What If...

'The Death of Elizabeth I, Queen of England' by Paul Delaroche 1828, Musée du Louvre, Paris

 

The famous 'What If...' question, that we all ask ourselves, when so much is at stake.

As you all know, I wholeheartedly support Israel's struggle against the murdering thugs and genocidal Islamofascists surrounding her. I also haven't minced my words in favor of uncompromising military action against Hezbollah following their nefarious attack on July 12th. The concern shared by many was that Prime Minister Olmert did not have the political will and strength to engage Hezbollah head on.

Today we know differently of course. We also have the benefit of hindsight, introducing a question, which ought to be debated at this stage:

What if Israel had decided to do nothing after initially preventing Hezbollah to transfer the hostages to Iran - you remember, the purpose of the initial bombardments was to disable air, sea and most road traffic, frustrating any attempt to move the two kidnapped soldiers as well as preventing further arms shipment from Syria and Iran. Would Hezbollah have stopped firing rockets after their so called 'reprisals'. Could Olmert have survived military inactivity in the face of Hezbollah's brazen evil?

There is no question, that Israel knew what she was up against; that Hezbollah would do everything to maximize civilian casualties when firing their rockets from densely populated residential areas, that 'civilian' casualties in Hezbollah strongholds would outnumber those in northern Israel - notwithstanding the fact that Hezbollah terrorist and so called civilians are in fact in most cases indistinguishable. Israel is also painfully aware of UN bias against the Jewish state, reflecting of course widespread anti-Semitic sentiment among a majority of UN member states.

Combined, Israel knew, that these two ingredients clearly represented a recipe for a global PR disaster, as we have witnessed both in the past and again with the Qana incident on Sunday.

What would have happened, if Israel had instead declared that it would rule out military attacks and any further bombing, and that it would issue no threats; that it would solely rely on diplomatic efforts to ensure the safe and, most importantly, unconditional return of both IDF soldiers. What if Israel had instead started a global PR campaign focusing on Hezbollah's declared genocidal goals, focusing on their military tactics of indiscriminately targeting innocent civilians.

Umh, tough call, huh? Evident however, is what the future holds for us, or rather what history has in store for the future.

According to a recent poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah “militia.” Only it won’t be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.

Perhaps by then, the higher functions of the human brain will cease to function, and our gray matter will revert to the primordial medulla oblogata, thus forcing one to think and behave like a crocodile...

UPDATE: Now this I did not know. From John Hawkins:

From a teleconference today with Israel’s former Ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, in Jerusalem: [...] As you may have heard before, the Israelis are actually calling people in Southern Lebanon and telling them to leave. But, Dore added some extra details to the story that just blew me away.

He said Israel actually calls people in Southern Lebanon and tells them that Israel knows Hezbollah put rockets in their home. Either move the rockets or we will blow up your house! Can you imagine? I actually asked him how they could even know that sort of thing or verify that the rockets were moved, but of course, he wasn't allowed to say anything.

Pamela @ Atlas is in Israel and has great on the ground reporting, keep checking her for full updates. She is some brave lady, despite the Jew bashing she is forced to endure. These people really make me sick! Can you believe this is openly described as a neo-Nazi white supremacist site. It is truly difficult to imagine such hatred actually exists...

Comments

[rich]

On Warren Kinsella --

His blog talks about the reaction to the post I referenced:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm

Not listed as the author of the baseball book:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Uh oh, Kenny.

You're trying logic on people who lack the capacity for abstract thought.

But seriously, I like to ask people who demand the UN's intervention in the ME the following question:

"Can you point to a similar situation in which the UN has saved the day?"

Their answer is usually "but the US won't let the UN function properly, you see". Followed by moaning and groaning about the UN's lack of money, US obstinacy, etc. (Whence I derive much inner peace, by the way).

After they've spent themselves explaining to you why the UN is incapable of solving these kinds of problems, they've just made your argument for you.

Mark Steyn put it well: "Now would be a good time for the UN to act like,... well,... the UN."

[Michael van der Galien]

Hehe... JK: meet Kenny, Kenny... umh... Where's JK?

