So, what is the difference....

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

tw--you say Hez'bllh 'assumed Israel would do what it always did when Hzbl kidnapped Israeli soldiers--trade. How fucking stupid do you have to be to ASSUME your mortal enemy will do such and such?

Obviously you are using the word fucking because you did not learn before posting. Hezbollah had previously kidnapped Israeli soldiers and traded then for Israeli prisioners. Why don't you know this fact?

When reports say that no one expected this minor event to escalate so violently, did you first ask what they meant? Kidnapping soldiers and trading for prisioners was even conducted when Sharon was Prime Minister. Cheney types hope you never learn details; only make blanket assumptions such as

How fucking stupid do you have to be to ASSUME your mortal enemy will do such and such?

It is how they got so many to believe bin Laden and Saddam were allies.

First learn reality before posting obscene assumptions. Without such background, then others can paint this entire Middle East fiasco in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil' propaganda.

[Ibby]

I think her point is, if theyre your motal enemies and youve both committed to the destruction of eachother, don't assume you know what they will do.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by tw

Obviously you are using the word fucking because you did not learn before posting. Hezbollah had perviously kidnapped Israeli soldiers and traded then for Israeli prisioners. Why don't you know this fact?

tw, are you obtuse on purpose? I said that it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers. Couldn't Israel, perhaps, crazily, react in a DIFFERENT, UNFORESEEN way? Or, are they somehow bound to react the same way to repeated provocative behaviors?

As for using 'fucking', I'm a big girl and can use whatever words I like. Has nothing to do with learning.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

tw, are you obtuse on purpose? I said that it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers.

If Israel did the same thing so many times previously AND a more hardliner extremist Prime Minister repeatedly did same, then why would some little Hezbollah unit not think it was safe? Do you think some master tactician in Hezbollah authorized the kidnapping? Of course not. Do people do things assuming the 'double zero' does not occur on the roulette wheel? Repeatedly.

But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved. Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.

Hopefully others in the region have a better grasp of reality since clearly the current Israeli administration is 'shooting in the dark' and our own president is obviously promoting pre-emption.

Excessive and unnecessary use of irrelevant adjacetives (and fucking provides no useful context) suggests an intelligence level unbecoming of Cellar Dwellars. Clearly and in hindsight, they made a stupid mistake. They never made a 'fucking stupid' mistake. They took a calculated risk that was justified by historical precedents and statistical averages. The emotional instead assume irrational and uneducated speculation: "fucking stupid". Being 'big' or being a 'girl' has no relationship to a grasp of reality.

[Trilby]

[quote=tw]
But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.[quote]

You have this proof, yes?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think her point is, if theyre your motal enemies and youve both committed to the destruction of eachother, don't assume you know what they will do.

Welcome to the Middle East where wackos become leaders, where assassinations of those who would promote peace are routine, where some assume democracy will solve all, where so many assume everything in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil', and where the words of Kahlil Gibran - concept so standard elsewhere - were promoted as a revelation. Every action is nothing more than a crap shoot. Hopefully the region can find enough stable people to keep another Lebanon Civil War, et al from occurring.

Even a once stabilizing force - the United States - is instead trying to destabilize the entire region with final (military) crusades. There is no reasonable solution. Everything in the Middle East is becoming a game of roulette when even the 800 pound gorilla advocates pre-emption.

[Trilby]

Where's the proof that word came from Washington to Israel to use the 'final solution' as you put it-? Only a child would ignore this question.

[tw]

[quote=Brianna]

Originally Posted by tw

But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.

You have this proof, yes?

Why did the Prime Minister of Lebanon give his speech in English? I have been posting reason after reason. I will not repost everything that was not read. Meanwhile, why do you think Condi Rice refused to call for a ceasefire when virtually every other nation in the world demands same? Does the term 'Cheney Doctrine' sound familiar?

Same strategic objectives that promoted a "Mission Accomplished" war apply. Show me one example where the US even tried to stop this war? You cannot. In direct opposition to world demands, the US said, in diplomatic terms, "Battle on and wipe out Hezbollah". Again you would have to be daft to not see what the entire world sees. Only the naive actually believed an international peace force of sufficient size could be created.

This is not the same United States that once restricted what weapons the Israelis could use in such forays. This is not a United States that maintained world stability using containment. This is now a United States that advocates military solutions - pre-emption. This is no longer a United States that views the world as many different parties with different perspectives. We now have a government that sees everything in 'good verses evil'. Even the president says god tells him what to do.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - even though religious intolerance and 'good verses evil' mentalities made it necessary. Here we are again with a government that advocated 'final' solutions rather than negotiated ones.

The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.

[Undertoad]

Meanwhile, why do you think Condi Rice refused to call for a ceasefire when virtually every other nation in the world demands same?

Because every other nation in the world can only demand it while Rice actually has to produce it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Because every other nation in the world can only demand it while Rice actually has to produce it.

Condi Rice did what is necessary to obstruct a ceasefire. Does the English speech from the Lebanese Prime Minister mean nothing? He was saying who was obstructing a ceasefire - Condi Rice and America. He was talking to you (et al).

[MaggieL]

For some reason there was not a lot of calls for a ceasefire when Hezbullah were the only ones firing. Go figure.

I'm expecting that if any of the people whining about "proportional response" are ever mugged by a one-armed man, they will fight back honorably by keeping one hand behind their back.

[Undertoad]

Why did the Prime Minister of Lebanon give his speech in English? I have been posting reason after reason.

Not really dude. You've been posting your usual "the answer is left as an exercise for the reader" riddles, which are intended to demonstrate that you are smarter than everyone else without actually having to, you know, present your actual argument.

I don't put much stock in what Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has to say. He has an impossible task. Lebanon is made up of many different parts and keeping it together is hard. And his first goal will be to preserve his own head. Hez's power play is not solely directed towards the south. Previous PMs have been assassinated, it's figured to be via Syria.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Not really dude. You've been posting your usual "the answer is left as an exercise for the reader" riddles, which are intended to demonstrate that you are smarter than everyone else without actually having to, you know, present your actual argument.

What part of "don't come back until you (Condi Rice) call for a ceasefire" (not an exact quote) did you not understand? Where was the riddle? What part of that statement that he made in English did you not understand? How much more blunt need he get before you realize who is obstructing a ceasefire?

Apparently you call riddles what is published fact. How blunt must the prime minister of Lebanon be before you will acknowledge that reality?

[Undertoad]

So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?

That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words. His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?