Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

[catsmate]

Alternative - stop killing Hezbollah and pretend that Hezbollah will stop killing Israelis.

 

[Steve]

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1627266f99ffa1db1b.jpg[/qimg]

No alternative then seems to be what you are saying, which does seem to be the prevailing opinion. I have no argument against it. Both sides will continue to conduct themselves in the same manner and people will continue to die. C'est la vie in the middle east.

 

[Brainster]

Yes they do.

Equivalences are never perfectly equal! …One difference is in civilian body counts. Both direct body counts, as well as the indirect counts via illness and famine. Not to mention lives completely destroyed. By that measure, IDF far out-evils Hamas, many times over.

What do you think the US civilian body counts were in WWII compared to the German civilian body counts? So the US out-evilled the Nazis, many times over?

 

[webfusion]

Since the PFLP was being give short-shrift in the media, and not getting enough coverage for their part in attacks upon Israel, today they got a headline for their "We're number Two, But We Try Harder" efforts ---- https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/396938 Three senior PFLP killed in Beirut.

 

[Chanakya]

What do you think the US civilian body counts were in WWII compared to the German civilian body counts? So the US out-evilled the Nazis, many times over?

Specifically in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, certainly. And basis that one factor (that's not the only one, I did say that), certainly.

Japan bombed the Allies, the US atom-bombed them. In one sense it adds up. But it doesn't, really, and only a morally cock-eyed interpretation can defend H and N. Specifically as far as H & N ---- and IDF's flattening the Palestinian civilians, again and again, compares, in this specific sense, to H&N certainly ---- I do believe that's actually evil, and a war crime comparable to the Final Solution. Only a psychopath with zero empathy for the other, could have engineered that evil. In a just world, in a fair world, the authors of H&N would have swung from gibbets, no less than the Nazi psychopaths. But instead they retired with pensions, and glory even; just as Hitler and his psychopaths would have, had they won the war.

We don't live in a fair, just world. Nothing I can do about it. But I'm damned if I'm going to be gaslighted into agreeing that what is sheer evil is actually not.


eta: Given your smiley, that came across as extra-intense, sorry! I do mean every word of that, absolutely, completely: but there's no need to be so-intense-about-it-that-it-gets-weird, I guess, not to folks who've no more personally to do with any of it, on either side, than do I. ....Cheers, smiley back

 

[Trausti]

Since the PFLP was being give short-shrift in the media, and not getting enough coverage for their part in attacks upon Israel, today they got a headline for their "We're number Two, But We Try Harder" efforts ---- https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/396938 Three senior PFLP killed in Beirut.

Well done.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Specifically in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, certainly. And basis that one factor (that's not the only one, I did say that), certainly.

Japan bombed the Allies, the US atom-bombed them. In one sense it adds up. But it doesn't, really, and only a morally cock-eyed interpretation can defend H and N. Specifically as far as H & N ---- and IDF's flattening the Palestinian civilians, again and again, compares, in this specific sense, to H&N certainly ---- I do believe that's actually evil, and a war crime comparable to the Final Solution. Only a psychopath with zero empathy for the other, could have engineered that evil. In a just world, in a fair world, the authors of H&N would have swung from gibbets, no less than the Nazi psychopaths. But instead they retired with pensions, and glory even; just as Hitler and his psychopaths would have, had they won the war.

We don't live in a fair, just world. Nothing I can do about it. But I'm damned if I'm going to be gaslighted into agreeing that what is sheer evil is actually not.


eta: Given your smiley, that came across as extra-intense, sorry! I do mean every word of that, absolutely, completely: but there's no need to be so-intense-about-it-that-it-gets-weird, I guess, not to folks who've no more personally to do with any of it, on either side, than do I. ....Cheers, smiley back

The point of the atom bombs, the reason they were developed, and the reason they were deployed, was to do in a single bomb what had previously taken a long time of bombardments. No one had any idea there was more to the atom bomb than its initial explosion, no one intended any more harm to those two cities than any other across the Axis Powers that got pummeled. Remember Dresden and Tokyo, getting 'firebombed'? Those weren't intended either, and the Allies attacking all those military targets weren't able to predict when they'd happen (or they would have done it every time, that's the point of destroying a military target, destroy with minimum expenditure).

