Mr. Spencer,

While I couldn't agree more that Israel's intentions are good and in general it tends to act with more restraint and lawfulness than an outlaw terrorist organization like Hezbollah, that doesn't make the civilian casualties any less of a tragedy in this war.

When we hear the latest news reports of x number of civilians killed on either side, and x is greater than 1, a crime has been committed, whether it was meant to or not. Think about it... if all it took for peace in the Middle East was the death of one innocent, is that a price anyone would be willing to pay? And if so, who should make that decision? Members of Hezbollah or the Israeli government? How do we tell someone, "Your life is worth peace... so we're taking it."

I just don't see anymore how killing civilians (intentionally or not, on either side) is justifiable as a pretense for securing peace and safety for anyone.

Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 6:33 PM

"I just don't see anymore how killing civilians (intentionally or not, on either side) is justifiable as a pretense for securing peace and safety for anyone."
-- from a posting above

You mean Churchill's letting Bomber Harris bomb Holland in order to stop the V-2s raining down on Engalnd (1,359 of them, of which 518 fell on London -- not as many as the 2,300 missiles and rockets fired into Israel, but still a lot) was wrong? That the bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg was wrong? That the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo was wrong? Do you think war is ever justified? If you do, are you willing to concede that the conditions of modern warfare guarantee, without a doubt, civilian casualties. In the bombing of Holland to supress the V-2s, in just one of the mistakes by Allied airmen, justified of course by the conditions and the emplacement of those V-2s, , 500 Dutch civilians were killed. Do you know how many civilians in Allied countries Allied bombers killed? Do you care?

Are you aware of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban -- far more than the civilians who have died in Lebanon. Or in Iraq? Or for that matter how many Serbian civilians died not in order to rescue the West, but, apparently, to rescue Muslims from those Serbs all of whom were depicted in the blackest terms?

Israel, unlike the NATO bombers that bombed Serbia, or for that matter unlike many of the examples given above, faces a threat to its existence. It either deals with it or it doesn't. That threat comes from a group that is not a regular military force wearing identifiable garb, on identifiable fields of battle. Everywhere Hezbollah has dug its bunkers, and placed its missiles right under, or over, or beside, civilians, "civilians" whom in almost all cases are themselves Shi'a Muslims and many of whom support Hezbollah.

If you think, as you say you do, that you can't envisage any conceivable cause that woudld justifty resultant deaths of civilians, even if the civilians are those of the enemy and the numnbers killed would save the lives of many of your own (as happened with the bombings of
German and Japanese cities) then you are simply mad, and a security risk to the rest of us. If you cannot make the obvious distinction, either, beteen deliberate attacks on civilians -- every single one of those 2,300 missiles and rockets was sent off to somewhere in Israel, to hit whatever it could, that is to say not targetting military but only civilians, while the Israelis have again and again hobbled their own effectiveness, by again and again leafletting and even telephoning, for god's sake, every known telephone with a computer-generated program of dialing up, and then giving an Arabic-language warning to leave to avoid impending attacks -- if you cannot make that distinction, then I hope you are kept well away from the corridors of power, wherever they may be. I would hate to think of people like you making policy for the defense of the West, and of its citizens, if you think any civilian casualties vitiate the justice of a cause, or of a war.

My god.

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2006 6:45 PM

soloque-

Your (obviously) pacifist sentiments make most people sigh and say... "if only I could be as good as you."

I depise your idiotic pablum for infant minds. "Peace is Good". "Its Bad Killing People"... Gee, I never thought of that!

There is such a thing as moral intelligence and as in your case such a thing a moral idiocy.

I live in a college town and have been hearing people like you ad nauseum. You are not 'good' you are accomplices of evil. You are evil's secret weapon. I can smell your steaming pile of 'compassion' a block away - its called moral cowardice.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 5, 2006 6:54 PM

Perhaps there is something about that name "Orde" that guarantees a lucid moral intelligence. It would be pleasing to think so.

If you visit -- as you should wish to -- Arlington National Cemetery, you will find, engraved on a grayish grave-stone, along with the names of four or five other American and British officers, the name of Orde Wingate. Wingate, the celebrated unruly Wingate of Palestine, of Ethiopia, and then finally of Burma and of Wingate's Raiders, and the other officers and men all died when their plane went down in Burma during the war. At death their remains were mingled and became thereby forever inseparable, which explains their most uncommon, because common, grave, at Arlington. Worth a visit, as are so many other graves there, and so many cemeteries in so many places. But don't go to visit Orde Wingate's grave before finding out something about Orde Wingate.

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2006 7:09 PM

Yeah, I'm a pacifist alright. Way to slander and label me in an attempt to shield yourself from confronting the reality of what you preach.

I posited a simple conundrum at the end of my comment-- that killing innocent civilians as a pretense for security and peace is anti-thetical to the stated aims and is therefore non-sensical to me. From this, you have decided I am a pacifist, am against all war no matter what, and that I am now an accomplice for evil, despite the fact that I come to this site constantly in support of it's stated aim (to make people aware of the jihad threat and violent Muslim theological positions).

I've been watching this latest conflict closely, and I can't be the only one who has stopped and thought, "I wonder if Israel is doing itself any favors by killing non-Hezbollah fighters (whether Muslim or not, but especially the non-Muslims)." Certainly non-Muslims don't like Hezbollah, but they can't be big fans of Israel either if they lose family members as collateral damage in a bombing raid.

Or do they say, "I'm glad my child/father/mother/sister/brother could die for Israel's security" ? Let's be practical and reasonable here in analyzing the situation. I don't think I'm original or interesting for having a "pacifist" sentiment and thinking the world would be perfect if everyone thought like me, so please don't accuse me of such "moral idiocy" as you put it, because I am quite critical of people who think it's that easy myself.

And to answer your question, Mr. Fitzgerald, no I don't think the bombings of any civilian areas during WWII or any war for that matter are inconsequential or moral. My grandfather was a navigator on a B-24, I'm sure he was indirectly responsible for some of the carnage, but he wasn't responsible for deciding his targets, he was simply told what to do and had to do it. I don't blame him for that. I blame the government for choosing to force people into morally unteneable situations.

One last bit about this war... is it just about Israeli security or is it also about expanding state power? Not just Israel or America's, but Lebanon's, in the vain hope that the Lebanese government, which has so far shown itself to be incapable of controlling a political force like Hezbollah inside its borders, will now suddenly be able to reign them in and bring peace to that particular region. That's really pathetic to dream such dreams, and it is worrisome to imagine that some Israeli soldiers are giving their service and putting their lives on the line to "expand the power" of another state.

Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 7:14 PM

that killing innocent civilians as a pretense for security and peace is anti-thetical to the stated aims and is therefore non-sensical to me.

