WW3
Ra ra ra... off we go to war!
I wonder if this is how things were back when the Nazis were doing there thing and the world looked on. I wonder if people picked apart all of the actions of the yet-to-be-Allied nations, and lavished liberal grace upon the extremists.
I hear it now in the passionate plea of the left as they wage their own war against the fabric of the United States. "Those poor Hezbollah and Hamas. Poor, underprivlidged Arabs. Those misunderstood Muslims. How sad... If only the world would give them the opportunity they deserve. Then we would see what peace loving people they really are."
But seriously folks, if only our interests weren't so wrapped up in oil. It would be such a clearer picture really. But oh how we would suffer without the precious barrels of oil that are so kindly delivered to us each day at the mere cost of one Israeli murder victim each.
I say let the nukes fly and let God sort us out.
Or something like that. I wish my brain wasn't so screwed up here on the fringes of WWIII. I might actually have an opinion worth defending.
I wonder if this is how things were back when the Nazis were doing there thing and the world looked on. I wonder if people picked apart all of the actions of the yet-to-be-Allied nations, and lavished liberal grace upon the extremists.
I hear it now in the passionate plea of the left as they wage their own war against the fabric of the United States. "Those poor Hezbollah and Hamas. Poor, underprivlidged Arabs. Those misunderstood Muslims. How sad... If only the world would give them the opportunity they deserve. Then we would see what peace loving people they really are."
But seriously folks, if only our interests weren't so wrapped up in oil. It would be such a clearer picture really. But oh how we would suffer without the precious barrels of oil that are so kindly delivered to us each day at the mere cost of one Israeli murder victim each.
I say let the nukes fly and let God sort us out.
Or something like that. I wish my brain wasn't so screwed up here on the fringes of WWIII. I might actually have an opinion worth defending.
posted by Miroslav at 4:03 PM
20 Comments:
Ok dude this is getting serious. This is the kind of dialogue that should be taking place. Why do we defend the Israeli's? Do we as Christians feel that we are going to somehow usher in the return of Christ by pushing for support of Israel at all costs. It makes no sense to think that without our puny support God just couldn't bring back the temple.
You are right about the black stuff. It is inspiring to see all of the alternative energy talk from gas prices rising a dollar. I am not sure what your opinion is but lets keep this string going for a little bit.
MJB
I defend Israel because I see her as the victim of repeated terrorist attacks by extremist Muslims who are hell bent on the utter destruction of the Jews (and then US).
Some Christians believe the Jews to be the sovereignly chosen people of God... way back when, continued through today, and forever. They believe all of the promises and blessings listed in scripture toward the Jewish people are ... well... real.
As to your question re: couldn't God just do it Himself? The answer is obviously yes, but for some reason he also calls man to preach the gospel, carry his cross, and make disciples. It appears that God isn't interested in a solo operation.
Some random thoughts of mine (and where this post got started from) can be found HERE.
Eireann,
I wasn't referring to you when I cited what I hear from the extreme left.
To respond to your question, YES... I am here to discuss. As evidenced by ... um, me being here and discussing. :) I don't label all those that disagree with me as liberal extremists. I don't recall using that term to describe you, but my memory isn't perfect.
I haven't read your stuff lamenting the horrific attacks perpetrated against Israel, care to link?
"... and when Israel refuses to enter a U.N. brokered peace agreement..." - I suppose this goes back to my original question I posed to Rhonda (and which I see now that you've answered NO to in that post on her blog). Talking is great. Reformation better. Imprisonment a horrible, but necessary option. But when, I ponder in my own brain, does the discussion ... peaceful efforts ... etc ... END? For me, from a personal and individual perspective, I think I would resort to murder if I felt it my only option for survival. That is to say, I don't think it is the right thing to do in anger at the damage caused by somebody else if there is a better alternative. But if my enemy continues to attack me dispite my efforts at a more peaceful and less damaging response, at some point... I would pull the trigger so to speak.
Israel's relinquishing of the West Bank, their efforts to keep the Palestinian people a part of their community despite the attacks being supported by their corupt government, and the amazing amount of shown by Israel thusfar... all lead me to support her as she now tries to defend herself.
