Page 1 of 2
Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:25 pm
by Gman
Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:36 pm
by FFC
Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Mission accomplished? Sounds familiar.
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:14 pm
by August
Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Exactly right, what does winning mean? How sick to rejoice in the killing of other humans. In some cases it is justified, but should never be regarded as an opportunity for celebration.
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:58 pm
by Byblos
August wrote:Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Exactly right, what does winning mean? How sick to rejoice in the killing of other humans. In some cases it is justified, but should never be regarded as an opportunity for celebration.
Who remembers Yasser Arafat and his V for victory sign every time he's driven out of somewhere? It's a typical and expected reaction, they get their butts wipped then declare victory. Countless innocent lives lost on both sides and he's on TV smiling and assuring
his people that he'll provide for room and board for a year.
But the situation is extremely delicate at this juncture and we must tread (with him) very carefully. There's a one in a million chance for lasting peace but it's there nonetheless; it must be seized. Let's hope for the best.
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:35 pm
by Jac3510
August wrote:Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Exactly right, what does winning mean? How sick to rejoice in the killing of other humans. In some cases it is justified, but should never be regarded as an opportunity for celebration.
Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but wouldn't "winning" be "the accomplishment of one's goals"? There are rarely 100% winners. Nobody gets everything they want . . . thus, compromise and all of that. So, the question is, what goals are you willing to compromise (lose) on, and to what degree?
It seems to me that Israel will have won if Hezbollah ceases to function as a state within a state, as that was their primary objective. However, I personally doubt it will happen, and to that extent, Hezbollah's objective seemed to be nothing more than shear resistance. To that extent, if they maintain their presence, then they can properly be considered the winners. And whose fault is that? Israel's, because they bowed to international pressure.
No one likes killing or death, especially not of "innocent civillians." But and however, both Israel and America need to wake up to the fact that we are in a
religious war whether we like it or not. The issue here is whose God is stronger. In the end, our God will be vindicated, despite however the circumstances may appear at any given time. But, so far as the current crisis goes - on a broader scale, and even with reference to Lebanon - the issue is nothing less than religious ideology. The enemy is Islam.
I certainly don't rejoice in the killing of any human being. But, there are far worse things than the shedding of blood, and if the price we must pay for freedom and victory is one of blood, then it is a price we should be willing to pay - and pay gladly.
As an aside, I suspect you agree with me on most of this? I feel very much for the people who have lost loved ones, and peace would be a wonderful thing, if it were attainable. I'm just saying that no "peace" will ever exist so long as Islam is allowed to thrive. It is built on the notion of the destruction of Israel. How can you have peace with someone who lives for your death? It's them or us. I choose us.
God bless
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:01 pm
by Byblos
Jac3510 wrote:August wrote:Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Exactly right, what does winning mean? How sick to rejoice in the killing of other humans. In some cases it is justified, but should never be regarded as an opportunity for celebration.
Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but wouldn't "winning" be "the accomplishment of one's goals"? There are rarely 100% winners. Nobody gets everything they want . . . thus, compromise and all of that. So, the question is, what goals are you willing to compromise (lose) on, and to what degree?
It seems to me that Israel will have won if Hezbollah ceases to function as a state within a state, as that was their primary objective. However, I personally doubt it will happen, and to that extent, Hezbollah's objective seemed to be nothing more than shear resistance. To that extent, if they maintain their presence, then they can properly be considered the winners. And whose fault is that? Israel's, because they bowed to international pressure.
No one likes killing or death, especially not of "innocent civillians." But and however, both Israel and America need to wake up to the fact that we are in a
religious war whether we like it or not. The issue here is whose God is stronger. In the end, our God will be vindicated, despite however the circumstances may appear at any given time. But, so far as the current crisis goes - on a broader scale, and even with reference to Lebanon - the issue is nothing less than religious ideology. The enemy is Islam.
I certainly don't rejoice in the killing of any human being. But, there are far worse things than the shedding of blood, and if the price we must pay for freedom and victory is one of blood, then it is a price we should be willing to pay - and pay gladly.
As an aside, I suspect you agree with me on most of this? I feel very much for the people who have lost loved ones, and peace would be a wonderful thing, if it were attainable. I'm just saying that no "peace" will ever exist so long as Islam is allowed to thrive. It is built on the notion of the destruction of Israel. How can you have peace with someone who lives for your death? It's them or us. I choose us.
God bless
Jac, I agree with pretty much everything you've said with the possible exception that Islam in general is the enemy. I think it is Islamic fundamentalism that's the enemy, or any other form of fundamentalism for that matter. In Lebanon along with most Christians, the Muslem majority (Sunnis & Druse) want peace and want to see Hezbollah disarmed. Like I said, it's a one in a million chance but I think it's doable. Otherwise the future is grim at best. My prediction is Hezbollah will have no choice but to give up its arms when the reasons it claims for its existence are taken away. I.e. full Israeli pullout, prisoner exchange, and putting the Shebaa farms (disputed land still occupied by Israel) under U.N. control. I see it happening by the end of next year (when the current president's illegally extended term ends). Either that or we're back to another full scale war.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:26 pm
by Jac3510
I thought pretty heavily about whether or not to qualify "The enemy is Islam" with something like "The enemy is fundamentalist Islam." In the end I decided not to for one simple reason: fundamentalist Muslims are actually
practicing Islam. The moderate to liberal Muslims you are talking about aren't practicing their faith for their own reasons. What they have is, in reality, a separate religion.