Israel does not target civilians. When it fires, it fires in self defence, and it does so to protect Israeli civilians. There is no pretense. If it does not defend itself, then it will be an accomplice to the murder of its own civilians. That is not only immoral, but it will have failed in its mandate to protect its own people, a mandate that every nation accepts as a given right.

And this does not even approach the issue of how innocent those civilians are. If they are Hizbollah supporters, then they are no longer innocent. I have learned that there are few actually innocent muslims. Almost to a one, they chant death to Israel, death to the infidels, even the children.

Islam indoctrinates its young with hatred so that everyone becomes a fighter for allah. And in that - they succeed. So, of all the wars ever fought, the war to protect Israel against its imperialist neighbors has the fewest number of actual "innocent" civilians.

Don't forget what one islamic talking head said awhile back. In islam, the word "civilian" does not exist. In islam, all are fighters.

Posted by: August22 at August 5, 2006 7:50 PM

The poster above now attempts to rewrite what he wrote. A vain attempt, because what he wrote remains visible, and the most important part is this:

"I just don't see anymore how killing civilians (intentionally or not, on either side) is justifiable as a pretense for securing peace and safety for anyone."

Why is the waging of war -- against Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or Hamas in Gaza, or Laskar-e-Toiba in Kashmir, or Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines, or for that matter the campaigns against the North Korean Communists, the Japanese militarists, the German Nazis, all of which have had civilian casualties, unavoidable for the Americans and NATO troops in Afghanistan, for the Americans, British, and other coalition troops in Iraq, given where the enemy hides and where he keeps his weaponry and often from where he fires on those troops -- made illegitimate by the fact of civilian casualties? And of course there were not hundreds of them, but hundreds of thousands of them, during the Korean War and during World War II. Would you have wanted the American and NATO forces in Korea to be limited to the scrupulosity of the Israelis in Lebanon? Would you have said that World War II was conducted illegitimately, a mere "pretense" for something else, becuase of the bombings of the home islands of Japan, or of so many cities, both German and those that were held by the Germans, that were subject to the carpet-bombing by Allied airmen (including a relative of mine, who took part in bombing Germany, and for his efforts won the Medal of Honor, and never regretted his actions for a minute). Of course those who are completely innocent are not happy about this. But just like the members of the Resistance in Denmark, or in Holland (at the moment I cannot remember) who insisted that the Allies not stop their bombing even for a minute, even though in a famous attempt to bomb the local Gestapo prison the Allied airmen bombed instead a hospital for children, killing many hundreds, those who are fighting Nazis or the kind of fanatics fighting for Kim Il Sung or Admiral Yamamoto, may have to be fought by raids that will inevitably kill civilians.

All one has a right to ask is that reasonable attempts be made to limit civliian casualties. By its precision bombing and constant warnings in advance, the Israeli military's performance withstands the most critical scrutiny, and certainly withstands comparison with any other armed forces in the world that have had to act in circumstances if not exactly as hellishly difficult, at least fairly so because the enemy has in every possible way blurred the distinction, in dress and manner and habitation, between civilian and fighter, as American officers and men have discovered, to their own outrage and sometimes sorrow, until they began to be a bit less solicitous of the locals, and a bit more solicitous of themselves, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. Even now, the rules of engagement strike me as ridiculously weighed in favor of a cruel enemy, and not nearly enough on the side of the American soldiers.

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2006 7:56 PM

August22,

I don't think we can condemn any Muslims as guilty simply because they harbor ill-feelings towards Israelis or anyone else. Only when they act on their feelings have they lost their innocence. Otherwise, we're persecuting people for thought-crimes, and everyone knows that's unreasonable. You don't support "hate crime" legislation because it's unreasonable to punish someone more than someone else who committed a similar crime, simply because they happen to feel a certain way about their victim, right? So how then has any Muslim person lost their innocence just because they decry Israel or other infidels (often in ignorance because they have been taught to do so from a very young age).

So now we're going to persecute someone just because they're a Muslim? How do we know what's in their heart (and if it's evil, can we not save them, if you subscribe to Christian doctrine?) What if they're one of the Muslim-in-name-only, or they're a Shi'a Muslim in a Hezbollah district but they have the sensibility to disagree with Hezbollah? Are the deaths of these people still justified? It doesn't matter if Israel is striking in self-defense, if they kill people who are uninvolved with the rocketing of Israeli civilians, that's wrong. If you're in a stand off with an armed man and in defending yourself you shoot a bystander, you are no longer a murderer yoourself? I'm not going to say that it's tragic and of course it's an accident, you didn't mean to do it, but that doesn't mean you didn't just kill someone innocent.

Again though, we can't possibly claim that the innocents killed by Israel are only Muslims. Surely some Christians and other denominations have died as well. Are their deaths morally justifiable? And once more, do their deaths help Israel, whether physically or as far as their reputation is concerned? That's all I am asking.

I found this an interesting read, sort of related to the "thought-crime" topic I mentioned above. Read if you care too: http://www.towardtradition.org/Mel_Gibson.htm

And for those who unquestioningly support the bombings of civilians in the progress of war, I'd simply like your thoughts on this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html I don't really want to debate how I feel about it or if I am a leftist pacifist enabler of evil or not, I just want to see how you square it up with the way you feel that's all. Trying to learn something here.

Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 8:07 PM

To all you pacifists I guess you also think the US should not have killed hundreds of thousands in WWII such as when we bombed Tokoyo and dropped BigBoy and FatBoy, I believe lots of "civilians" were killed straight out. But in your view of things we should have let the Japanesse and Germans overrun the world and kill millions more as we sat back and said 'peace,peace'...I guess in your way of thinking it's better to save 25 'civilians' (many who are symphazises with the terrorists) and instead let thousands or millions die in thier stead (who are also civilinas). I guess it would be OK in your eyes to let Iran get a nuke and kill 6 million Jews but not OK to preemptively hit them to stop them from doing that too, I guess in your 'reasoning' it would be 'bad' to kill 100K Iranians who wish our demise and the total death of every Jew in Israel and on the planet...you have a twisted reasoning pal.

Posted by: bondservant at August 5, 2006 8:07 PM

soloque:

"I don't think the bombings of any civilian areas during WWII or any war for that matter are inconsequential or moral...I blame the government for choosing to force people into morally untenable situations."

You are probably right in morally criticizing government. You just have your morality mixed up. Implicit in your comment that all bombings that kill civilians is wrong is your failure to denounce those that are responsible ultimately for these deaths. If you turn the other cheek, when the other is firing at you just to kill you no matter what you do requires your government to take action to preserve you life. Surely, you do not advocate going softly into the night rather than to disturb a monstrous ideology trying to either kill you or establish its reign over you.