:D

[Kenny Pierce]

JK,

My last post was far too cranky. I was going to ask Alexandra to remove it but Jess's comment wouldn't make sense then; so I'll just have to apologize and hope you'll let it go at that.

I don't want to go over, yet again, the process of explaining what the fallacy of hypostasization is and why arguments that depend on it are bad arguments. Partly I'm tired of explaining it; even more, the regulars are tired of hearing me explain it. You can read the conversation to which Jess and I are alluding starting here and going down through the rest of the comments.

I'd like to highlight the hypostasized flaws in your specific attempt to say that the Palestinians are more "indigenous" because they are Canaanites -- and your implicit, hypostasizing premise that since the Palestinians are (you think) descendants of people who owned the Holy Land three thousand years ago, then they should credit for their infinitely-great-grandparents' ownership of the land.

You're going to give today's Palestinians credit for the actions of the Canaanites three millenia ago? Fine. Then I suppose you won't mind if we execute all modern Palestinians on the grounds that the ancient Canaanites practiced the ritual sacrifice of infants to their gods, right? Because, if the Canaanites did something, the Palestinians should be held responsible.

What's that you say? It would be ridiculous to punish the Palestinians for something that was done by people who died three thousand years ago? Nonsense, that would imply that today's Palestinians are different individual people from the ancient Canaanites.

If you're not going to blame today's Palestinians for the bad behavior of the past's Canaanites, then (a) you can't give today's Palestinians credit for a bunch of dead Canaanites' property rights, and (b) you can't blame today's Israelis for the behavior of a dead generation of Zionists. (None of the people who had any responsibility for what happened in 1948 -- on either side -- are still alive.) If today's Palestinians can't take the blame for the bad side of the Canaanites, then they can't claim the benefit of the good side, either.

[jess1dering]

Ken, your last post?
YEAH !!!
Can you forward that to GWB.
He's a little "ifie" on getting the point across. :)

[jess1dering]

THAT would be baDge of courage :)

[jess1dering]

Hey Guys,
I'm running late but wanted to share something with you. I have a family but they're pretty well hypnotised by the MSM, et. so it's a lonely world for me sometimes ANYWAY,
my beautiful, sensitive, gifted son John is in Ramadi serving this country as an army medic. A few days ago ,he recieved the CMB ( combat medic badge ) for treating wounded while under fire. He is VERY proud of that. I told him it's a babge of courage.
I think it was your post , Ken , that made me want to share this fact. I couldn't help begging him not to join. He's my child, even though he's 21. I told him that there was much worse than even dead that could happen to him over there, and spared him no graphic detail. He was resolute. He told me that evil is evil. He told me that he felt it an honor to serve a country like ours. I am very prooud of that young man. He has the courage of his convictions. My mothers heart still wishes that he didn't........
This is a VERY difficult time for me . Mostly though , I am in awe of him. Thanks for letting me share that with you. Perhaps the praying will pray for John ?

P.S. Ken,
Yes, I do see :)

[Kenny Pierce]

JK,

I don't give a rat's ass which "people" is "indigenous" to the land. It is a complete irrelevance.

Quick, Jess, which logical fallacy is JK committing throughout his comment?

For God's sake, if you're going to pull this crap about the Jews being "indigenous to Mesopotamia" -- well, hell, in that case nobody has the right to live in Palestine because we're all indigenous to Africa.

And the attempt to say that the modern Palestinians "are" -- in any sense that is either meaningful or relevant -- "the ancient Canaanites" is terrible ethnology as well as terrible logic.

Seriously, Jess, look at JK's struggling last comment and you'll understand why I've tried to explain to Saul that taking the fallacy of hypostasization out of the hands of Israel's foes, leaves them pretty much completely weaponless. Try to rewrite his argument in terms of individuals rather than "peoples"...do you see?

Now, a couple of other points.

You will note, JK, that while I am not pulling any punches, I am attacking your logic and your facts, not your character. I would suggest that you respond in kind if you wish to be respected in this discussion.

