have directly attacked Israel itself by now, or the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In short, WMDs to Hezbollah? Not gonna happen. - nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bush and Israel seem to have agreed this months ago. Bush wants to attack Iran but doesn't want reprisals on Israel when he does so. This was an attempt to take Hizb out of the equation, andit has failed.
It's very difficult to "root out" Hizbollah presicely because they are Lebanese people, and enjoy massive support from the Lebanese, and not just the Muslims. Every Shia family, near enough, is proud to have at least one member in Hizb. They were not sent from Iran.
They emerged in the first place because the Lebanese army failed in its duty to the Lebanese people during the recent occupation. It was their failure to fight Israel that created the vaccuum for Hizbollah.
On the Alder question. Are you Regev in disguise? The reason he pisses people off is because he puts words into peoples mouths about Nazis and exterminaton camps all the time, and doesn't "listen". - netsui, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is it just me, or is the death count exponential?
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Ok, Bioshocker, you're our guest tonight at the reality show "Be a General"! Now, what's your war plan for the Lebanon situation?"
Your basic argument is that Israel only had one opportunity to make a choice in this war, that it had no choice at that moment and that that choice was whether to start the war or not.
That's obviously false. There are plenty of other choices that have been in front of it.
- It didn't need to continue with its bombing campaign as long as it has - it's been obvious it isn't working for several weeks now.
- It doesn't need to bomb so many civilian buildings - is it really a tactical win to destroy a few rockets, when the deaths strengthen support for your enemies among the local population? The power of a terrorist organizations is in its local support network, not in its rocket supplies.
- It could have made more of an effort to win the propaganda war before starting the military war. Israeli spies inside Lebanon catching photos and other evidence of Hezbollah using the civilian population for shelter would have massively strengthened their position. I know there were one or two photos, but frankly, that's not enough. They should have had more.
- It shouldn't be so anti letting humanitarian convoys enter the area.
But the biggest thing I'd have done differently? I'd have refused to be a general at all. Social and political problems are rarely solved by air bombardment campaigns. Terrorist campaigns are 10% bombs and 90% propaganda. The real solution to this situation lies in diplomacy and in winning the public perception battle (especially winning over moderate Lebanese).
I'd have been less arrogant towards the UN. I'd have embraced them rather than obstructing them. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1their other mistake is in bombing government infrastructure. Things like phones, TV, roads, airports effect the legit govt's ability to get control. I know the govt. of Lebanon wasn't doing enough to stop Hezbollah inside their boarders, but what Israel has done is to cut that legit govt off from being able to reqest aid, get forgein help in, etc.. Israel has pushed the govt entirely into Hezbollah's control. How does Israel intend to stop the war? There's no legit govt left to get control... and if there were, the people would look to the terrorist because the legit govt isn't/can't do anything about the situation. Israel just set up another radical Islamic govt to gain control.. after all, the regular people have nothing left to loose.
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -20/+19Oh, and btw:
"Beirut was attacked 17 out of 30 days... while most of the localities in the south of Lebanon were attacked only couple of days"
Isn't correct. Take a look at Al Khiam (17 of 30) Merj Uyun (15 of 30) and Nabatiye (15 of 30).
Not that the data is extremely meaningful: the graphics are nice but somewhat misleading. Both Nabatiye and Tyre were hit much harder than Beirut, though you can't see that in the graphics because technically all three were bombed for the same number of days.
"as far as I know no rocket was fired from Beirut into Israel"
As far as I know you're correct. But a lot of the better rockets and missiles were stored there for "safety" (the assumption being that Israel wouldn't bomb in Beirut), including the notorious Iranian Zilzal:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667951/posts
"A LONG-RANGE Iranian-made missile capable of reaching Israel's leading city, Tel Aviv, launched skyward from a bombed truck convoy east of Beirut before crashing to earth, Lebanese military officials have confirmed." - david76, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Hey, at least this clears up the argument over whether Israel's response was reasonable and measured.