Implicit in your morality calculus is the naïve notion that all violence is evil. In contrast, your failure to confront evil makes you an accomplice to evil. Do not buy into the ridiculous multi- cultural proposition that all cultures are equal. Islam is aggressively confronting the non Muslim person's right to exist. A simplistic solution would be if I stop killing Moslems, they will stop killing me. This will not work with fundamentalist Shia or Sunnites. This obviously did not work for Jews as each next Jew went into Hitler’s ovens.

One cannot negotiate with an ideology that likes to televise you screaming for your life while your head is sawed off as the religious one squeels in delight that he does this for allah as commanded by allah. There is no equality of culture where one party to a conflict claims allah has required them to dispatch you to hell. There is no equality in a culture that tells you, you have no right to exist.

Finally, your simplistic model of peace no matter what the provocation, will yield you death from a culture that brags that you are an ignorant non Arabic speaking infidel that likes coca cola while the noble Moslem prefers death.

The death of innocent shields by these vermin is justified by their religion. You have failed to distinguish that the credit for the death of adjacent innocents to these murderes goes to the fundamentalist Moslems themselves whereever the provaction whether in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, France, England, the U.S., Germany, Russia etc. or anywhere.

Governments that choose to do nothing in these circumstances loses all legitimacy if it does not try to obliterate such vermin and is "putting people into morally untenable situation." But government inaction in attacking these vermin even where adjacent innocents are killed is itself immoral government action. Your immoral government is precisely the opposite way. Be sure to credit the death of the innocent shields and civilians to the those that put the poor innocent into harm’s way.

Posted by: David England at August 5, 2006 8:15 PM

I would have dropped notices that all people choosing to stay in the southern portion of lebanon would be deemed as support of a terrorist group and denied the protections and rights under the Geneva Convetion , ergo , all civilians could head North and live wityh their fellow Muslims and avoid a couple of US MOAB's leveling the south to remove any hiding places for the cockroaches fighting for Islam .

Hezbollah would be put on notice that all casualties will be their fault for puting them in harms way and willfully using them as shields, those children that have died since the start of the recent attack by Hezbollah were already dead after the first rocket or kidnapping of Israelis within their soil recognized by the UN as israli land and a Democratic Member.
I really don't care who started it , the issue is Hezbollah still violating international laws for war and POW's , and the Muslims here in Canada should either accept canada as their new life or take all their hatred baggage back to the homelend the pine for as utopic except for the violence and war.

Posted by: ala-sux at August 5, 2006 8:17 PM

Just so it's clear, Mr. Fitzgerald, the reason I am questioning the uncritical approval of civilian casualties by Israel here is because that is what Mr. Spencer posted about with his article. I don't agree with Hezbollah's tactics. I think they're despicable, definitely more so than Israel because they do deliberately target civilians, that is really their only tactic (minus the kidnappings of the Israeli soldiers and the few times they've been forced to engage the Israeli military because they were under attack). As their modus operandi, they choose to target civilians.

But that being so, that doesn't mean Israel now has the moral free-reign to kill anyone, innocent or not (again, agreed that this is not what they try to do). Just because Hezbollah kills civilians, doesn't mean it's not a problem now if Israel accidentally does the same.

I've got some real reservations when it comes to believing in aerial bombardment in general. At least according to my understanding of modern warfare and what I have read of the history of it, air superiority is certainly important at a strategic level, but at the tactical level it can't be counted on for winning a war by itself (re: Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., besides previous conflicts) and it always takes boots on the ground to truly settle a conflict. That's why I am disappointed with Israel and it's use of the aerial tactic. I heard an Air Force general is chairing the Cheifs of Staff-equivalent in Israel right now, which I think would explain the dependence on it's use despite all the problems it causes (civilian casualties, massive infrastructure destruction, the question of whether Hezbollah is even being defeated by it). Certainly this was the case in the interim between WWI and WWII in Britain, at least according to Donald and Fredrick Kagan in While America Sleeps, in which they demonstrate how the British Air Force colonels pushed relentlessly for funding and more responsibility despite the demonstrated ineffectiveness of British Royal Air Force pilots against guerrilla rebels in Iraq.

I think a lot of the immorallity and problems we're debating about right now would be less of a problem if Israel focused on a ground campaign. but if they did so, they'd most likely lose many more men and therefore lose support at home... so I think it's a political battle in that sense within Israeli society/government.

Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 8:21 PM

Again, you maintain that the Israeli use of air power is somehow illegitimate, and it should be willing to risk its soldiers in fighting only on the ground, civilized Western men, who are brave but do not wish to die, and absolute primitive fanatics who love death -- just like those the Americans face in Iraq. I disagree. I think the Infidels of this world should use as much of their technological superiority to crush those in capable, because of that very system that gives them, not courage (there is nothing courageous about the death-greeting fanatic, and the word "courage" hardly applies to Mohammed Atta and his 19 fellows, shaving their bodies, putting on their perfume, preparing themselves for their crazed non-existent Muhammedan heaven).

You keep coming back to the killing of civilians. And I keep saying: the loss of life in this three-week war has been unbelievably low. Can you think of an air campaign steadily conducted for three weeks, over large parts of a country, that results in, at most (let's not pull a Siniora and simply call all those who died "civilians," shall we?) a few hundred casulaties? Are you crazy, or have you forgotten every other war in modern times? And how many of those "civilians" include boys who were perfectly capable, in their teens, of being Hezbollah fighters? How many of others called civilians were dedicated supporters of, and possibly fighters in, Hezbollah? Do you know? Does Siniora? Who's doing the counting? All intelligent people know the Arab figures are always exaggerated, and that vivid Oriental imagination, the same one that so amused T. E. Lawrence himself when the Hashemite Abdullah insisted that he had "100,000 troops" who had helped the British, when it was never more than a few hundred -- but the point was that Abdullah, and many other Arabs, make fantastic things up and then, even more fantastically, end up being completely convinced of their own fabrications (see Sania Hamady, see Raphael Patai, see John Laffin, all writing on the workings of the Muslim Arab mind, or the Arab mind on Islam).

I think the Israaelis have been scrupulous in their attempts to minimize civilian casualties. I think that their effort compares most favorably with that of any other civilized -- i.e., Western -- force. Apparently, you don't.

I certainly hope that you will not suggest that the American armed services must be more scrupulous, have self-imposed limits even greater than those the Israelis have imposed on themselves, either in those theatres wherer they are now engaged, or in Iran in the future, or anywhere else. Because if you were to do so, you would be condemning to unnecessary death American servicemen, simply in order to meet some standards that they cannot legitimately be asked to meet. Least of all against enemies such as Hezbollah or a thousand other groups that are based entirely on erasing any obvious distinction between themselves and "civilians."

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2006 8:35 PM

I don't think we can condemn any Muslims as guilty simply because they harbor ill-feelings towards Israelis or anyone else. Only when they act on their feelings have they lost their innocence. Otherwise, we're persecuting people for thought-crimes, and everyone knows that's unreasonable.