Basically what I'm saying is that we know now just how horrific an atomic explosion is, what it does far outside the blast radius, how long the effects linger, but the "authors of H&N" had no clue that it was any more than the equivalent of bombarding with thousands of bombs in a single drop.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is a decided lack of historical pattern recognition going on.

Israel pretends that it dealt with Hamas, even though it hasn't, just as it did in the past.

Now it thinks it has more or less dealt with Hezbollah, even though it hasn't, just as it did in the past.

Meanwhile, hostages that could have been home nearly a year ago are being deliberately ignored.

 

[webfusion]

Hamas hasn't been "dealt with" ? I beg to differ.
IDF confirms it killed Hamas' leader in Lebanon, Fateh Sherif Abu el-Amin.
Along with his entire family.

Israel's leaders decided not to go along with the 'drip by drip' method of getting hostages, in phases.
The primary reason for this became apparent when the previous suggested/negotiated deal resulted in HAMAS presenting a list of very few live captives, and substituting cadavers, because they simply don't even really know who's alive, who's dead, among the Israelis they took into Gaza.
(N.B. - Certainly the International Red Cross doesn't know.)

By the way, the Hamas guy (Sharif) who just was assassinated is a senior operative of UNRWA in Lebanon.
Historical Pattern Recognition, anyone?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

There is a decided lack of historical pattern recognition going on.

Israel pretends that it dealt with Hamas, even though it hasn't, just as it did in the past.

Now it thinks it has more or less dealt with Hezbollah, even though it hasn't, just as it did in the past.
Meanwhile, hostages that could have been home nearly a year ago are being deliberately ignored.

Irael has done a far better job of dealing with Hezbollah this time than it has done before. Consider:

• Whole levels of Hezbollah's leadership have been killed.
• Their ability to launch rockets, which was their supposed big threat against Israel, has been severly curtailed.
• Iran, their backer, has revealed its hand. Iran wanted Hezbollah, and Hamas, as deterrents against Israeli attacks on Iran itself. Now that Hezbollah has been given a bloody nose, where is Iran? Nowhere to be seen. They are not going to risk all-out war with Israel, and it looks likely they will not retaliate in support of their proxies.
• This, in turn, will restrain Hezbollah from retaliation. Now they know Iran hasn't got their back, and they were just stooges for the mullahs, they will be more hesitant about dying for someone else's cause.
• This applies to Hezbollah's support among the Lebanese, too. They remember what the group did before (Hariri assassination, 2008 war), and there appears to be considerable resentment that Hezbollah is endangering civilians, when those civilians have not been consulted, and stand to gain very little whatever the outcome of this latest conflict.

 

[webfusion]

BREAKING NEWS: IDF troops operating inside Lebanon.

Various Israeli special forces and combat engineering units are doing preparatory missions for a ground invasion that is likely to begin later this week.
(WSJ)

South Lebanon is on standby for a major Israeli advance, as Hezbollah announces they are "going to emerge victorious" (not)
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/396959

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And I didn't say it hasn't.

But is completely eliminating Hezbollah OR Hamas as threat, as has been stated as goals since October, actually an achievable task?
What would Israel actually have to do to make sure that they don't just keep on existing and planning and, sooner or later, attacking again?

Some suggested that the countries and territories in question would have to be occupied for at least a generation, their economy rebuild Marshal-Plan style and their population educated into a mindset of peaceful coexistence with Israel - but no one is going to do That.

So what is the minimum action required to pacify the region to the point that Israeli will actually be save enough to raise families near the border to Lebanon (on either side) - not just until the next Election, but for the next decades?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes they do.

Equivalences are never perfectly equal! …One difference is in civilian body counts. Both direct body counts, as well as the indirect counts via illness and famine. Not to mention lives completely destroyed. By that measure, IDF far out-evils Hamas, many times over. Hezb as well, probably (although TBH I’m not quite aware of Hezb’s score overall, elsewhere other than against Israel recently, so I’m open to being corrected on that factuality).