Cumulative deaths:
1:10
Towns attacked:
1:4
Too bad they don't have any information on the number of people displaced. - boazg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1the image is of dahya, a huge piece of land basically occupied my nothing but Hizb-Allah activists, offices, headquarters and the likes.
most of Beirut is nothing like this map - barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7alder seems like Israel's ambassador to digg. who else would spend hours a day posting comments of copy/paste IDF statistics and reports.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Israel should have waited for Hezbollah to kill EXACTLY one Israeli civilian. Then it should have attacked the rocket launchers in the village until EXACTLY one Lebanese civilian would have been killed. Then back to stage one."
Israel should have come up with a war plan which would actually work, rather than one which has done nothing to stop Hezbollah's ability to attack Israel, but which has done a huge amount in terms of undermining Israel's international status and strengthening Hezbollah's support across the Arab world.
Take the blinkers off. This war has done more to hurt Israel than it has to help it. And it's very tragic that its citizens continue to support this anti-Israel path of action and yet call others "anti-Israel". - eyalfein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hezbo are a proxy army of (mostly) Iran.
The Iranians have chosen the battlefield (Lebanon, on the backs of It's inhabitants), but Israel was the one to decide when to start the war (when Bush said to) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Ya know- Let the Arabs complain about atrocity; All they have to do is just surrender- They only have themselves to blame.....
- grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4i dugg this just because the map is so sweet
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@bioshocker:
"In short, WMDs to Hezbollah? Not gonna happen."
I agree with much of your preceding analysis. But there's a point missing there: the broader strategic perspective of what Iran is planning.
Iran basically envies the position of North Korea. The Iranians have seen how the West has treated NK before, and more importantly - AFTER it attained nuclear capabities. Understandably, they made a strategic decision to get nukes too.
Notice, that after Iran gains nukes, their fear of retaliation is greatly diminished. I'd argue that with a solid, deployable nuclear arsenal, they'd not be too fearful even from supplying Hezbollah with some of the less destructive WMDs.
It is indeed, at this point, a hypothesis. Subjectively, I give that hypothesis much credit. Why? Because Iran always ensured Hezbollah kept one step ahead, as if it was their conception of it when they created it: the orgranization that's always one step ahead. When everyone were still arguing about short-range rockets, Iran was completing an impressive mid and long-range rocket arsenal for Hezbollah. When people started thinking aloud about those longer range rockets, Iran sent Hezbollah short range ballistic missiles. And when some people began wondering whether Hezbollah had those, the Zilzal mid range ballistic missiles were already well on their way.
But in reality the WMDs won't make things critically different. Sure, Hezbollah would find it much easier to inflict a huge death toll upon Tel-Aviv with WMD (probably chemical) warheads. But for lack of those, being able to secure enough conventional ballistic missile launches on Tel-Aviv would do the trick.
So the WMD issue won't effect the rest of the analysis. Whether achieved with 2-3 WMD missiles, or a barrage of 50 conventional ones downing sky-scrapers in downtown Tel-Aviv, a death-toll in the upper hundreds or lower thousands would force the same apocalytic response from Israel, and the same disaster for the whole region.
So Hezbollah doesn't NEED WMDs. It can get pretty much the exact same effect with a pile of conventional missiles of the type they have right now (Zilzal-2), and an array of advanced anti-aircraft systems to keep the AIF from destroying the launchers during the launch. Iran has already promised to provide them with the later:
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=5583
Now let's see if the UN can prevent that. - alder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@Bioshocker:
"Israel should have come up with a war plan which would actually work"
Ok, Bioshocker, you're our guest tonight at the reality show "Be a General"! Now, what's your war plan for the Lebanon situation?
Really, I'm all ears. Of course, being a hired Israeli (Mossad?) agent, I can readily pass your suggestions to the very top of the Israeli chain of command.
"rather than one which has done nothing to stop Hezbollah's ability to attack Israel, but which has done a huge amount in terms of undermining Israel's international status and strengthening Hezbollah's support across the Arab world."
1) I wouldn't bet my money on "Hezbollah's support across the Arab world". What you see on the street is not what's happening in the closed offices of the government, where the real deals are being cut. Al-Qaeda had enormous street-cred after 9/11, it didn't prevent it from being virtually destroyed by the US, while the Arab leaders silently supported them.