Ill-feelings? When the community gives tactical support to the terrorists, they are part of the enemy combatants. Persecution for thought crimes? This is not a court of law. This is a war for survial that Israel is in. When they fire to defend themselves, they are not persecuting muslims for thought crimes, they are fighting to keep Hizbollah away from them. That's the difference everybody seems to forget. Israel fights to keep away. The arabs fight to move forward.

How do we know what's in their heart (and if it's evil, can we not save them, if you subscribe to Christian doctrine?

It does not matter what is in their hearts. The enemy is the enemy. Since muslims support the terrorists, and their own religion, islam, dictates that each muslim be a fighter, we must treat them all has combatants, which is something that Israel does not do. It selects its targets precisely and it gives warning in civilian areas, even though the Koran does not distinguish between muslims fighters and muslim non-fighters. All muslims are fighters according to islamic doctrine, and according to islamic propaganda.

What is in their hearts? We didn't ask what was in the hearts of the Germans we bombed.

Can we save them? It is not the responsibility of Israel to convert muslism to Christians. Israel's responsibility is to fire back when fired upon to save their own nation.

All this sympathy for the Palestinians or the lebanese terrorists, or Al-qaeda, or other muslim terrorists, all revolves around the western white man's guilt complex. If Hizbollah was a group of white germans shelling Israel, there would be no sympathy for Hizbollah from anybody, especially the left.

But the terrorists all have one thing in common, they are all non-white, non-western. Israel, to its eternal damnation, is seen as causasion and western. So essentially, a leftist looks at the war in Lebanon and sees not a small nation defending itself against blood thirsty enemies, no. What the leftist sees is a white nation firing rockets at non-white nation. Unfortunately for the Jews in Israel, most of them are from Europe where they spent centuries developing white complexions and caucasion features, so that when they finally went back to the middle east in 1948, they looked white enough to become the bad guys in the post WW II anti-western guilt trip.

This way, it does not matter how barbaric the arabs are or what their aims, or how numerous, or how small Israel, or how discriminating Israel is in its war conduct. The arbas are are non-white - the Jews are white. So to western liberals or leftists, the arabs are the underdogs. Thus the sympathy from the media and the liberal intelligentsia.

That's it in a nutshell.

Posted by: August22 at August 5, 2006 8:36 PM

soloque-

"Questioning the uncritical approval of casualties by Israel..."

Yeah, this is a real problem.... Israel just gets a free pass don't they!

The mind reels before the 'priorities' of such as you - while you morally 'fine tune' yourself with exquisite narcissism - our civilization dies.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 5, 2006 8:37 PM

soloque wrote,
I'm sure he was indirectly responsible for some of the carnage, but he wasn't responsible for deciding his targets, he was simply told what to do and had to do it. I don't blame him for that. I blame the government for choosing to force people into morally unteneable situations.

Tell me Mr. I stand for nothing, on Dec. 6 1941 men of different means were enjoying picnics with their girl friends, 4 years later those same men were fighting and dying on the beaches of Normandy, were they forced into a morally untenable position by their government? Civilian today, Soldier tomorrow.

Posted by: tgusa at August 5, 2006 8:37 PM

Well, thanks everyone for putting me on the left. I tried simply to put up a concern I had, I put all my avisos out there about the fact that I am not engaging in moral relativism, am disgusted by Hezbollah, etc., but that's not enough for anyone to honestly consider my arguments without dismissing me as a crybaby leftist who is only concerned about the civilian deaths because they're of dark skin. And I guess I hate jews, too? I don't even know anymore, it's very confusing trying to have a discourse with people who are so morally confused.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, if there is one sure-fire leftist on this site it is Mr. Fitzgerald, or perhaps you missed all his ranting about how much he'd love for the government to control much if not all of our lives, for the important leftist cause of saving the environment. And yet, at the same time he is able to treat me as some random nut who just dropped by for the first time to fire off a few ideas about hippie, feel-good nonsense. That's pretty twisted, if you ask me.

To sum up your arguments (all of you who have responded so far), what you have said is essentially a government must do whatever it can and must to protect its citizens (of course, as Mr. Fitzgerald knows, I reject the role of the government to do anything, but that's another matter entirely-- and I am sure I am REALLY a nut to all of you now, haha). In that vein, hasn't the Lebanese government failed in its duties to protect its civilian populace from the incursions of the Israeli military? Certainly we don't believe that the Lebanese government is controlled by or representative of Hezbollah? So shouldn't it retaliate against Israel for the non-Hezbollah related casualities of it's civilians (ie. the civilians who have died in the fighting who are not Muslims and are not supportive of Hezbollah)? Certainly you acknowledge there must have been at least one such person who has died so far? And because we love the Lebanese state (YAY CEDAR REVOLUTION!!!1111), then anything the Lebanese government might do in retatliation would be justified. So if Lebanon got some boys in some jets and went and dropped bombs on Israel, maybe some of its military bases, which might happen to be by civilians and which might therefore lead to civilian casualties... that'd be alright. It's all justified. Those damned Israeli civilians shouldn't have lent their support to their government (their chosen political representatives). Damn them, it's their own fault they're dead now, those jerks in Tel Aviv who aren't anywhere near the fighting.

I certainly wouldn't feel like Lebanon was justified in it's actions if they launched some military strike on the US and one of my sisters happened to die in the related fighting, which the Lebanese state engaged in because they felt it was their right to do so because of the US's role in this conflict. (Yes, I realize this is far-fetched, but the moral is sound nonetheless).

Anyway, it's been fun. I'll try to keep my conscience to myself next time anybody's government is off killing people who aren't doing the fighting, and instead lend my efforts to RAH-RAHing the fight against jihad whenever an opportunity avails itself. Hopefully this will make all of you feel more comfortable not only with me as an opponent of the jihad, but with yourselves and your unquestioning support of the death of ACTUAL INNOCENTS (let's ignore Muslims completely when I say that, for your sake) because yes, they are dying over there, on both sides.

Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 8:52 PM

Thank heavens that one in uniform does not rely on the likes of sologue for back up while (s)he debates 'The Ethical Combat Zone'.

Debate the virtues of your ethics in the comfort of your abode. . .to your hearts content. Stay the f**k out of the way of those protecting Israel.

Solgue's luxury of ethical debate would have have cost the freedom of those liberated by war from slavery, nazism, fascism, and communism. God bless you, sleep well and may your fairy tales shield you from lifes realities.

Posted by: miira at August 5, 2006 8:54 PM

I'm sure he was indirectly responsible for some of the carnage, but he wasn't responsible for deciding his targets, he was simply told what to do and had to do it. I don't blame him for that. I blame the government for choosing to force people into morally unteneable situations.

So WWII was a morally untenable war? You are saying we should not have fought against Hitler, and therefore collaborated in his Final Solution?