That said, I was and am shocked at the bombing of the UN outpost and await further info.
Somewhere, somebody mentioned bombing innocents ... like ambulances and humanitarian support vehicles. I belive that the terrorist organization purposefully hide themselves in those very locations to try to save themselves ... AND to make Israel (and the US) look bad when civilian casualties occur because of such strategy. The guerrilla war also has a very potent political angle that they work very effectively.
Case in point re: Guerilla warfare living among civi's
Heartbreaking.
Immediately, Israel called tragic and a mistake (as opposed to celebration that usually ensues after a successful Hezbollah attack on innocent Israelis).I am more angry at Hezbollah for stationing their rocket launchers next to this building holding innocents and disabled than I am at Israel for launching the attack. I believe Israel is defending herself, and made reasonable efforst (by way of flyer distributions and notcies) that the area would be under attack and should be vacated (though obviously, in case of disabled individuals they may not have been able to vacate).
Why does Hezbollah risk the lives of its own population by stationing their military amongst the general population? Because they are willing to sacrafice the lives of their own to fuel their cause.
A horribly sad and tragic thing. But I believe the blood remains on the hands of the extremest religious groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
King Miroslav,
I totally agree with you. I heard a great quote (i'll try not to butcher it):
What would happen if Hezbollah/Hamas/Al Queda (and every other terrorist group for that matter) disarmed?
-There would be peace in the Middle East-
What would happen if Israel threw her weapons into the sea?
Israel would be exterminated.
No question about it.
Here is a great article from Dennis Prager I thought would be enlightening:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2006/07/25/israels_war_separates_the_decent_left_from_the_indecent_left
Check it out.
Crap...the address didn't come through very well. If folks go to:
http://www.dennisprager.com/
and then click on 'WRITTEN BY DENNIS', and then 'WEEKLY COLUMN', it will be the most recent article: July 25th's
Eireann,
Just my two cents...
First Cent - Your quote "Israel has caused far more civilian damage against Lebanese than vice-versa." I would submit to you that the way these cowards fight, hiding among civilians, has caused the civilian damage.
Check out:
"Photos that damn Hezbollah"
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html
Second Cent - My quote "The UN sucks!"
Dashboard,
Great article.
RB,
Agreed 100% on the first point.
I need to brush up on my knowledge on the UN before I can agree as boldly on the second. I see some great things out of the UN, and some really stupid things also. I admit a certain level of ignorance re: the UN as a whole.
George,
Good info. I like the reference to Vietnam.
Just this morning I was reading (in TIME I think) about the My Lai Massacre that occured in Vietname during the war and the similar circumstances underwhich our forces (and the Israeli forces) are fighting under today. My Lai was horrible. Just utterly ugly and disgusting.
When similar tactics are used by the guerrilla fighters in Iraq, the Hezbollah, and the Hamas... we can be SURE that similar horrendous events will take place.
The soldiers who went so far as to take their rage out on the villagers of My Lai by raping the women and slaughtering toddlers who were too young to harm anybody... should have been prosecuted to the utmost. The blood from the remaining casualties of that day, and similar events today,rests on those underhanded guerrilla fighters who are WILLING TO RISK SUCH TRAGIC LOSS OF LIFE to advance their cause.
Miro & George,
O.K. so maybe instead of "sucks" I should have used the terms "scandal ridden, bureaucratic, and spineless". Yes, I know good has been done via U.N. peacekeepers but I think their $20 billion a year could be much better spent.
BTW-
More than four years after the 9/11 attacks, the U.N. has yet to agree on and adopt a definition of terrorism. Also, a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. personnel has yet to be implemented.
To me the U.N. is more corrupt than the Mexican government. My four cents now...
To get back on topic...
There is only one thing this enemy understands and that is violence. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are hell-bent on the total destruction of those that don't hold its views. Can you sit down and reason with that mentality? NO! You confront it! If that means bombing a neighborhood because the cowards are using its children for shields you do it. You call evil for what it is and you confront it where it is! Unfortunately it took us far to long to realize that during WWII.