You appear to be incapable of distinguishing between the following two propositions:

1. "I think that if there are people who have publicly sworn that they will use any means available to them to bring about either our death or our complete subjugation to their whims, and have further sworn that nothing less than that will satisfy them, and have further backed their rhetoric with bloody and violent deeds, then we should kill them first."

2. "I think we should kill anybody who disagrees with us."

(I treat your "I think we should kill anybody who might disagree with us in the future" as a deliberate reductio ad absurdum.)

But actually there is a significant difference between those two propositions. You endear yourself to no one, and impress only fools, when you accuse us of the second belief when in point of fact we hold only the first.

About 1948: So what if mistakes were made in 1948? What, do you have a time machine to go back and fix them? The question is what ought to be done now by us, not what ought to have been done then by those people. What specific solution do you propose to the present-day problems in the Middle East?

"peace takes a loooong time and is difficult. violence is easy but it begets violence"

Complete bullshit. War is not easy; war is hell. But whether or not violence begets more violence is entirely a question of specific cases. Are you going to propose that we disband all of the SWAT teams in America on the grounds that "violence begets violence"? Funny, I thought that when the police go in and take murderers and criminals off the streets, it forestalls violence and establishes peace in the community. And just look at how much violence was spawned in Japan and Germany by our going in violently and taking out the Axis regimes there -- my goodness, ever since we showed up in 1949, Tokyo and Bern have been nothing less than apocalyptic Escape-from-New-York-style hells.

What is easy, is not war. What is easy, is to find excuses to try to postpone dealing with problems that aren't going away until we are willing to pay the price. What is easy, is appeasement. What is easy, is to call for a cease-fire so that "the violence will stop" without asking oneself the troubling questions of whether a "peace deal" now will, like the accord that Chamberlain thought was "peace in our time" but that Hitler dismissed as "a piece of paper," lead only to far more horrific violence than would result from biting the bullet and dealing with the problem now.

What is easy, is to hide your eyes from the fact that peace is only possible between essentially peaceful people. What is easy, is to refuse to face the fact that there are genuinely evil people in the world who have no desire whatsoever for peace and who agree to peace only as a temporary delaying tactic during which they can improve their chances to win their war. What is easy, is to tell yourself that any facts you don't want to face, aren't really true, and therefore that since you want peace and don't want to have to fight for it, then there just must be some way to skip straight to the peace without having to go through all that messy war-and-victory stuff first.

What is easy, is to recite fatuous and grotesquely oversimplified platitudes like, "Violence begets violence." Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. It is at least as frequently true that appeasement begets violence. Determining which case we face at any given point in time requires the laborious exercise of actual thought.

And based on your last few comments, I would have to say that, like a modern-day peacenik variation on John Paul Jones, you have not yet begun to think.

[Kenny Pierce]

Michael,

"Kike" is a derogatory term for "Jew" -- sort of the equivalent of "nigger."

[Alexandra]

Michael,

Apropos 'kikes', see here

[Michael van der Galien]

O and JK, you say you come in peace, good. Choose your words more carefully in the future. You are insulting Alexandra, her posts and us, the readers.

Normally, people don't see that as being very 'diplomatic'

[Michael van der Galien]

the real question is: what the heck are "kikes" and what the heck does it mean

[Alexandra]

JK,

You say you come in peace. Good, I will be gracious and take your word for it, however calling me a “hypocrite” and accusing me “and my ilk” (whatever that means, presumably murdering thugs) of wishing to callously “promote killing all [my] enemies (anyone that disagrees with zionism)” makes your ‘peace keeping mission’, well er, a little lame to say the least. But then perhaps you model yourself on the strong diplomatic skills of the rabid anti-Semites at the U.N.

Just so that we understand each other, these are considered insults in a civilized society, just in case you have simply become immune. What you label as me taking your words out of context, is precisely the separation of insults from what you perceive as facts, and that will never change. Using them as a basis for your argument will always serve to weaken it and reduce the dialogue to an exchange of fire, rather than a civil debate.

Now onto the refuting of the history of the Myth of Palestine; if you consider the comments by a David Byron a reputable refute, then I can only say you are ill advised. When you take a clean swipe at my “version of history”, which part in particular are you refuting, and how? You cannot read pages of well researched text with links, and make a swiping statement that simply relies on the comments of the ill informed Byron as proof that “my version of history” is wrong.