Your father had no responsibility for his own actions? Couldn't he have said no? Certainly death by firing squad would have been preferable to bombing civilian targets, would it not? Why didn't he choose death over the evil action of knowingly killing civilians?

I second Hugh's hope that you have absolutely nothing to do with our national security.

Posted by: treehugger at August 5, 2006 9:00 PM

Soloque,

The terror groups plan for these "accidents" to happen, just so people like yourself will have the reaction your having.

They COUNT on it. They hope and pray to Allah each night for these scenes they stage to cause the reaction your having. To question. To doubt.

War is ugly. The deaths of innocent civilians is ugly. But when those very "civilians" actively support the group that is placing them in harms way, they then become an ACCOMPLICE to their own deaths and as well as those around them when those under attack are FORCED to defend their lives and country.

Debbie Schlussel: On Qana & Dead Muslim Kids: The One Thing Muslims & Media Love More Than Dead Jewish Kids

By Debbie Schlussel

War is hell. People die. Some are innocent. Some are women and children. Some just so happen to be living right next to rocket and missile launchers aimed at women and children on the other side. And next to terrorist headquarters. In a Hezbollah stronghold too close for comfort to the Israeli border. And so, they die. That's what happens in war. It is nothing new.

read the rest here:
www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/001197print.html

Posted by: blueeyedwoman at August 5, 2006 9:09 PM

Soloque,

I guess you missed the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by NATO and the US back in 1999.The CIA incorrectly identified the Chinese embassy as a Yugoslav arms agency and thus a legitimate military target.The Chinese embassy was bombed, three were killed and twenty injured. It goes without saying that China was not happy. The bombing provoked an international incident leading China to accuse the US of deliberately bombing their embassy.

My point is that mistakes are made in war and sadly innocents die sometimes the deaths are at the Chinese embassy sometimes they occur at a building in Qana.The difference is the US and Isreal militaries do not target civilians nor do they celebrate civilian deaths. Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ all target civilians and then openly celebrate when civilians die. That's the difference between the civilized world and the terrorists and its what makes Hezbollah and the other terrorists despicable.

Posted by: Roxane at August 5, 2006 9:11 PM

you should be able to directly link from here:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/001197print.html

Posted by: blueeyedwoman at August 5, 2006 9:13 PM

"if there is one sure-fire leftist on this site it is Mr. Fitzgerald, or perhaps you missed all his ranting about how much he'd love for the government to control much if not all of our lives, for the important leftist cause of saving the environment."
-- from a posting above

So worry about irreversible damage to the environment, coming from all those wild and crazy "left-wingers" -- you know, James Hansen and all those environmental scientists known for their insane collectivism -- makes me a "sure-fire leftist." If it is any consolation to the poster above, "saving the environment" (which is not exactly how I'd put it) is not limited to, nor in fact has anything necessarily to do with, any "important leftist cause."

One wonders if this self-described no-government-is-best fanatic rejects the very idea of a government-funded Manhattan Project to diminish the need to rely so heavily on fossil fuels, for two good reasons: the now-undeniable effects of the increase in the use of such fuels on the environment, and the now-undeniable effects of the increase in Muslim revenues from the increase in the use of such fuels, on the world-wide menace of Jihad. And would he extend his fanatical hatred of government, always and everywhere perceived to be a threat (no wonder he is not particularly concerned about establishing rules of warfare that might help the American armed services -- no doubt he finds the very idea of our own armed forces a bit too...well, too big-governmentish.

He's a rugged individualist, this one. He doesn't need the gummint, and he doesn't need Mother Nature -- she can go take care of herself as far as he's concerned. Some rugged individualists one can think of -- the names of Henry David Thoreau and John Muir come to mind --would look at the land today, and read the reports coming out of the assorted academies of science from around the world, and would beg to differ.

But he needn't bother. He wants nothing more to do with us, and having failed in an earlier posting to ingratiate himself with me, in his final posting he ripped off the mask of pretend-friendliness to go into his rant.

He can rant all he wants. But not here.

Posted by: Hugh at August 5, 2006 9:19 PM

I guess Soloque has been dismissed, but I would like to review his comment assigning "moral confusion" to the posters here. I don't see any confusion, I see people who have realized they must choose a side in an arena where any hint of moral equivolence is fallacious. No one here is "happy" about any civilian casualties, but they don't see the use of willing human shields as a trump card in a heated gorilla war, either. The potential loss of innocents can be regretted, without disabling one's ability to analyze the propaganda and without jetisonning doubts of the "innocence", even with the outcome of cynicism or anger about the misuse of these innocents.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 5, 2006 9:42 PM

I think everyone participating in this thread understands that WWII would not have been won, or would have been won at a vastly greater human cost to the allies, both in military and civillian casualties, had the allies used the Israeli methods of avoiding civillian casualties wherever possible and by means that limited their own effectiveness. This is not the subject of the debate; rather, it is whether civillian casualties are moral or not. I argue that they are, in certain circumstances.

War has, since its inception at the dawn of human history, involved attacks directed at civillians. It is only in the very recent times, when nuclear weapons became a factor, that civillians were considered to be invalid targets. Of course, the Muslim world does not abide by this ethos, though it prefers that its enemies (i.e. everyone else) do so, because it weakens them vis a vis the Jihadis. This is the ONLY reason they insist on this. They do not mind civillian deaths, either their own or the enemies (I must stress this applies to small numbers of civillians on the Muslim side). If Muslim (or dhimmi) civillians are killed, the advantage in the public relations war goes to the Muslims, as increasingly it is everywhere, a very worryisome development. If Jewish civillians die, the principal goal of the Jihadis is fulfilled. They win again. This is an unacceptible imbalance that cannot be allowed to continue. It would be immoral to do so, because it increases the number of civillian casualties over time rather than bringing it to an end.

If Israel sticks to its doctrine of avoiding civillian casualties, they lose in several ways. One, their military capacity is degraded, as well as its deterrent effect. This doctrine always fails over time It is inevitable there will be civillian deaths; in this sense it matters not if Qana was staged or real. In the end there will be errors and loss of civillian life. Also, it drags the war out. The injustice occurs over a long time. If you read your Machiavelli (as everyone who wants to understand statecraft should), he always counselled to do evil all at once, but do good in dribs and drabs. The evil is soon forgotten, and also has a powerful deterrent effect.

Israel is suffocating under the cripping weight of a military doctrine that values enemy civillian lives more highly then their own. This is recipe for endless conflict. They cannot inflict a blow massive enough to break the enemy's will to resist; although the Arabs insist they will fight to the end of time this is only because of Israel's pussilanimity. If the Arabs were exposed to the full lethality of Israel's power they would fold like umbrellas and develop a heartfelt respect for Israel.