But, even outside of this, how much outcry do you see in the "moderate Muslim" world over the actions of the fundamentalists? Are you aware that the Council for American Islamic Relations recently
lambasted Bush for saying we were at war with "Islamic fascists"? Their executive director took issue with the Islamic fascism label, saying "We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism." (
link)
As long as these "moderates" stand by and do nothing, they implicate themselves. When they stand up and condemn groups like Hezbollah, not simply for terrorist actions but rather for their
ideology, THEN we can say that Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy. Until then, I can see what you are saying, and in large part, I agree. But at the core, the absolute foundation of the issue, it's Islam itself. Note that I am not saying that
Muslims are the enemy. I am saying Islam - the religion, the ideology - is. It has to be crushed.
The sad part is that it will not be. Western culture is too politically correct to come out and say that Allah is a lie and then prove it. Ancient civilization didn't have this problem. They knew that in destroying the enemies gods you effectively destroyed the people's morale. Until an all out assault is launched on the ideology, through both the pen and the sword, the peace that you and I long to see will never come.
You and your family are in my prayers.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:53 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote:As long as these "moderates" stand by and do nothing, they implicate themselves. When they stand up and condemn groups like Hezbollah, not simply for terrorist actions but rather for their ideology, THEN we can say that Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy. Until then, I can see what you are saying, and in large part, I agree. But at the core, the absolute foundation of the issue, it's Islam itself. Note that I am not saying that Muslims are the enemy. I am saying Islam - the religion, the ideology - is. It has to be crushed.
Jac, I fully agree with you that the Islam ideology should be either crushed or cut away like a cancer (we may actually agree on something here)... It's a tough call however on these moderate Muslims though. These secular or moderate Muslims are a good description of most Muslims all over the world. They believe in the nice parts of Islam, but they reject the call to jihad (or have a different understanding of it). It looks like the best way (what I think you are saying also) is to attack the ideology itself and not the people.... Unless, of course, you have to defend yourself... Perhaps we need to identify the root of the problem here. And that is the Islam ideology..
Some of these bombing suspects of the UK airport were recent converts to Islam... Which, I think, points directly to the Quran ideology as well.
To convert them over though (the one's that have been there awhile)... You would have to strip away years and years of tradition...
G -
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:35 pm
by August
Jac3510 wrote:August wrote:Gman wrote:Huh? Complete with fireworks too..
I don't think anyone really "won" here.. Who really cares who may have won? Is this a video game or something? Innocent people died on both sides of this terrible conflict..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_ ... srael_1097
Exactly right, what does winning mean? How sick to rejoice in the killing of other humans. In some cases it is justified, but should never be regarded as an opportunity for celebration.
Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but wouldn't "winning" be "the accomplishment of one's goals"? There are rarely 100% winners. Nobody gets everything they want . . . thus, compromise and all of that. So, the question is, what goals are you willing to compromise (lose) on, and to what degree?
It seems to me that Israel will have won if Hezbollah ceases to function as a state within a state, as that was their primary objective. However, I personally doubt it will happen, and to that extent, Hezbollah's objective seemed to be nothing more than shear resistance. To that extent, if they maintain their presence, then they can properly be considered the winners. And whose fault is that? Israel's, because they bowed to international pressure.
No one likes killing or death, especially not of "innocent civillians." But and however, both Israel and America need to wake up to the fact that we are in a
religious war whether we like it or not. The issue here is whose God is stronger. In the end, our God will be vindicated, despite however the circumstances may appear at any given time. But, so far as the current crisis goes - on a broader scale, and even with reference to Lebanon - the issue is nothing less than religious ideology. The enemy is Islam.
I certainly don't rejoice in the killing of any human being. But, there are far worse things than the shedding of blood, and if the price we must pay for freedom and victory is one of blood, then it is a price we should be willing to pay - and pay gladly.
As an aside, I suspect you agree with me on most of this? I feel very much for the people who have lost loved ones, and peace would be a wonderful thing, if it were attainable. I'm just saying that no "peace" will ever exist so long as Islam is allowed to thrive. It is built on the notion of the destruction of Israel. How can you have peace with someone who lives for your death? It's them or us. I choose us.
God bless
Yes, I agree. I guess what frustrates me is that I have fought my wars too, and I am currently counselling two people who are dealing with the aftermath of war, and I get a bit agitated when it is taken lightly. War destroys people, afterwards we may say that there are winners and losers. In my opinion, there are just the dead and alive. I don't want to overdramatize it, but unless you have been in combat, especially among innocent citizens, and experienced it, you cannot really understand it.