The mention of the 'racist stand' comes from the UN resolution I quoted in my last comment, which does not fit MY agenda but simply goes to show that YOUR point of standing by the UN would simply mean that their resolution of 1991 had it still been in force today, would have meant that being a Zionist would equate to me being called a 'racist'. Thankfully that madness was eradicated by the UN in 1975, but my point is that you are still using the term Zionist as some sort of an insult. When you call this site a Zionist site which promotes murder of all anti-Zionists, you in your wording strongly advocate that I should take it as a sign of prejudice which induces murder, and the racism refers to me as the UN might have had it in '91 and not to you.

[jk]

alexandra,
first of all i come in peace, i support peace for all people. okay, now my response to you...from my experience with you i surmise that you often take my words/sentences out of context. read my whole comment/comments not just the parts you don't like. my point was your ilk likes to blame people/states/organizations that don't support outright your zionist p.o.v. yet, like your "myth of palestine" articles you quote u.n. mandates/resolutions when it fits your agenda. this is hypocritical. you also promote killing all your enemies (anyone that disagrees with zionism) instead of working for peace ie. the hard won peace with egypt,jordan, saudi arabia (the rest of my comments you overlooked.) i promote peace you promote violence. and yes i do know peace takes a loooong time and is difficult. violence is easy but it begets violence.

as for your "myth of palestine" articles you only speak of palestine as a state/citizens as opposed to its indigenous people who are called palestinians only today but were known as caananites indigenously (though the same people). while israelites (jews) are indigenous to mesopatamia, not today's "palestine". your readers' comments on your articles refute your "history" much clearer than i could and you probably reject them outright so i won't bother. but "liquid" quotes from the holy book that might add to and also prove my point, "...the lord said to moses, 'when you cross the jordan into CANAAN, drive out all the INHABITANTS of the land before you....take possession of the land and settle in it...'" numbers 33:50-53 (emphasis is mine)(thanks, "liquid")

finally, "racist stand"? tell me where i said anything remotely racist. anti-zionism is not synonymous with racism (anti-semite) and my anti-zionist stand does not mean i support terrorism. just b/c your enemy is wrong does not mean you are right. i believe the creation of the state of israel for mostly european jews in the 99.9% arab populated region was a mistake. esp. since the indigenous "palestinians" lived and struggled under numerous foreign occupiers in "palestine" throughout their history. i do support an "israel" for the jewish population which is the problem we should have tackled morally after ww2 and not at the detrement of another struggling group of people. now you know my stance on israel and that i only seek peace for all people. few are right, many are wrong and i may be wrong but no one dies if i am.

[Michael van der Galien]

Indeed, those articles are good reads which will tell one more about the actual nature of this conflict.

[Alexandra]

JK,

since this is a zionist site supported by its groupthink of kill all your enemies, even preemptively, maybe israel should kill everyone in case we change our minds about israel.

Well I am sure you feel better now that you have got that off your chest, for me it simply stands as a provocation making no sense to respond to, as the debate would deteriorate very rapidly.

Now, if you have time, please read my Myth of Palestine 'Part II' and 'Part I', and 'UN's Global Mission: Reviving, Spreading And Fueling Rabid Anti-Semitism', then we can perhaps set the scene just by you explaining what is your problem with Israel? Your comments @ Michael van der Galien's on this subject indicate a great deal of prejudice.

Perhaps you have missed the: 1991 December 16: UN General Assembly revokes Resolution 3379, with 111 votes to 25 (13 abstentions), which debunks the 1975 November 10: UN General Assembly passes Resolution 3379, in which Zionism was declared "racist", with 72 votes to 35 (32 abstentions). You in turn speak as if though Zionism is an ailment at best and a racist stand at worst.

[jk]

but then again, and i hope i'm not being supercilious or condescending, minds can change the other way about israel. just ask egypt, jordan, saudi arabia. live by the sword die by the sword or something like that.