This is a perverse measure. By successfully protecting its population, the IDF makes Hamas and Hezbollah seem less evil. By purposefully endangering their own populations, Hamas and Hezbollah make the IDF seem more evil. If this is your measure, then you are in practice rewarding evil even though you think you're against it.

Another difference would be in that while Israel-under-Bibi-recently is unmindful of how high civilian causalties they run, but they don’t deliberately kill civilians for the sake of killing them; while Hamas certainly does. (Does Hezb do that as well? I don’t know, really. But certainly they support Hamas, who do that, so they’re at least indirectly guilty of that.) …And by that measure, Hamas + Hezb out-evils IDF-under-Bibi-of-late.

This metric doesn't reward evil. It is, therefore, a far better metric. And by your own admission, they are leagues apart. So why do you ignore this metric?

Because it doesn't produce the outcome you want. Which is a way to blame Israel.

…And I’m afraid it’s you who either are not viewing this conflict rationally, or else are viewing this without a shred of human empathy, if you don’t end up finding Bibi’s conduct, and the conduct of IDF-under-Bibi-of-late, completely reprehensible, completely evil, and actually criminal --- specifically in terms of the unprecedented amount of wanton civilian deaths and suffering that the unarmed civilian population there has been subjected to.

Unprecedented? My dear boy, if you think any of this is unprecedented in warfare, then you are woefully ignorant of history.

And we don't even have to go that far back or that far away to see much worse. The Syrian civil war has taken more than an order of magnitude more lives. And the world just shrugs. Same with the civil war in Yemen. You have around 85,000 children who starved to death, plus the hundreds of thousands directly killed. And again, global indifference.

Nothing about the conflict in Gaza is actually special on a global scale, except that Jews are involved.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And I didn't say it hasn't.

But is completely eliminating Hezbollah OR Hamas as threat, as has been stated as goals since October, actually an achievable task?
What would Israel actually have to do to make sure that they don't just keep on existing and planning and, sooner or later, attacking again?

Some suggested that the countries and territories in question would have to be occupied for at least a generation, their economy rebuild Marshal-Plan style and their population educated into a mindset of peaceful coexistence with Israel - but no one is going to do That.

So what is the minimum action required to pacify the region to the point that Israeli will actually be save enough to raise families near the border to Lebanon (on either side) - not just until the next Election, but for the next decades?

Stop looking at Israel and start looking at Iran.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Stop looking at Israel and start looking at Iran.

I'm looking at it all, instead of just where it's convienent.

But okay - what should be done about Iran to create a lasting peace?

Invade and regime change?
Occupation and de-theocratization ?

is that realistic?

In short: do you, does anyone, who thinks about this situation honestly, think that military action will be what will create peace?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And I didn't say it hasn't.

But is completely eliminating Hezbollah OR Hamas as threat, as has been stated as goals since October, actually an achievable task?
What would Israel actually have to do to make sure that they don't just keep on existing and planning and, sooner or later, attacking again?

Some suggested that the countries and territories in question would have to be occupied for at least a generation, their economy rebuild Marshal-Plan style and their population educated into a mindset of peaceful coexistence with Israel - but no one is going to do That.

So what is the minimum action required to pacify the region to the point that Israeli will actually be save enough to raise families near the border to Lebanon (on either side) - not just until the next Election, but for the next decades?

Stop looking at Israel and start looking at Iran.

I'm looking at it all, instead of just where it's convienent.

I've posted your earlier comment, for context.
Please highlight where in that post you mention what Iran should do to reduce conflict- or, for that matter, where you mention Iran at all.
To save time, and the inevitable obfuscation: You didn't. You concentrated entirely on Israel and placed all of the responsibility for a long-term solution on that country.
So, no, you aren't "looking at it all", at all.

But okay - what should be done about Iran to create a lasting peace?

I thought you were looking at it all. Don't you have any ideas yourself?

Invade and regime change?
Occupation and de-theocratization ?

is that realistic?

No. Stupid ideas.

In short: do you, does anyone, who thinks about this situation honestly, think that military action will be what will create peace?