I do believe that war is justified in some cases, and most definitely to defend our freedom. And I also agree that we are in a most serious war, and that there won't be any peace until the hateful radical Islam cult is destroyed. It is sad and unfortunate, but it is one of those cases where blood will have to buy freedom.
It also raises another set of questions, how should wars be fought? Can you achieve your goals without disproportionate response? Would the Alleids have "won" in WW2 had they not bombed civilians in Germany and Japan? Where does that approach lead us in the WOT? What is the alternative, is it the limited engagement policy currently being followed, and can that lead to ensuring the safety of those opposed to radical Islam?
Re: Hezbollah claims victory
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:20 pm
by Gman
August wrote:
I do believe that war is justified in some cases, and most definitely to defend our freedom. And I also agree that we are in a most serious war, and that there won't be any peace until the hateful radical Islam cult is destroyed. It is sad and unfortunate, but it is one of those cases where blood will have to buy freedom.
It also raises another set of questions, how should wars be fought? Can you achieve your goals without disproportionate response? Would the Alleids have "won" in WW2 had they not bombed civilians in Germany and Japan? Where does that approach lead us in the WOT? What is the alternative, is it the limited engagement policy currently being followed, and can that lead to ensuring the safety of those opposed to radical Islam?
Very true August... Sadly, war is sometimes
forced on you. War may be imposed on you whether you like it or not.. I'm not sure how to answer this another way...
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:34 pm
by Gman
When it comes to these moderate secular Muslims, however, who don't pose any threat (hopefully), I don't know how we should address these people. Or should we even address them at all, or can we even address them?
G -
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:41 pm
by August
Gman wrote:When it comes to these moderate secular Muslims, however, who don't pose any threat (hopefully), I don't know how we should address these people. Or should we even address them at all, or can we even address them?
G -
They have to be part of the solution, otherwise they will become part of the problem.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:19 am
by Judah
I am with Jac all the way on this one.
Some folks may be interested in this article from the Metula News Agency,
The most hypocritical people on earth by Michael Béhé in Beirut.
Rather than quoting clips, I will let the whole essay speak for itself. Suffice to say, many in Lebanon have much for which to thank Israel in dealing with a common enemy, and much Islamic propaganda has given a false representation of how precisely Israel has done that.
As well as the tragedy of "collateral damage" on both sides, the victim in this conflict has been the truth - objective truth based on real evidence, not massaged to suit the agenda of one side over another.
August is right - the "moderate" Muslims must be part of the solution if they are not to be part of the problem. But how that is to be done is one huge conundrum.
As Jac says, the enemy is indeed Islam, the ideology as practiced in its true form. Islam is not an ideology that can be reformed or evolved to render certain parts benign and still remain true to itself. Islam is the will of Allah as voiced by Muhammad. It cannot be anything else and be Islam.
Sadly, this will not be the end of the conflict. Far from it.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:02 am
by Byblos
Judah wrote:I am with Jac all the way on this one.
Some folks may be interested in this article from the Metula News Agency,
The most hypocritical people on earth by Michael Béhé in Beirut.
Rather than quoting clips, I will let the whole essay speak for itself. Suffice to say, many in Lebanon have much for which to thank Israel in dealing with a common enemy, and much Islamic propaganda has given a false representation of how precisely Israel has done that.
As well as the tragedy of "collateral damage" on both sides, the victim in this conflict has been the truth - objective truth based on real evidence, not massaged to suit the agenda of one side over another.
August is right - the "moderate" Muslims must be part of the solution if they are not to be part of the problem. But how that is to be done is one huge conundrum.
As Jac says, the enemy is indeed Islam, the ideology as practiced in its true form. Islam is not an ideology that can be reformed or evolved to render certain parts benign and still remain true to itself. Islam is the will of Allah as voiced by Muhammad. It cannot be anything else and be Islam.
Sadly, this will not be the end of the conflict. Far from it.
Judah, thanks for the article link; most impressive. I've never heard of Michael Behe (the Lebanese Journalist) before but he was pouring my heart out. Let's see if the moderate Moslems in Lebanon will stay the course. The problem is that the fabric of political life in Lebanon is sectarian in nature and as such, is based on consensus rather than majority rule. Nothing happens unless all parties agree to it. Problems must always be resolved by compromise. That's our own version of democracy that's never been allowed to get off the ground and flourish, due first and foremost, to our own deficiencies. We are at a cross-roads; the coming weeks and months will prove either we deserve democracy (even the convoluted version we have) or Hezbollah's arms will turn towards its own countrymen. We've done it before (Christians stopping insidious foreign as well as domestic plans) and we'll do it again. Like Behe said in the article, we do have
natural allies.
God Bless,
Byblos.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:11 am
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Question: The UN forces do not have the mandate to actually keep the peace, correct? They can only wag their finger and say "naughty terrorists" correct?