[Alexandra]

Guys,

I made an update in the post earlier, dealing with the most horrific neo-Nazi white supremacy site, which Pamela @ Atlas pointed out to me, as they were busy discussing her Jewish origin and making the most unbelievably disgusting remarks about her as a woman and a Jew. It is truly difficult to imagine such hatred actually exists...I shan't link to them directly, but her post, which only contains a few of the comments is here. From there you can access their post which had some 30 comments more last time I looked. It really has upset me a great deal, and made me physically ill. This kind of site would never survive anywhere else in the world, these people would be arrested. They have been running the site since 2000, so for 6 years already they are spawning hatred like this...sometimes I hate the price we have to pay for democracy.

[jk]

crusader,
"There has never been a better time in history to ignore the UN."

how about around 1948 with their creation of the state of israel for mostly european jews on indigenous palestinian land? then we wouldn't have this u.n. or mid-east problem. or maybe the best time to ignore the iranians was in 1948 when they were one of the first nations to recognize israel, then they never would have supported the birth and actions of hezbollah today (ironic, huh?) since this is a zionist site supported by its groupthink of kill all your enemies, even preemptively, maybe israel should kill everyone in case we change our minds about israel.

[jess1dering]

Brian,
I was real impressed by your first post.. quite succinct..I agree wholeheartedly.
.....................
.....................
macB.,
You said,
"...Sometimes I get so frustrated, depressed, and angry about Israel's predicament and the anti-Semitism ..."
Well, no wonder !! I am often left speechless and in a state of complete disbelief over the absolutely insane perceptions so many people have in regard to
Israel. Remember the fun some of us had with the 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'? This is akin to that , but it just isn't funny. Not in any way shape or form.
I truly thank God for ATB. It is salve for my soul to be amongst thoughtful, gentle, sincere souls. Especially since there is so much compulsive, hate and fear-driven 'opinion' flying around out there.
I have tried , as have others , to have conversations with RL. It's not possible. Your reaction to him very effectively mirrored his communication style with us. Was that intentional?. As Alexandra said, he talks AT us, never to us. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems to me that a spirit of compulsion and hate-driven, fear-driven desperation exists in RL., and as stated above, in far too many people.
Personally, I ain't gonna read him no mo'.
I kind of think that things are going to become more and more confounding to those who are "right". It will be bearable though, because there will always be those who understand; there will alwys be supportive friends ; there will always be........well, you know...

[weekenderman]

Thanks for the link, Rich. That columnist reveals the hypocrisy around the world when it comes to the subject of Israel -- and I especially enjoyed how he dissed the conspiracies about the supposed "Jewish takeover" of the world.

[Kenny Pierce]

Hey, Rich, is this Warren Kinsella dude by any chance W. P. Kinsella, who is known in America for the novel Field of Dreams but whose "Moccasin Telegraph" short stories are IMHO actually quite a bit superior to the baseball novel?

[rich]

Here is another interesting question answered. By a Canadien!

What do you call a one sided cease fire?

Answer in the last line at:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/kinsella/index.html?post=4033:

Found the link on Small Dead Animals:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

[Kenny Pierce]

[sigh] RL, on the premise that you are sincerely attempting evangelism, I refer you to the wise words of Owen Wister's narrator in The Virginian, in reference to the brutally judgmental (but well-intentioned) hell-and-brimstone-preaching Calvinist bishop who attempts to save the souls of the cowboys on the Judge's ranch (I won't get it exactly right, quoting from memory, but it will be close):

"Yet I knew that he [the bishop] was a good man; and I also knew that if a missionary is to be tactless, he might just as well be a bad man."

(My favorite Virginian line comes from Scipio in re sad-sack Shorty: "When a man has no ideas of his own, he'd ought to be awful careful where he borrows 'em from." Which, come to think of it, in light of RL's earlier use of the blood libel, is probably even more relevant.)

[Ghost Dansing]

"... a very telling question is this. Ask, "Does the state of Israel have a right to exist?" They will NEVER say yes. Just watch them go off on a tangent. It happens EVERY time."