BTW - Eireann I thought you were all for woman’s rights? Haven’t seen many things “pro-woman” with Hez and Ham, but maybe that’s another topic for ol’ Miro to post later…
George,
I think part of what makes defending Israel difficult is the lack of "proportion" in their response.
"This kind of focus on Israel's actions distorts the facts of the conflict. How about a proportional response from the critics of Israel?"
We all understand that this conflict did not start with the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. But that is what is being purported by the Israeli's and the media. Wouldn't you say that blowing up the southern half of the country of Lebanon is a little harsh in retaliation to an abduction?
MJB
The ideology of radical Islam is world domination...starting with the total destruction of Israel.
You are right in saying that the conflict did not start with the abduction. It started with the enemies of Israel stating over and over again, that they would never acknowledge Israel's right to exsist, nor would they ever give up on allowing one inch of Israel to remain inhabited by Jews.
When cancer has attacked a body, it must all be removed. Not some of it, not most of it...all of it. Sometimes vital organs are damaged in saving the body.
Sin and wickedness sucks.
Check out the Hamas Charter (and remember that they were voted into power based on it! Translated into english at:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Hezbollah follows the exact same radical Islamic idiology and CNN is reporting that as high as 70% of the Lebanese population supports them.
For more info on the agenda of radical Islam, you must watch the DVD: "Obsession" (google it)
Anonymous,
Please stop with the "proportionate response" crap. It's tired. I just happened to blog about it myself on July 31st (shameless plug!). I will give you this quote that is in my blog post. Hear the words of Charles Krauthammer about a "proportionate response":
The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is ``disproportionate," as in the universally decried ``disproportionate Israeli response."
When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel ``proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a cinder, and turned the Japanese home islands to rubble and ruin. Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.
Britain was never invaded by Germany in World War II. Did it respond to the blitz and V-1 and V-2 rockets with ``proportionate" aerial bombardment of Germany? Of course not. Churchill orchestrated the greatest land invasion in history that flattened and utterly destroyed Germany, killing untold innocent German women and children in the process.
Woot!
Great comments Vito and Chanman! I was just trying to come up with that same stuff myself... but you've done a much better job than I would have. Thank you!
The Six Day War? You mean the one where Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq all ganged up on Israel in yet another attempt to annihilate the tiny little island of Judaism (and democracy) in a sea of Islam (and totalitarianism)?
So are you telling me that Jews have only been in Israel for 57 years? That's news to me. You might want to re-read the Old Testament (or have you ever heard of it?). I don't have time to give you the complete history lesson, but the Jews have been in that land for thousands of years. The Romans finally kicked them out around 70 A.D. and the Jews were flung all over the world. Around the 1870s, they began streaming back into what is now the country of Israel because it was such a God-forsaken place that not even the Arabs wanted to live there. Like a dog in the manger, the Arabs only regained their interest in this land when the Jews returned to it. The Jews didn't just *appear* out of nowhere in June 1948 when the modern state of Israel was created; they had settled that land a long long time ago.
So you give me one incidence of atrocity on the part of Israeli soldiers; this massacre of Palestinians. I have heard of the Irgun, and yes they were classified as a terrorist organization that operated during the time of the founding of Israel in the 1940s, and killed Palestinians. Should I denounce the entire country of the United States because we killed German and Japanese POWs during World War II and massacred up to 400 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. If you take isolated incidents from any war, you can paint any side as the bad guy. You need to remember the overall strategy of the two sides. Israel wishes to live in peace with its neighbors. In 2000, they gave Arafat just about everything he asked for, but he turned it down and walked away from Oslo and started the Intifada; unleashing dozens of suicide bombers on Israelis (and Palestinians living in Israel - they rode those buses too). The Israelis gave up Gaza, and all the Palestinians did was turn it into a base for rocket attacks into Israel. Every peace overture the Israelis make is met with increased violence, and when the Israelis attempt to defend themselves from this violence, they are condemned and vilified by myopic people like yourself, who try to find a moral equivalence between the aggression of the Arabs, and the defensive posture of the Israelis. William F. Buckley has a great explanation for moral equivalence, wanna hear it? He said,
"Moral equivalence is saying that pushing an old lady out of the way of on oncoming bus is just as bad as pushing an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus, because either way, you are pushing old ladies around." Now let's try your version:
Israel's attempts to defend itself from annihilation are just as bad as the Arabs' attempts to annihilate Israel, because either way, both sides are committing violence.
