Apparant Western Bias in regards to Terrorism

[Azadre]

Military analysts question Israeli bombing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_strategic_bombing

...
"What the Israelis are trying to do is pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the targeting of civilian infrastructure."
...

James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected.

"The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," he said.
...
Israel has also chosen to hit targets that the United States would probably reject, because of the danger of killing civilians, said Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon strategist now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

U.S. war planners realize their campaigns lose international and domestic support when innocents are killed, Flournoy said.
...
"The airports and bridges don't belong to Hezbollah," Alani said. "People may understand their (Israeli) reactions for the first few days. But world leaders will soon say 'we don't see any links between your attacks and the threat you face.'"

Does this event in our history serverly undermine the United State's credibility for terrorism? Will this effectively set a precendent for the rest of the world to follow (Turkey into Iraq)? Do you support terrorism?

 

[MobBoss]

So Isreal bombing the dog crap out of Lebanon undermines the USA's credibility? /boggle.

What do people think? We keep Isreal on a leash? I dont think they asked our permission to attack Lebanon.

Anyway, defending your country from attack is perfectly legal last I checked. If the Lebanese insist on letting Hezbollah use their nation as a base for attacks on Israel, then why the hell act so suprised when they retaliate?

 

[Masquerouge]

Anyway, defending your country from attack is perfectly legal last I checked. If the Lebanese insist on letting Hezbollah use their nation as a base for attacks on Israel, then why the hell act so suprised when they retaliate?

Maybe because Syria forces Lebanon to accept Hezbollah troops?

 

[Azadre]

So Isreal bombing the dog crap out of Lebanon undermines the USA's credibility? /boggle.

What do people think? We keep Isreal on a leash? I dont think they asked our permission to attack Lebanon.

Anyway, defending your country from attack is perfectly legal last I checked. If the Lebanese insist on letting Hezbollah use their nation as a base for attacks on Israel, then why the hell act so suprised when they retaliate?

It undermines it because we declared we would fight terrorism at every opportunity. If we let Israel continue unabated, then we become hypocrites.

Defending your country is perfectly legal, but attacking a sovereign nation is not. I realize Israel has never gave a damn about sovereign people and nations since its inception 58 years ago, but that's no excuse.

 

[Little Raven]

What do people think? We keep Isreal on a leash? I dont think they asked our permission to attack Lebanon.

People don't think that. They know that. For the same reason they know Iran has Hezbollah on a leash.

You can argue how strong the leash is. You can't deny it exists.

 

[amadeus]

We become hypocrites if we try to tell Israel that they can't fight "their" terrorists but we can fight "ours."

 

[atreas]

We become hypocrites if we try to tell Israel that they can't fight "their" terrorists but we can fight "ours."

That's exactly what the Turkish prime minister said when US forbid him to attack against "their" terrorists (i.e. Kurds). And, guess what, he accused US as hypocrites.

 

[Little Raven]

We tell Turkey that it can't fight theirs, and somehow manage to sleep at night.

 

[Azadre]

We become hypocrites if we try to tell Israel that they can't fight "their" terrorists but we can fight "ours."

But at the same time, we did not employe tactics that deliberately killed civilians. We never bombed Universities. We were never attacked Pakistan or Texas for its lack of action against terrorism. We were at war with the governments and the governments were at war with us. Lebanon is not at war with Israel, nor was it.

 

[Arminius]

But at the same time, we did not employe tactics that deliberately killed civilians. We never bombed Universities. We were never attacked Pakistan or Texas for its lack of action against terrorism. We were at war with the governments and the governments were at war with us. Lebanon is not at war with Israel, nor was it.

I agree. We can condemn their choice of targets without condemning the concept of fighting terrorists. Moreover, consider the dead: 312 in Lebanon, almost all Lebanese civiliains, versus 29 Israelis, mainly soldiers. How in the world does Israel defend a body count like that? How do you defend the fact that nearly everyone you have killed has been Lebanese, not Palestinian, and even fewer still Palestinian combatants? Especially when you are the cutting-edge military power and your opposite is K-Mart Killers that have managed to kill almost exclusively combatants?

 

[GinandTonic]

That's exactly what the Turkish prime minister said when US forbid him to attack against "their" terrorists (i.e. Kurds). And, guess what, he accused US as hypocrites.

Location = Greece + defending Turkey = Gin confused.

 

[Urederra]

I realize Israel has never gave a damn about sovereign people and nations since its inception 58 years ago, but that's no excuse.