I'm trying to think of the last time I saw that happen...The State of Israel has as much right to exist as the United States, or Germany...France...etc.

The Franks or the Frankish people were one of several west Germanic federations. The confederation was formed out of Germanic tribes: Salians, Sugambri, Chamavi, Tencteri, Chattuarii, Bructeri, Usipetes, Ampsivarii, Chatti. They entered the late Roman Empire from present central Germany and the Southern Netherlands and settled in northern Gaul where they were accepted as a foederati and established a lasting realm (sometimes referred to as Francia) in an area which eventually covered most of modern-day France, the Low Countries, and the western regions of Germany (Franconia, Rhineland, Hesse), forming the historic kernel of all these modern countries. The conversion to Christianity of the pagan Frankish king Clovis in the late 5th century, was a crucial event in the history of Europe.

France evolved from a feudal country to an increasingly centralized state (albeit with many regional differences) organized around a powerful absolute monarchy which relied on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and the explicit support of the established Church. France engaged in the long Italian Wars (1494-1559) which marked the beginning of Early Modern France. Renewed Catholic reaction headed by the powerful dukes of Guise culminated in a massacre of Huguenots (1562), starting the first of the French Wars of Religion, during which English, German and Spanish forces intervened on the side of rival Protestant and Catholic forces. During the reign of Louis XIV (1643-1715), France was the dominant power in Europe, aided by the diplomacy of Richelieu's successor (1642-1661) Cardinal Mazarin and the economic policies (1661-1683) of Colbert. On the eve of the French Revolution of 1789, France was in a profound institutional and financial crisis, but the ideas of the Enlightenment had begun to permeate the educated classes of society.

[Doc]

At the moment I am not feeling verbose, so I will get right to the point. Whenever a reporter is interviewing one of the Religion of Peace crowd, a very telling question is this. Ask, "Does the state of Israel have a right to exist?" They will NEVER say yes. Just watch them go off on a tangent. It happens EVERY time.
So it really does not matter how "nice" the Jews are. Period.

[RL]

"mac",

are you also a reprobate ?
you sure as heck write and sound like one.

[mac Brachman]

Didja hear that, Alexandra? RL still "agape"-fashion loves you. I'm sure that just makes your day. I can't say RL's posts really burn me up anymore; I've concluded that he has a serious mental illness (i.e., he's "kookoo," to use his spelling) and can't be held responsible for what he writes. I'd like to know by what certainty RL knows that Olmert will endure a "fiery hell" after he dies; I suppose God talks to RL through the latter's tooth-fillings. I can just imagine the conversation (at least as it takes place in the hallucination-strewn wasteland that is RL's mind). "Yo RL!" "What? Who's that? What's that voice coming from next to my gums?" "Yo, RL, man, it's me again, God, or at least your auditory hallucination that you think is God. I want you to write on the ATB blog about Israeli PM Olmert's ultimate fate!" "Yo, God, I will! I hope the Cap'n Crunch I ate for breakfast isn't crowding you out inside my fillings!" "No, RL, forget about that, I'm God, remember? Omnipotent, omniscient- a little half-digested sugar, corn syrup, and plaque-you really need to floss more often, RL- can't harm me. I'm talking to you about Olmert, remember?" "Yes, Lord, sorry, I, I'll try to floss more often, what about Olmert?" "I want you to write on the ATB blog that Olmert will go to fiery hell for disturbing the peace of his poor Arab neighbors and fellow human-beings. Got that?" "Yes God, I'm on it right now." "Cool RL! And don't forget about the flossing!" "I won't!" RL, correct me if it was a burning bush or CIA-implanted transmitters in your brain rather than your tooth fillings.

Sorry. Sometimes I get so frustrated, depressed, and angry about Israel's predicament and the anti-Semitism that I have to indulge in a little humor (at least I thought it was funny) to relieve the stress. Sincerely, Mac Brachman

[Vanderleun]

Crusader: Do you remove the drool cup before or after posting?

[Brian]

The only way for the U.N. to be truly credible as an organization would be to move it out of New York City (how about Bizmark,ND?), and allow membership only to democratic societies. Until then, it will continue as the corrupt, lowest-common-denominator organization it is.

