"If Israel comes out victorious from this conflict, this will be a victory for the Sunnis"

[mawilson 2,133]

How does Israel or anyone else tell those people apart from the people they are 'really' trying to kill?

You can usually tell -- a disgruntled neighbour wouldn't have Iranian Fajr missiles in his backyard.

[jordanianprincess 0]

jordanianprincess,

(BTW do you have a shorter name? )

Just wanted to ask you -- have you ever been to Israel?

People call me JP Never been to Israel, been to it's neighbor, Jordan.

How does Israel or anyone else tell those people apart from the people they are 'really' trying to kill?

You can usually tell -- a disgruntled neighbour wouldn't have Iranian Fajr missiles in his backyard.

This to me is the most interesting question, seriously, how do they distinguish?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does Israel or anyone else tell those people apart from the people they are 'really' trying to kill?

You can usually tell -- a disgruntled neighbour wouldn't have Iranian Fajr missiles in his backyard.

What I'm saying is from the sake of appearances one guy with a gun is pretty much the same as any other, despite the fact that they may have different motivations and affiliations. Obviously someone will say that 'turning terrorist' is the justification for whatever they get, but personally I'd find it hard to equate a grieving relative / group of generally militant villagers with the likes of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

This is why violence only ends up propagating more of the same. And its also why ultimately diplomacy will achieve far more than escalating firepower.

Edited August 1, 2006 by erekose

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is why violence only ends up propagating more of the same. And its also why ultimately diplomacy will achieve far more than escalating firepower.

It is a widely accepted belief that when entering negotiations (i.e. diplomacy), it helps to be the one with the upper hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is why violence only ends up propagating more of the same. And its also why ultimately diplomacy will achieve far more than escalating firepower.

It is a widely accepted belief that when entering negotiations (i.e. diplomacy), it helps to be the one with the upper hand.

True enough. But indiscriminate murder and 'collateral' damage isn't really going to do much to change entrenched religiosity.

Israel already holds the upper hand - they are the dominant military power in the region.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Israel already holds the upper hand - they are the dominant military power in the region.

Conventionally, sure. But do they dominate in a way that makes a difference in battle against an organized and well-trained militia such as Hizballah? I have my doubts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Israel already holds the upper hand - they are the dominant military power in the region.

Conventionally, sure. But do they dominate in a way that makes a difference in battle against an organized and well-trained militia such as Hizballah? I have my doubts.

The question is are they prepared to entangle their military into a long and bloody ground assault... I agree its doubtful.

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery (with an equivalent cost of and disregard of the loss of civilian lives).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery ...

... without seeming to make a dent on Hizballah's ability to fight back. That's the real problem. Flattened towns and dead civilians come with the territory in war but they're only useful when they impact the ability of the enemy to fight back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery ...

... without seeming to make a dent on Hizballah's ability to fight back. That's the real problem. Flattened towns and dead civilians come with the territory in war but they're only useful when they impact the ability of the enemy to fight back.

While the deaths only increase underlying resentments. Much as I sympathise with them, Israel have allowed themselves to be manipulated into this position.

[mawilson 2,133]

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery (with an equivalent cost of and disregard of the loss of civilian lives).

As far as Israel is concerned, there are no civilians in Southern Lebanon. All civilians

should have left by now.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery (with an equivalent cost of and disregard of the loss of civilian lives).

As far as Israel is concerned, there are no civilians in Southern Lebanon. All civilians

should have left by now.

Back in the day when wars were decisively won and lost (that doesn't seem to happen these days), were we as squeamish about hitting civilians?

There is a school of thought that with todays sensitivity to civilian casualties, a well-armed and well-organized guerilla group that uses civilian populations as its cover simply can not be beaten. Do you buy that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They've certainly proved they can flatten entire towns with planes and artillery (with an equivalent cost of and disregard of the loss of civilian lives).

As far as Israel is concerned, there are no civilians in Southern Lebanon. All civilians

should have left by now.

I've lost count of the number of times someone doesn't do something they should have. Its human nature.

I think that the reality is that Israel doesn't know who or where Hezbollahs people are - essentially because its not exactly a uniformed regular army. I can see why they destroyed all the major transportation routes - stop the movement of arms, but also to stop the movement of people. That says to me that they consider everyone in Southern Lebanon "fair game".

Edited August 1, 2006 by erekose

[mawilson 2,133]

There is a school of thought that with todays sensitivity to civilian casualties, a well-armed and well-organized guerilla group that uses civilian populations as its cover simply can not be beaten. Do you buy that?

Interesting theory. I think they should suppress the details of civilian casualties,

like the Pentagon did in Iraq. How is it that everyone knows exactly how many

civilians died in Lebanon, but no-one has an exact figure for Iraq? 10,000? 100,000?

No-one really knows. Unfortunately Israel is always under the microscope so they

can't get away with the same things America can, but they should work on that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There is a school of thought that with todays sensitivity to civilian casualties, a well-armed and well-organized guerilla group that uses civilian populations as its cover simply can not be beaten. Do you buy that?

Interesting theory. I think they should suppress the details of civilian casualties,

like the Pentagon did in Iraq. How is it that everyone knows exactly how many

civilians died in Lebanon, but no-one has an exact figure for Iraq? 10,000? 100,000?

No-one really knows. Unfortunately Israel is always under the microscope so they

can't get away with the same things America can, but they should work on that.

Way too much info comes out of Iraq. Give the media -zero- visibility during war, propogandise till you run out of propoganda funding, win the damn war and then write your own history. That's always how it's been done and that's always how it's been won.

[mawilson 2,133]

Way too much info comes out of Iraq. Give the media -zero- visibility during war, propogandise till you run out of propoganda funding, win the damn war and then write your own history. That's always how it's been done and that's always how it's been won.

s/Iraq/Lebanon/g?