Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You keep not mentioning these attacks. It's like you don't know about them, or they don't count, or something. Maybe it's a filtering problem on your part, or maybe it's your lousy biased sources.

Those missile attacks are a threat like aggressive drivers on a highway. Unguided missiles are not a 'smoking gun'. Apparently some confuse trivial threats as if these were massive 155 mm artillery attacks. Need I again cite hundreds of ships sunk off the US East Coast - and that still was not sufficient to justify war? Grasping this concept - the 'smoking gun' -remains elusive to UT.

Meanwhile, basis of a negotiated settlement is currently found in the Arab League's seven points that even include Sheeba Farms.

Peripherals such as Syria are relevant to those so biased as to see evil even in Syria. Syria has no camel in this conflict. If Syria was so evil, then so was the US for arming and financing the IRA in Britain? As soon as one says Iran and Syria are involved, then I know George Jr brainwashing has taken hold again.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel are victims here. Both are the only two combatants; both acting with 'big dic' mentalities. Victims are an innocent 90% of Lebanon who were outrightly attacked only because some Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. That was the action that turned daily 'face slapping' into a dangerous and undeclared war on innocent Lebanon civilians.

So why is Israel attacking Tripoli? Why has Israel attacked Tyre, Beirut, and Sidon - cities devoid of Hezbollah? My bias is against anyone driven blindly by their 'big dic' mentality. Only the morally bankrupt could justify attacks on innocent civilians in Beirut and Tripoli.

Which bring us to predictable bias. UT, when did you even cite Israel for doing wrong; being the aggressor; even arranging a massacre? Never. Your pro-Israeli bias has been excessively obvious and consistent. When Israel foolishly tries to solve problems with war, you encourage it. I am often appalled at your approval of violence as a solution for everything.

This Lebanon situation is a classic case. You even approve of intentionally aggressive and unjustified attacks on Lebanese - as if they are all evil. When did you criticize Israel for intentionally killing innocent Lebanese? I am so often appalled at your blind approval of anything Israel does when 50% of the time Israel is the reason for destruction of peace. In this case, Israel is so much the aggressor at to routinely kill innocent Lebanese - and declare that an attack on Hezbollah. To agree with them, in this case, is blatant bias; implies moral bankruptcy.

Even more embarrassing is that Israel's own government is so confused as to not even invade with ground troops. Instead Israel declared anyone in Lebanon as Hezbollah and attack everyone in Lebanon - including intentional attacks on well marked Red Cross ambulances. Not just Red Crescent. Israel also routinely attacks well marked Red Crosses. This because Israel does not have the balls to invade the border with ground troops - lose a few thousand soldiers attacking their only enemy.