[RL]

Chere Alexandra, i just wanted to remind you that you are not a Jew, nor an Israeli citizen. Your blind and unconditional support of the Atomic-panhandlers & zionist state drives me kookoo, but i still love(agape) you in a brotherly kind of way.

Once again, the Atomic panhandler zionists have demonstrated that they are extremely efficient and ruthless at slaughtering Arab women and children, and devastating and destroying Arab nations. Nice job idf.

Please don't ever listen to what the Atomic-panhandler zionists say; just look at what they do to their Arab neighbors and fellow human-beings. Thank you.

it is a little-bit relieving to know where ehud olmert(a reprobate zionist) will be spending eternity after he
dies (a fiery hell).

ICRC.org
(Neutral, Impartial, & Independent)

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

If you can't get your country out of the UN, you can at least get the UN out of your wallet!

"What's in YOUR Wallet?"

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

The time has come for each of us to calculate how much of our tax money goes into supporting the UN and the "palestinian" "authority" and to give that much money to the Israeli charity of our choice.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

I agree Brian,

And to demonstrate that they are serious about joining modern, civilised society, I suggest Hizb'allah call an immediate, international investigation into allegations of warcrimes by its troops!

[Brian]

I agree with Crusader. Time to ignore the U.N.

But given the response to the war coming from our Western "allies", I'm beginning to think we (U.S., Britain, Israel, all believers in classic liberal values) are in the minority. that a U.N. official would say something like this, in light of what Ahmadinejad said this week about eliminating Israel, is simply stunning. World opinion to me is generally useless, but that opinion seems to be drowning us out.

I am all for giving recognition to Iran and/or Hezbollah, but Israel's right to exist is not negotiable, and they have to be willing to join moden civilized society. They can't have it both ways.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

There has never been a better time in history to ignore the UN.

[Alexandra]

A top UN official says "Hezbollah deserves US respect". The logic is to give them recognition, after all that is all they want, and they will in turn cease the hostilities. Are these people completely mad or simply delusional?

[rich]

If Israel had bombed and then stopped for diplomacy to work, the question is what would Hezbollah do at that point. The What if has defined Israel's course of action.

So would Hezbollah be more interested in further antagonizing Israel or in taking over the government of Lebanon or doing both at the same time.

My guess is that Hezbollah's long term aim was to take over Lebanon and then worry about Israel. The reason for this guess is that Hezbollah taking over Lebanon was, at the time possible, while denting Israel in any significant manner was not really possible.

The argument against this is that you do not spend that much money for fortifcations and arms if you are not going to use them.

But it seems more likely that the fortifications and arms were to show that Hezbollah could defend an Israeli attack, or make such an attack more costly than Israel would want to risk.

This second consideration would reinforce the idea that Hezbollah was more interested in taking over Lebanon.

Of course that is all gone now. And that is the reason why Syria and Iran have lost big time in this war.

[Brian]

I won't be surprised if the maker(s) of that movie now receive death threats. It's a predictable as the tides.

With all of the eliminationist rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad, and from the terrorist groups, they're not as stupid as they are crazy. But if you were in their shoes, how would you stop this war and save face? Israel reacted with much more force than they anticipated, and I hope that the IDF maintains their pressure. Their enemy is cornered. Do they continue shooting it out, or throw in the towel and come to the negotiating table? What's different about this ME war compared with past ones, whcih end in some "peace" agreement, but which also allows the terrorist groups to re-energize for another day.

[Patrick]

To show how little I watch TV anymore, Hannity and Colmes had the director and one of the interviewees on their show on the 27th of July.

Brian, I am sure you are right that it was pulled due to copyright infringement. I will be buying this one. It connects the dots well and has tons of powerful imagery. Some examples are the 3 year old describing how Israelis should all be killed and they are the spawn of pigs and monkeys, to the handless wonder explaining how any non-muslims found within the borders of Islam should be captured like an escaped cow and taken to market; if no one will buy them, they should then be killed.

Very well done. Check the resources for some of the information they used. What I found very good was the comparison to the rise of Nazism and the ties between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Palestine.