In the end, under the doctrine of saving enemy civillian lives are more deaths than there would have been if Israel had been honest with themselves about what is necessary. The 1948 war was won by brutally attacking a civillian target (Deir Yassin), which convinced the Arabs of the need for a ceasefire, and also created a (marginally) sustainable geographic region that was Jewish populated, the Arabs having been driven off quite justifiably for their treachery, not to mention the simple fact that Israel could not be a nation with an Arab majority which connived, and does so to this day, to reduce the Jews to dhimmi status, expel them, or exterminate them.

A better approach is to make it very clear that any attack that targets Israeli civillians will be met with brutality on a massive scale. What Hafez Assad did to the Syrian city of Homa is a fine example of the effectiveness of this policy, and the Arab perception of violence and power. Up to 20,000 civillians died there, but Syria was never again threatened by Islamic militants. To this day they have truck with Jihadis, but the Jihadis never turn their guns against the Syrian government, and no civillian popuation in Syria will allow a guerilla movement to settle in among them, because they understand the price is annihilation. Had Assad not done this, far more than 20,000 Syrians would eventually be killed by Jihadi violence, not to mention the country would not even have achieved the paltry state of development it has, due to the constant threat of Islamic militants.

If Israel targets civillians, the world will cringe, but not for long, and not much more than they do now because they ignorantly believe they are doing it anyway. The memory of the violence will fade quickly amongst the non-Muslim world, and Israel could anyway point to all the other such brutality going on in the world on a massive scale which goes unpunished. The reason Israel is singled out now is because they allow the Arabs to fight on endlessly without suffering a severe enough reverse to engender real terror in their hearts, or genunie fear of annihilation. It is the long, drawn out conflict that creates hatred and leads to Israel being singled out at the UN and other international forums. In this sense it is not anti-Semitism but a rational response to the images that Israel allows the world to see by her indecisiveness.

A short, sharp shock that signals total devastation will earn fear and respect. The Arabs have proven throughout their history that they understand, and prefer to dish out, this type of violence. First fear, then respect, and then good neighborliness. That is the order of the day, and not just for Arabs, but for all people and all nations throughout history. My people, the Jews, are suffering from a severe case of exceptionalism which must be excised or it will be the road to doom, much like the meekness of the Jews in Europe led them into the gas chambers.

This is a painful road to take, with Jews' poignant memory of the holocaust, but the planned holocaust is looming, and it is again the Jews who will suffer this fate, this time the 6 million in Israel not to mention whatever Arabs happen to be in the vicinity when the nukes go off. The Arabs, and Muslims such as Iran, do not think Israel is capable of striking back hard enough. Israel's willingness to compromise is perceived as weakness because they have not offered concessions from a position of true strength; that is, where their enemy is intimidated and begging for a deal to avoid a still more painful loss, of territory or life. They are unwilling to use their weapons to their full effect. Their glorious military is useless.

For the next massive-casualty attack against Jews, it would be more humane to offer a 24 hour deadline to financially compensate the effected families and establish formal diplomatic relations with total recognition of Israel in whatever borders she desires. Then, rather than flitting about with ground troops or targetted strikes while begging civillians to get out of the way, just erase the Jihadi base from the map with fuel-air bombs. The civillians who die, Israel should be perfectly willing to call them martyrs too.

A strategy like this will generate howls of outrage, but what are Muslims good at if not howling, and how different will it be from that which we already see? Israel will regain its deterrent power, something that is sorely whittled down since 1973, which Olmert is trying to regain in this fight against Hezbollah. To some extent he is, but not in the way needed. Ahmadinejad is planning the nuclear destruction of Israel; this is obvious to all but the mentally deficient. People need to know, viscerally, that Israel will strike back with incomprehensible fury. When Arab or Muslim leaders chant for Israel's destruction, those who chant must know that they, too, will die. Nations who indulge in hatred of Israel must be aware that they run the risk of destruction, the kind of destruction from which a nation does not rise again. This is the fate they profess is their goal for Israel. A little quid pro quo and they will change their tune.

An advantage of such realism is Israel can cease at last with trying to make a moral distinction between herself and her neighbors, one which resonates only with Jews. To live among the animals, one must be an animal. The lion tamer does not discuss hostility with the lions; he intimidates them and earns their respect. The Arabs (and to some extent all Muslims) do not understand the concept of respecting civillian lives; this is crystal clear from their history right up to the present. What they DO understand is submission - that is the name of their religion anyway! They will gladly submit to Israel's existence once their inferiority is demonstrated. They are either at your feet or at your throat.

It is worth considering that both Germany and Japan, and the regions of eastern Asia and Europe did not (largely of course, not totally) eschew war as a means of settling disputes because they developed a fine sense of morality about war. They saw with their own eyes what war costs and decided they did not like the price - in fact they did see their nations devastated and their entire populations on the brink of expropriation and even extermination. The Arabs do not understand anymore what the cost of war with Israel is. They must be made to understand, and the sooner the better. I do not see a moral problem with this - it is the most moral of possible paths in terms of human life. The alternative is endless war, which will kill more people, and end in nuclear exchange, a terrible reality that looks to be very near.

Let's all stop our moral prattling, my anti-Jihad brothers and sisters. It is obvious that the Arabs are our moral inferiors; they revel in it, because it gives them power over us. The Arabs want the land of Israel back; they controlled it for centuries and are willing to be brutal to reconquer it. Israel has no hope waiting around for them to lighten up; they will not, and the Jihadis will always be able to engineer situations that create renewed outrage in their gullible, semi-literate popuations, inculcated with a hatred of Jews that dates to their barbarian-prophet, and his enslavement, rape and extermination of the Jews that were within his reach.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 5, 2006 9:51 PM

I do suspect that soloque is simply a troll. He really does not address the concerns of other posters, but rather becomes defensive when confronted with the illogic of his position. The simple truism that the death of civilians is bad is meaningless without knowing in what context or under which circumstances it occurred. I would find a government immoral that did not use all reasonable means to protect and defend me from an aggressor. In fact, I would consider a government criminally negligent that used the excuse that the possibility of hitting civilians on the aggressor's side precluded any response on its part to the killing of our civilians.

Posted by: Worry at August 5, 2006 10:03 PM

"I do not see a moral problem with this"
posted by: Quijybo

Nor, do I.

Excellent post.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 5, 2006 10:13 PM

Worry,

A government that did not use all reasonable methods to protect and defend its citizens from an aggressor has no right to exist, and will be soon destroyed by a more effective force and replaced by a new nation...in this case "Palestine". All nations, at least all stable, successful nations, were born in fire. Israel is the example of what those nations had to do to win their existence. It is a hidden shame that Israel symbolizes, and it is comforting to cast them out from the circle of nations, to blame the Jew for the violence that is the birth pangs of every nation. This is the meaning of the "new Anti-Semitism", just as in the "Old Anti-Semitism" the Jew was blamed for the finance and commerce that was needed to generate wealth, but had to be reviled by those inculcated with a physiocratic sense of disgust at "unearned" wealth.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 5, 2006 10:19 PM

This is not surprising since Israels has always been THE MOST MORAL army in the world. The problem is that an important part of the strategy Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are using today is DECEPTION through the MEDIA.