Go back to school...
A history lesson:
The Middle East conflict is difficult to solve, but it is among the simplest conflicts in history to understand.
The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary.
Those who deny this and ascribe the conflict to other reasons, such as "Israeli occupation," "Jewish settlements," a "cycle of violence," "the Zionist lobby" and the like, do so despite the fact that Israel's enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict. The Iranian regime, Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians -- in their public opinion polls, in their anti-Semitic school curricula and media, in their election of Hamas, in their support for terror against Israeli civilians in pre-1967 borders -- as well as their Muslim supporters around the world, all want the Jewish state annihilated.
In 1947-48, the Arab states tried to destroy the tiny Jewish state formed by the United Nations partition plan. In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to destroy Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War. All of this took place before Israel occupied one millimeter of Palestinian land and before there was a single Jewish settler in the West Bank.
Two months after the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, the Arab countries convened in Khartoum, Sudan, and announced on Sept. 1, 1967, their famous "Three NOs" to Israel: "No peace, No recognition, No negotiations."
Six years later, in 1973, Egypt invaded the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula, a war that ended in a boost in Egyptian morale from its initially successful surprise attack. Though nearly all of the Sinai remained in Israel's hands, the boost in Egyptian self-confidence enabled Egypt's visionary president, Anwar Sadat, four years later (November 1977), to do the unimaginable for an Arab leader: He visited Israel and addressed its parliament in Jerusalem. As a result, in 1978, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in return for which Israel gave all of the oil-rich Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.
Three years later, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslims, a killing welcomed by most Arabs, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Why welcomed? Because Sadat had done the unforgivable -- recognized Israel and made peace with it.
The lesson that Palestinians should have learned from the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was that if you make peace with Israel, you will not only get peace in return, you will also get all or nearly all of your land back. That is how much Israelis ache for peace.
Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docile.
As a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today."
Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land.
Which is exactly what Israel agreed to do in the last year of the Clinton administration. It offered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat about 97 percent of the West Bank and three percent of Israel's land in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel got its men, women and children routinely blown up and maimed by Palestinian terrorists after the Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David. Even President Clinton, desirous of being the honest broker and yearning to be history's Middle East peacemaker, blamed the ensuing violence entirely on the Palestinians.
Israel's Camp David offer of a Palestinian state for Palestinian peace was rejected because most Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters don't want a second state. They want Israel destroyed. They admit it. Only those who wish Israel's demise and the willfully naive do not.
If you don't believe this, ask almost anyone living in the Middle East why there is a Middle East War, preferably in Arabic. If you ask in English, they will assume you are either an academic, a Western news reporter, a diplomat or a "peace activist." And then, they will assume you are gullible and will tell you that it's because of "Israeli occupation" or "the Zionist lobby."
But they know it isn't. And it never was.
This article was not written by Dashboard but Dashboard wishes he did!
Dennis Prager did:
http://www.dennisprager.com/column.html
(the July 18th, 2006 article)
I must get in in on correcting MJB's understanding of history:
THE 1967 WAR
In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent.
On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957.
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.
The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis.
On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal.
In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.
The U.S., however, gained little support in the international community for its idea of a maritime force that would compel Egypt to open the waterway and it abandoned its diplomatic efforts in this regard.
On May 30, President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed on June 4 by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad. Also that week, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.
Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.
Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.
Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria.
The war ended on June 10.
Click here fore more info...
Victor
From a Lebanese Website:
Disabled children placed inside building
"We have it from a credible source that Hizbullah, alarmed by Siniora's plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations.
Knowing full well that Israel will not hesitate to bombard civilian targets, Hizbullah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the negotiation initiative," the site stated.
Read more about ithere.
Yeah, that article is not the first to suggest a fraud: another one here.
Personally, I won't believe it was intentional or fraudulent until its proven.
Until then, I still place the blame on the Hezbollah who continue to fight their battles using civilians for camo.
Post a Comment
<< Home