2) For my humble analysis of the goals of the Israeli approach in this conflict, see my comment to david below:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Interactive_Graphic_The_toll_after_a_month_of_war#c2680867
'Take the blinkers off. This war has done more to hurt Israel than it has to help it. And it's very tragic that its citizens continue to support this anti-Israel path of action and yet call others "anti-Israel".'
I completely agree with one of your arguments: Israel would have been better off without this war. In fact, Israel would have been way better off if Hezbollah either magically or gradually disappeared. (Lebanon too, btw)
The sad truth is that once attacked, Israel had no option but to respond. And that's where your analysis goes slightly awry, imho: you forget we're dealing with people here. Those "Israeli citizens" are people. When one fine summer day, those people get a shower of rockets on their heads, and later hear that eight of the soldiers protecting them were killed for no reason, while another 2 were kidnapped...
Those people become: 1) fearful. 2) angry. And then you have 80% support for harsh military response. Now, of course, if you are Mr. Olmert, you can ignore that. That is, if you absolutely don't care about keeping your (new-found) job, and also are very foolish; since in a democracy if act against the will of 80% of the people, you're just going to make that will more extreme, until they throw you out and elect someone like Avigdor Lieberman, which just might lead Israel to and very convincing regional war.
So again, the sad truth is that once the Israeli civilians felt they were attacked, a war - detrimental to Israel's international standing or not - was inevitable (regardless of anything else I might think of the issue). And anyone doubting the right of the Israeli people to do what they perceive as "defending themselves", even if his argument is that what they see as self-defence is really self inflicted damage, they're going to percieve that person as their enemy. If you're convinced you're fighting for your life, and somebody tries to disarm you, that person becomes your enemy.
Things might have been different if the Israelis were a nation of robots. They aren't. And you cannot expect them to act differently than, say, the French, the Brits or the Americans, all of whom acted strongly and seemingly automatically against aggression in the not so distant past. - alder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@martalli:
"One may argue that the Israelis were right to respond, but trying to minimize the impact on the Lebanese or show equivalence in death/destruction is sheer spin, It's simply not true."
Nobody is arguing there was such equivalence. But I think the suggestion that such equivalence should exist is hypocritical. In fact, "justice", "morallity" and "fairness" seems to have been thoroughly abused in this conflict.
Really, to listen to Russian representatives arguing that Israel's response is "disproportionate", while over the last decade Russia has killed a lot more than 100,000 Chechen civilians - not to protect its own population, but to keep its imperialistic interests in Chechnya... - alder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7"If Israel knows their attacks result in the killing of civilians."
Of course Israel knew that. Who didn't? Israel also knew that Israeli civilians would die in this war. The thing is: even more of them would die if rocket launchers and storages aren't destoryed.
"How many innocent civilians need to be killed and displaced before it becomes unjustifiable?"
The sad truth is that "justifiable" plays a very small part in world politics. Take Russia and China for example. Their "justifiable" threshold seems to be very high.
Russia massacred about 100,000 civilians in the First Chechen War alone, to keep their control (occupation?) of Chechnya. Yes, that's the same Russia which condemns Israel for the "crimes against humanity" it commits in Lebanon while trying to keep its population safe from Hezbollah missile attacks.
And if you think they improved since then (that is, in the last decade), check out the account of the Second Chechen War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War#Casualties - barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Here's how it works according to the US, EU, and Israel: Terrorists kill innocent people. We must stop the terrorists so they can not kill innocent people. So we must kill the terrorists even if it costs more innocent lives than any terrorist organization could kill.
- fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Nice work, alder. I can just imagine the people who dugg you down. They wouldn't want to actually respect or admit plain facts. Think about it... someone sat there and said to themselves, "Look at this guy... standing up for Israel by pointing out some information! Digg him down!"
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10You're so very much right!
Israel should have waited for Hezbollah to kill EXACTLY one Israeli civilian. Then it should have attacked the rocket launchers in the village until EXACTLY one Lebanese civilian would have been killed. Then back to stage one.