Maybe they have been reading Alexandra's site, because we have discussed most of this, but this film is a great primer for friends and family who have not been to All Things Beautiful...

The reason I started pointing to this was that it does address the goals of militant Jihadist. It has lots of imagery from within Lebanon (definately grounds for a pre-emptive attack if they were in Mexico or Canada). I believe that regardless of Israeli actions, this was going to happen very soon. I know the Israelis were hoping for sublimation (physics term, not the psychology), but it appears we went from solid to liquid. It will be very messy. There will definately be a need for clean-up.

[RL]

To see a brief and truthful video of what would not have happened, please check-out the brief video at, lebanonundersiege.gov.lb

Thank you. God Bless all of the peace-loving people of Lebanon, and God bless Lebanon, Amen. Jesus is Lord. St. John 8:42-47 Romans 8:9

i'm not sure as to exactly what dore gold is full of, but i'm certain that it is Not the Holy Spirit of Christ (God). The same transcendent truth applies to the very-corrupt, notorious, scandalous, Anti-American panhandlers, and zionist spy-infested Aipac organization. God Bless America.

[Alexandra]

Patrick, thanks that would be great!

[Patrick]

I believe you are correct. I will be able to watch it in its entirety, but can no longer link from the google video site. Here is the movie site itself. I think they only show trailers.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

It is very well done. I learned some things about the Hitler-Croatia forces that I never knew. I have about 10 minutes left (paused it). I will see about listing some of the main points in a little bit.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Alexandra,

I'm convinced Iran and Syria would have concluded Israel was weak, and ripe for the conquering. However it is an interesting question to ask what they would have done about it (if anything)?

I could see a situation in which Iran and Syria congratulate themselves for having brought Israel to her knees, and then don't quite know what to do next, but I can't help feeling that at some point a spark would have ignited the powderkeg, and Israel would be fighting this fight less prepared, less informed and less able to win than she is now. Could Israel survive another Yom Kippur war?

Of course, I can't speak for Iran and Syria, but Ahmadinejad is a man of destiny, and men of destiny should be taken at their word.

[Brian]

Patrick,

I can't access it on Google, or the home site. If it was on Google, it may have been taken down to protect copyright. Let me know if you can still access it on your end.

Thanks

[Brian]

Thanks. I'll check it out ASAP.

[Patrick]

Brian,

I downloaded the Google Video Player previously. Please do that first. Let me caution you. They have some graphic footage about the 30 minute mark (crowds in the Iraq civilian incident and the Blackhawk down incident).

http://www.honestreporting.com is the parent website.

So far the video has been very apropos. It does a very thorough job portraying Jihadi education, goals, speeches, etc. I have seen many things we have discussed here before.

The Google video player can be downloaded here.

[Brian]

I can't get to Patrick's linked video, so I can't comment on that.

The world's population is an enormous bunch of armchair quarterbacks. This has been amplified by the Internet. But after all is said and read about this war, I always come down squarely behind Israel. Nothing can shake my determined faith in the consideration their leadership is taking toward civilians, and the strategy they have spent years preparing for. Passivity in the face of terrorism, whether or not it is state-sponsored, is suicidal. If anything, democratic countries are being too timid in their application of force.

Hamas/Hezbollah thrive on the PR energy of faux victories and passive enemies. A typical cease fire would only allow them to claim victory amongst the rubble of Lebanon, would be one-sided against Israel, and would embolden anti-Semites and terrorists the world over. This is not only about Israel. This is about the survival of our very civilization, which Iran and Syria have no desire to join. If they did, they could be brought to the table and a real cease fire could occur.

[Patrick]

I have just started viewing this, but thought within the first 10 minutes thought you should know of it's location to see for yourself. A fellow classmate of mine sent me the link and I definately believe it will be worthwhile.

It is called: Obsession: What the war on Terror Is Really About. I do not know if you need the google videoplayer to see it. It plays just fine on my system. It is reported to be from Honestreporting.com and is 1 hr 18min long. Give yourself some time. I have not really researched who they are, just verified their .com site and am going back to view their documentary.