That's why they still exist as a country.

If they were playing the "oh no, we are under attack and our buses full of people are exploding, but we cannot counter-attack because that wouldn't be cool" part, they would had ceased to exist long time ago.

 

[Yeeek]

If they were playing the "oh no, we are attacked and our buses full of people are exploding, but we cannot counter-attack because that wouldn't be cool" part, they had ceased to exist long time ago.

This is precisely where the problem lies, Israel in its current form (read borders) shouldn't even exist in the first place.

 

[Esox]

When GWBush made his speech in Congress in Spetember, 2001 he said that the US would go after terrorists "and the nations who harbor them." I don't think that sets national policy exactly, but it gives the commander-in-chief latitude. Latitude that could be exploited in a situation like the current one in Lebanon.

But I don't see the US going after civilian infrastructure as a military policy right now, and I don't see our government supporting much more of it from Israel, to be honest. I think there's going to come a point soon where Israel will be 'on their own' from a policy standpoint on this one.

 

[amadeus]

But at the same time, we did not employe tactics that deliberately killed civilians.

I don't believe that they are. What is Israel's incentive for bombing civilian areas?

We were at war with the governments and the governments were at war with us. Lebanon is not at war with Israel, nor was it.

One could argue that Afghanistan was not at war with us, either. Lebanon has a government that is permissive to terrorists operating within their borders, so it's their own fault.

 

[MobBoss]

People don't think that. They know that. For the same reason they know Iran has Hezbollah on a leash.

You can argue how strong the leash is. You can't deny it exists.

I sure as hell will deny it exists. A lot of Israelis want nothing to do with the USA simply because of that perception as well. Its a false perception...Israel will do whatever in the hell it thinks appropriate for Israel....but not at the command of the USA.

 

[Little Raven]

I sure as hell will deny it exists.

Then you're being silly. The leash exists for the same reason that Iran's leash on Hezbollah exists: Money.

Iran gives Hezbollah an estimated 100 million or so a year. So when Tehran calls, Nazrallah listens. He isn't as bought and paid for as some people think, but there's no denying that Iran exerts influence.

We give Israel 3 billion a year. We also give them a long leash. But it's a leash, make no mistake. No Israeli leader can afford to completely disregard Washington. They need their next emergency loan application to be granted.

If Israel wants to free herself from American influence, she can always stop taking our money.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lebanon has a government that is permissive to terrorists operating within their borders, so it's their own fault.

I kinda get your point, but I don't really think it's their fault. Just like it's not yours or your government's fault that you have drug dealers in your city. I would not be justified in attacking you in order to convince you to root out the drug industry, if I took the "War on Drugs" seriously.

The citizens are truely victims. They seem to have been made victims when Hizbollah hid amongst them, though 'tactical errors' are clearly the fault of the Israeli forces who make the mistakes.

 

[MobBoss]

Then you're being silly. The leash exists for the same reason that Iran's leash on Hezbollah exists: Money.

Iran gives Hezbollah an estimated 100 million or so a year. So when Tehran calls, Nazrallah listens. He isn't as bought and paid for as some people think, but there's no denying that Iran exerts influence.

We give Israel 3 billion a year. We also give them a long leash. But it's a leash, make no mistake. No Israeli leader can afford to completely disregard Washington. They need their next emergency loan application to be granted.

If Israel wants to free herself from American influence, she can always stop taking our money.

We give other nations a lot more money than we do Israel. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs Israel ranks 9th out of our top 10 recipients. Are you alleging that those in the top 10 are also on a leash? I think you would have a hard time making that arguement.

I dont think Israel is as "bought" as you think they are.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Then you're being silly. The leash exists for the same reason that Iran's leash on Hezbollah exists: Money.

Iran gives Hezbollah an estimated 100 million or so a year. So when Tehran calls, Nazrallah listens. He isn't as bought and paid for as some people think, but there's no denying that Iran exerts influence.

We give Israel 3 billion a year. We also give them a long leash. But it's a leash, make no mistake. No Israeli leader can afford to completely disregard Washington. They need their next emergency loan application to be granted.

If Israel wants to free herself from American influence, she can always stop taking our money.

Their D*** leash is long enough to reach to the sun and back if it exists at all. They care about our opinion only because they can rely on us to intervene (diplomatically if not militarily) if they cannot defend themselves. Ever heard the term "allies." Not "puppet state", but ally. Any leash is mutually held. We exert more pressure because we are big, but they aren't a US puppet.