I mean, really, everyone fights their wars like that! Obviously, the Israeli army must defend the Lebanese people exactly as it defends the Israelis. Really, would you expect the IDF to actually protect Israelis more than Lebanese?! That's PREJUDICE.
The IDF should have learned from the Hezbollah, which equally (doesn't) care for Israeli and Lebanese civilians. - alder, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6@Bioshocker:
"otherland... is every bit as anti-Israel as you are pro"
The temptation to find symmetries is a seductive one. Don't give in.
I believe the Israeli people have the right to live. I believe in peace between Israel and its neighbors. I believe Israel should live and let live.
How does that make me equivalent to a hate-spewing, smear-campaing-launching, non-apologetic racist?
I'm sorry, but you have to be much more than pro-Israeli to be the equivalent opposite of someone like otherland.
In fact, check yourself for an instant. Are you suggesting that if I support the state of Israel and the right of its people to live, I am somehow racist and hateful? That supporting Israel is in fact equivalent to racism and hate?
Oh, darn it, I cannot resist! Your argument goes something like this: "You, Alder, support the right of Jews to live as vehemently as the Nazis oppse it. Therefore, you are equivalent to a Nazi, and should adopt a more mainstream approach, such as 'perhaps Jews have the right to live, or perhaps they should be exterminated, who can tell...?'"
Yeah, I know, I just destroyed my own argument by invoking Godwyn. But you know, contrary to popular belief, Jews don't really think they're perfect :-) - alder, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5"When does reasonable become unreasonable?"
"Reasonable" and "Unreasonable" are just words, designations. The real question is: "What should be done?"
If we wish Lebanon, Israel, and the rest of the region to live in peace, it's pretty clear that Hezbollah should be disarmed. And that's basically what Israel has been shooting for at this conflict, i.e. both:
1) the weakening of Hezbollah as a fighting group
and simultaneously (some might say - incidentally):
2) pressure on the Lebanese political establishment to do what it has failed to do for over 6 years: try to get Hezbollah under control.
Of course, 1 facilitates 2. A major reason why Hezbollah couldn't have been easily controlled is that it was so strong militarily, as strong if not stronger than the Lebanese army.
Overall, Israel has been trying to keep the number of civilian casualties at a minimum. That doesn't have anything to do with "reasonoble" or "unreasonable", but with the simple fact that Israel has nothing to gain from the death of moderate Lebanese civilians.
Keep in mind, though, that if the Lebanese and the international community fail to disarm Hezbollah, the next conflict might be very different. Hezbollah has been gaining military might since its inception. In this conflict, it has been able to hit Israel deeper and stronger than ever before (there were never missiles hitting the city of Haifa before). If the Iranians are allowed to rebuild its damaged might, the next conflict is very likely to occur with a Hezbollah armed with many ballistic missiles capable of reaching Tel-Aviv. They might very well be armed with WMD warheads (perhaps not nuclear, but very possibly chemical and/or biological, both types currently possessed by the Iranians).
If a missile like that hits Tel-Aviv, and there are hundreds or even thousands of casualties, Israel would flatten whole villages in southern Lebanon. It has nothing to do with "proportion" or "reasonability". Israel would just have to do that, like you have to shoot someone when he's coming at you with a knife and you cannot retreat, even if it is "disproportionate" to use a gun against someone who is a homicidal maniac, but only wielding a rusty old knife.
That's what really is at take here, and why Israel acted like it did, and why the US and generally the EU supported her on this conflict (though for humanity's sake let's hope they don't completely screw up the post-conflict momentum to defang the Hezbollah). - alder, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16Not that you have enough information there to conclude that, but anyway:
The IDF went after rocket and missile storages. The estimate is that it has taken out 2/3 of the arsenal Hezbollah had at the beginning of the conflict. But since that initial arsenal is estimated to consist of about 14,000 rockets and missiles, that leaves almost 5,000 weapons, which would present no problem for Hezbollah launching a constant 100+ rockets and missiles a day for the 30 day duration of the conflict.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is