Please take a look at how PALLYWOOD and HIZBALLYWOOD work at blog.technonllc.com

It may take us (the civilized nations of the world) a few more years and deadly attacks like 9/11 to realize the nature of the enemy we are facing today...but in the end we will prevail!

Posted by: Joe at August 5, 2006 10:21 PM

Folks, let's go easy on Soloque. I've read some of his other posts and I do believe his heart is in the right place. Recoiling at inflicting civillian deaths, while an easily manipulated tendency, is what separates us from Muslims. I don't agree with his position (for peat sake see my long post) but let's stick together since we MUST ALL REMEMBER THAT ISLAM IS THE ENEMY - not Muslims because their lives too are precious (even if they don't know it) because they can and eventually will be redeemed from the tyrrany that is their religion. This fractious infighting for intellectual and positional purity does not serve our interests. Let's disagree respectfully because we should by and large be among friends. I'm all for pointing out flaws in each other's arguments, but remember that the internet is an impersonal forum where small differences, devil's advocacy or trial balloons can come across as absolute red lines worthy of stomp-down drag-out debates to the virtual death.

I had a debate on this forum with Hugh as well - I mentioned the Israeli "occupation" and the "Palestinians". This won me a headline article rightly questioning the existence of both of these concepts. I felt quite honored to provoke such attention. In the end both my position and Hugh's are real - but to different people. Which reality wins, whether a semantic one about peoples and military situations, or the moral problems of inflicting civillian casualties, let's not drive people off the forum. Criticize, don't demonize. "I disagree and here is why" is worth 1000 times more than "you're an idiot and will lead us all to doom".

Remeber always, in a war of wits, Islam is unarmed, and that is the force we are fighting. I for one don't want Soloque to disappear, even if he consisently disagrees with many of us. We need, and can absorb, multiple points of view. The best ones will win out through discussion and debate.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 5, 2006 10:43 PM

I was just addressing solque's remarks, and their fundamental irrationality. Israel was attacked. It has a right to defend itself against attackers. Soloque would deny Israel this right, since civilians on the enemy's side would suffer as a result of its efforts to defend it. I do not find Israel's efforts to defend itself to be out of line at all. In fact, they probably have been too concerned about the opinions of those who do not wish them well.

Posted by: Worry at August 5, 2006 10:48 PM

This excellent essay by Victor David Hanson (from the National Review.)

The Brink of Madness
A familiar place.

By Victor Davis Hanson

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress. (emphasis mine)

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

Posted by: August22 at August 5, 2006 11:06 PM

My sense of foreboding could not be more aptly encapsulated than by August22's last post. I wonder, what will be the first strike of the open war between Islam and the west? When will the terrible moment come when the west realizes that it must fight for its life against an implacable foe? Who will set that fire? Ahmadinejad? What form will it take? Will I be killed in the opening salvo? I live and work in Lower Manhattan. Will it be an unexplained nuclear attack on Tel Aviv (the most likely scenario), and if so, will this be sufficient? Clearly 9/11 was not enough. America is too big, too soft, too lost in its multicultural miasma to be so easily awoken, not to mention too deluded by Bush and his cronies who care more about staying cozy with the Saudis than the future of our nation and planet.

The cowardice of the west, the stupidity of Bush and the neocons, will be rued someday, and not to the tune of 2500 dead and lost reputation. The pain will be much, much greater. Only when the true cost of believing we could appease Islam, when the mirage of democratizing Muslim nations by force, the appeasment is shown for what it is, will we know for sure. At least here at Jihadwatch, there are people who are not for giving in.

Today I had a lovely date at Union Square in lower Manhattan. It was not too hot, sunny, and the park was full of people enjoying themselves. There they were though, the ubiquitous spineless haters, the protestors against America and Israel, with a bullhorn, declaiming Israel and by extension the Jews, right under a statue of George Washington, and man whose vision they could not comprehend. I did not listen and sat as far as possible. But I cannot forget that they are there. I am vexed, I am terribly vexed.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 5, 2006 11:26 PM

Soloque is gone, so I don't want to pick on him personally. In fact, his view is very common, especially in Canada and Europe. The problem is that it is a complaint, not a solution to the complaint.

Hizballah know that by launching rockets at Israeli civilians, from civilian dwellings in Lebanon, that Israel is forced to destroy those rocket launchers and possibly kill civilians. If Israel doesn't do this, its citizens die. It's a forced move, initiated by Hizballah. Hizballah has thoroughly planned all of this out. When they initiated these rocket attacks, they knew that Israel would have to respond and would be forced to either die or kill Lebanese civilians. Thus, Hizballah has planned in advance the deaths of not only Israeli civilians, but also of Lebanese civilians.

Posted by: Archimedes at August 6, 2006 12:19 AM

Trying to learn something here.
Posted by: sologue at August 5, 2006 08:07 PM
+++++++

No you are trying to spread your underlying hatred of Israel and America that stand up to the evil of the world.

Before America or Israel fall to the evil of the world, we will use nukes on all of our enemies as we did on Japan even if it means that we have to kick out any PCness in our governments to do it.

Free America and Israel or 3.5 billion muslims and communists. Nuke em all if that is what it takes for my country and family to live free.

I post the following for a reason.

Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

Prepare, be armed, be ready.

My country and family is worth it.

The Texican.

Posted by: Texican at August 6, 2006 12:34 AM

I was just watching on the news that the IDF just captured it 8th Hizbollah leader.. GO IDF!!! VIVA ISRAEL.. LONG LIVE ISRAEL...

Free the 2 Israeli soldiers Hizbollah! Your mindless acts of kidnapping only caused more Muslims to die. Keep telling yourself Hizbollah your winning, after awhile you will start believing it, - traditional mind of a Muslim - BRAINDEAD.

Ya know, when I was a youngster we ran like hell then hid in predetermined hidey spots while the older kids looked to beat the crap out of us. It was a lot of fun because they never found us. Do you think I have the makings of a Hizbollah militia leader?

Hizbollah = COWARDS

Posted by: WildandCrzyGuy at August 6, 2006 12:47 AM

As long as restraint is exercised when an enemy hides among civilians, the enemy will continue to do so.

When true civilians have to pay a price (a heavy one) when they allow the enemy to work among them, they won't allow it.

The real question is that if these civilians are, in fact, enablers, are they legitimate targets?

If Israel wants to be around in two decades, the answer needs to be yes. Notice needs to be given to avoid an ethics issue. Once that notice is given, Israel needs to be defended.

Posted by: limes at August 6, 2006 1:43 AM

imagine the size of the smoking hole in the ground left by US forces, after retaliating for a 2000 missile barrage launched by an adversary...

yes, I think the IDF has been very "light handed" compared to what they are rwally capable of...