What about diplomatic pressure? Are Americans only able to think about military solutions? How well has that worked for your country in the past?
Try this:
Diplomatic pressure on Iran, involving Saudi Arabia, Oman and the other Gulf states. Also, diplomatic pressure on the governments of the countries most affected by Iranian meddling- Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. A robust peacekeeping force in Yemen would be beneficial too, along with real talks to resolve the differences between the Houthis and the nominal Yemeni government. We could even try face-to-face talks between Iran and Israel.
Iran needs to realise that its attempts to gain influence and to attack Israel will be self-defeating, and that it is in their own interest to pursue peaceful means instead.

 

[Ziggurat]

What about diplomatic pressure?

I don't think "diplomatic pressure" will do much of anything. This conflict isn't due to some misunderstanding that can be resolved by just talking. Sanctions are worth something, though, if for no other reason than reducing the resources they have available to fund terrorism.

We should also be hitting their Houthi proxies harder than we have. They've attacked both commercial shipping and even out own fleet, and we should not tolerate that. Historically speaking, we have punished countries that touch our boats quite severely, we shouldn't give up that precedent so easily.

 

[Steve]

I've posted your earlier comment, for context.
Please highlight where in that post you mention what Iran should do to reduce conflict- or, for that matter, where you mention Iran at all.
To save time, and the inevitable obfuscation: You didn't. You concentrated entirely on Israel and placed all of the responsibility for a long-term solution on that country.
So, no, you aren't "looking at it all", at all.



I thought you were looking at it all. Don't you have any ideas yourself?



No. Stupid ideas.



What about diplomatic pressure? Are Americans only able to think about military solutions? How well has that worked for your country in the past?
Try this:
Diplomatic pressure on Iran, involving Saudi Arabia, Oman and the other Gulf states. Also, diplomatic pressure on the governments of the countries most affected by Iranian meddling- Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. A robust peacekeeping force in Yemen would be beneficial too, along with real talks to resolve the differences between the Houthis and the nominal Yemeni government. We could even try face-to-face talks between Iran and Israel.
Iran needs to realise that its attempts to gain influence and to attack Israel will be self-defeating, and that it is in their own interest to pursue peaceful means instead.

When you have a hammer large expensive military everything looks like.......

Violence actually is the go to solution in America at so many levels.

 

[theprestige]

Glad to hear that the entire Command and control apparatus is now a fair Target on both sides.

After thinking this over, I've changed my opinion.

My original answer was based on my principled position on the ethics of armed conflict. Of course the entire command and control apparatus of each side is a legitimate target for the other side.

But this isn't the principled context in which Hercules making his statements. So my answer to him has changed:

Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, has no legitimate targets in Israel, full stop. Israel, meanwhile, being the target of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, has a plethora of legitimate targets to choose from, including their entire command and control apparatus. In a nutshell: Nasrallah is a fair target for Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is not reciprocally a fair target for Nasrallah.

Yalla ya Nasrallah

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I've posted your earlier comment, for context.
Please highlight where in that post you mention what Iran should do to reduce conflict- or, for that matter, where you mention Iran at all.
To save time, and the inevitable obfuscation: You didn't. You concentrated entirely on Israel and placed all of the responsibility for a long-term solution on that country.
So, no, you aren't "looking at it all", at all.



I thought you were looking at it all. Don't you have any ideas yourself?



No. Stupid ideas.



What about diplomatic pressure? Are Americans only able to think about military solutions? How well has that worked for your country in the past?
Try this:
Diplomatic pressure on Iran, involving Saudi Arabia, Oman and the other Gulf states. Also, diplomatic pressure on the governments of the countries most affected by Iranian meddling- Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. A robust peacekeeping force in Yemen would be beneficial too, along with real talks to resolve the differences between the Houthis and the nominal Yemeni government. We could even try face-to-face talks between Iran and Israel.
Iran needs to realise that its attempts to gain influence and to attack Israel will be self-defeating, and that it is in their own interest to pursue peaceful means instead.

Not my ideas that you call Stupid - please address your opinion to the poster who suggested them.

Have you checked whether the US and European Countries have put any pressure on these countries?
Pressure has been continuous on Iran, but hasn't achieved what the Us and Israel want.

So that is obviously a stu ... I mean insufficient idea.

Do you actually have an idea that might work ?