Katy bar the door, if they ever reach the point where they don't give a crap about public opinion...

Go IDF!

Posted by: NavAir at August 6, 2006 1:53 AM

While Sologue's lamentations over each and every civilian casualty is obviously something I don't remotely endorse, I disagree with Hugh's apparent suggestion that it follows from his 'no-government-is-best fanaticism.' Actually, a more accurate description of this Libertarian philosophy - he who governs least governs best - delegates as much power as possible to the individual, and minimizes the power of government in people's lives, be it the capability to withhold ones taxes, to things like gun-ownership and smoking rights.

However, to go from that POV - a perfectly sound one that's debatable in its own right - to the POV that one not establish rules of warfare that give the American armed services a clear edge over their enemies - is an obvious non-sequitur. While Libertarian foreign policy seems to be that of isolationists, it's not the same as rooting for America's defeat at the hands of its enemies. Personally, while I'm normally a Libertarian, some of the views I've embraced, like the application of a mass deportation all Muslims from bilad-ul-kafir, or taxing fuels and regulating miles per gallon, go against the usual Libertarian 'Live and let live'. I don't consider it a contradiction, since I don't know of any political philosophy, Libertarianism included, requiring suicide of its believers.

Oops, I forgot Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 6, 2006 3:00 AM

Soloque. After reading your postings, I'm thanking the Lord Almighty that you weren't Britain's Prime Minister in 1940, or entrusted with the defence of Vienna in 1529 or 1683, or anywhere near the White House at any time in history. No peace activist has ever created peace. Yours is the mind of the naive student who screams war criminal epithets at Bush and hands out leaflets advertising Galloways presence at a university unfortunate enough to have a bitter and twisted maniac like Galloway around. One of the oldest lessons of mankind is that if you want peace, you've got to be prepared for war at all times. Freedom isn't free. It is paid for with blood sacrifices, sweat and toil, and it is the collective responsibility of the population of the nation. Israel is not only fighting for its own existence, but the existence of the West. But Soloque isn't grateful for that. He'd rather see his own country conquered and subjected to despotism, as happened to so many countries during World War II, than see one baby get accidentally killed in the defence of his country. And the underlying message soloque preaches is that it is always wrong to act in self-defence, even if failure to act means being conquered.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 6, 2006 4:19 AM

Those who are kind to cruel people are cruel to kind people.

Posted by: winta at August 6, 2006 8:50 AM

"While Sologue's lamentations over each and every civilian casualty is obviously something I don't remotely endorse, I disagree with Hugh's apparent suggestion that it follows from his 'no-government-is-best fanaticism.'"
-- from a posting above

I made no such "apparent suggestion." I made not the slightest link between his insistence that Western armies -- such as that of Israel -- should self-impose a standard of suicidal care in avoiding casualties among those so indiscriminately described (that description a bit too readily accepted and repeated by unwary Westerners) as being "civilians," and his no-government-is-best view of things. The only conceivable connection is this: the same measures required to rescue the non-Muslim world, and to save the natural world from intolerable and irreversible environmental damage, require actions by governments to limit the use of fossil fuels and to encourage investments only governments can make (nuclear power, for example, is not attractive to private companies because of the potential liability that only governments are rich enough to self-insure against).

Posted by: Hugh at August 6, 2006 10:40 AM

soloque wrote,
“So how then has any Muslim person lost their innocence just because they decry Israel or other infidels (often in ignorance because they have been taught to do so from a very young age). “

Decry? You mean decapitate.

“From a very young age…”

Same old liberal excuses.

“Certainly we don't believe that the Lebanese government is controlled by or representative of Hezbollah?”

As a matter of fact we do. What part of we are all hesbollah do you think we misunderstand?

“So if Lebanon got some boys in some jets and went and dropped bombs on Israel, maybe some of its military bases, which might happen to be by civilians and which might therefore lead to civilian casualties... that'd be alright.”

That is the way that it generally goes. However, we are not dealing with a civilization that spends much time on aircraft or other complicated Infidel machines

“Hopefully this will make all of you feel more comfortable not only with me as an opponent of the jihad…..”

No not really but keep coming back. Maybe you will find the answers to some of your questions.

Myself, a conservative living in Ca for decades, have developed a keen ear for liberal death cult speak. soloque wears his liberal badge right over his heart. Sad but true. In my extended family there are liberals, one of my favorite holiday activities is, Bait the Liberal, and then sit back and listen to their insane responses. Lately it has become too easy, and I sometimes feel sorry for them. Not!

Posted by: tgusa at August 6, 2006 11:32 AM

Soloque -

I understand your position on the loss of innocent lives in Lebanon; but I think you should aim your criticism at Hezbollah/Lebanon/Iran/Syria -- not Israel.

Hezbollah started this fight, and Lebanon allowed Hez to set-up camp along their border to Israel. The Lebanese "government" has done more to produce these civilian casualties, along with Hez, than Israel.

It has been proven that Hezbollah will hide themselves among their OWN people so that returned rockets would hit those targets -- how sick! And the only thing that makes sense to me as to why they would do that, is to make Israel look bad. So don't be fooled.

Iran/Syria = their involvemnet is widely known and the head/heart/soul of this entire operation and doesn't need further explanation. So although I agree with you on the loss of innocent life, I do not agree with who's to blame. Plus, this is war, and war is never pretty or always fair.

Go Israel!

Posted by: champ at August 6, 2006 1:52 PM

Soloque wrote:

To sum up your arguments (all of you who have responded so far), what you have said is essentially a government must do whatever it can and must to protect its citizens (of course, as Mr. Fitzgerald knows, I reject the role of the government to do anything, but that's another matter entirely-- and I am sure I am REALLY a nut to all of you now, haha). In that vein, hasn't the Lebanese government failed in its duties to protect its civilian populace from the incursions of the Israeli military? Certainly we don't believe that the Lebanese government is controlled by or representative of Hezbollah?
.............

Actually, the first duty of any government is to protect the lives of their citizens from unprovoked attack. It is one of the few things that *cannot* be done by the private sector. Most other aspects of government are pretty much negotiable, and certainly open to debate. A government that cannot keep its citizens safe (or far worse, one that does not try, or has policies that actively endanger their own people) is not a properly functioning government.

As to Lebanon, see the above. I had cautiously high hopes for them following the "Cedar Revolution", but I knew that expelling Syrian forces was only the first step. They would have to follow by rooting out Hizb'allah. They were not strong enough to do so, and worse, had elements in the population and even the government not just actively supporting Hizb'allah, but *actual representatives* of Hizb'allah itself elected to office. Although a Christian, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said recently that he considered Hizb'allah to have "liberated" Lebanon--how's that for governmental collusion?

Posted by: gravenimage at August 7, 2006 12:04 AM