Hello? Israel Created Hezbollah.

[DistressedAmerican]

Just in case people are missing this crucial fact:

Hezbollah was formed in direct response to the Israeli occupation of Lebannon in the 1980's.

That means, Israel CREATED Hezbollah.

It also means that such military incursions CREATE terrorists.

That is all.

[silverlib]

1. Amen (n/t)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. wow. Just like we created Al Qaeda

amazing how that works

[ChuckyDee]

100. it's always the USA or Israel's fault

Didn't you know that? We made people into genocidal psychopaths hellbent on destruction - and we keep encouraging their beloved leaders like Arafat, Saddam, and Ahmadinejad to keep ranting and hating the US and Israel.

Our fault, never theirs.

[thinkingwoman]

3. ok, sure, so...

why did Israel occupy Lebanon in the 1980s?

[cali]

4. Simple is as simple does

and it rarely does very well when applied to complex geopolitical situations.

[megatherium]

5. Of course, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 because the PLO was

launching artillery attacks across the Lebanese border.

[thinkingwoman]

6. thank you megatherium

the OP obviously needs that history lesson since he/she couldn't be bothered to answer my post about it. :shrug:

I have no problem with people disagreeing about the appropriate response to repeated (and we're talking decades of repeated here) terrorist attacks, but it pisses me off when they change or completely ignore history in the process.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. Get Pissed If You Want. I Answer Posts When I'm At My Computer..

I was away. If you are too impatient to wait for my reply for half a freaking hour, I suspect you are hostile beyond that issue.

I am well aware of the history of the situation. You implication to the contrary is both insulting and totally incorrect.

I am well aware of Israel's stated reasons for entering Lebannon in 1982. That reaction was every bith the overreaction this is. It resulted in the creation of Helbollah. This will result in the exact same thing, THE CREATION OF MORE TERRORISTS.

You have the 1980's as an example. A full bown experiment in what happens under these kinds of attacks and incursions. They do not stop the terror. They increase it.

Now look at the number of rockets now coming across the border. How many more are being launched now than say last week? Is that an improvement?

Israel serves to gain nothing from this but even more violence returned. That's the way it works in a cycle of violence. This will just be viewed ad yet another provocation and will create even more who are willing to die and kill to end such attacks.

What do you think they stand to gain based on the historical evidence? Will they or will they not create even morew of this violence for the future?

I'm sure you'll answer that question right away with your superior historical knowledge.

[PA Democrat]

24. Have you read these 2 recent articles, DA? Juan Cole & Chris Hedges

are pretty much saying the same thing you've said. Personally, I have a lot of respect for both of these guys, and I think it would behoove people to read their opinions. The more carnage, the more atrocities committed on both sides of these 2 conflicts, the more empowered the radical elements become.

Juan Cole:

"Israeli spokesmen are saying that they want to finish off Hizbullah. But you can't finish off a mass movement among 1.35 million people. Besides, there wouldn't be any Hizbullah if Israel had not invaded Lebanon in 1982 and occupied the south for 18 years. Israel's grabby occupation radicalized and helped mobilize the Lebanese Shiites. They aren't going to become less radical and less mobilized as a result of the current hamfisted Israeli assault."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=1640562&mesg_id=1640850

Chris Hedges:

"The escalating repression by Israel, like the escalating repression by the American occupiers in Iraq, has become the most potent recruiting tool for Islamic extremists. It has rendered each side deaf and dumb. As those under the boot of Israel or America lose all hope for justice, as they give up on peaceful recourses to ameliorate their plight, as they fall into despair, it throws them, by default, into the hands of extremists. And as the extremists grow and their attacks became more deadly, it likewise helps silence those in Israel and the United States who call for compassion, restraint and understanding. It is difficult to argue with those holding up bloodied corpses. Each side finds it useful to keep the supply coming.

In this demented world, friend and foe need each other. Hamas and Hezbollah yearn, on some level, for Israeli airstrikes against civilians just as the hard right in Israel yearns in some dark way for suicide bombers. The indiscriminate violence of one justifies the indiscriminate violence of the other. The violence stokes the fear that is the driving force behind all messianic, violent movements—American, Jewish and Muslim. And since these groups have nothing to offer other than violence, they need fear to keep those around them compliant. The atrocities committed by one—real or imagined – make possible the atrocities of the other.

Does anyone in the Israeli government really believe that attacking Lebanon and killing more than 60 Lebanese civilians will ensure the freedom of the two captured Israeli soldiers? There have been hostages, including Israeli hostages, taken captive in Lebanon before, and most have been freed through long and painful negotiations. If the Israelis do believe in this violence, it is a sad indication of how out of touch they are with the world that opposes them.

We cannot ascribe equal amounts of moral blame to all sides. Israel is the oppressor in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. America is the oppressor in Iraq. And there can be no hope for a peaceful resolution to these conflicts until Iraqis are freed from American occupation and Palestinians are allowed to build a viable state. It is the distorting and dehumanizing effects of occupation that made possible the proliferation of extremist groups that, albeit on a smaller scale, simply hand back to the occupier some of their own medicine. The numbers, after all, make clear that most of the victims are Palestinian, Iraqi and now Lebanese civilians, although the numbers game can also obscure the fact that the murder of any innocent by any group is indefensible."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060714_chris_hedges_mutually_assured_destruction

[DistressedAmerican]

27. I haven't. My Comments Were Just Common Sense IMO.

I will give them a read. I do love Jaun's writing. Thanks.

[thinkingwoman]

34. the number of voices making stupid claims

doesn't make the claims less stupid.

[DistressedAmerican]

37. SHOW ME WHAT IS STUPID ABOUT THE CLAIM. REFUTE IT.

Or can you just insult me and hope that makes me change my mind?

Do you have an actual information to refute the OP? You were the one here insulting me with assertions thagt I did not grasp history.

What contradictory facts do you have to refute my "stupid" OP? Any? :shrug:

[thinkingwoman]

52. you're the one shouting

Sorry, but I didn't insult you. And I accused you of ignoring history, not failing to grasp it. There's a difference.

Finally, the facts that contradict your OP have been laid out in this thread by at least 3 posters. You haven't shown any willingness to discuss the issue beyond shouting at people who disagree with you.

Have at it. Enjoy. I'm done.

[PA Democrat]

94. BBC article agrees with your claim:

"Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

But then, I guess the BBC is "stupid" too.

Jeez, when people don't even want to have an honest conversation about how organizations like Hezbollah came to power in the first place, I guess there's not much hope for moving forward to solve the problem, is there?

[PA Democrat]

47. So you disagree then with the premise that atrocities committed by BOTH

sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do not strengthen the extremists on each side?

You don't think that every time there is a suicide bomb attack or rocket attack on Israeli civilians that the Israeli population is not more open to harsher retributions against the Palestinians?

You don't think that when Ariel Sharon was found by his own government to bear "personal responsibility" for the massacre of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Shatila in southern Lebanon that extremist organizations such as Hezbollah aren't strengthened?

Likewise, our harsh treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib, didn't have any impact on strengthening the insurgency in Iraq? The attacks on the World Trade Center didn't make Americans more open to invading Iraq?

Violence begets violence. There are evil people on all sides of these conflicts who use people's fear, shock and horror over atrocities to gain political power.

Doesn't sound like such a "stupid" idea to me.

[thinkingwoman]

50. I agree that violence begets violence

and yet what is to be done? Where has peaceful negotiation led to less anti-jewish/anti-israeli terrorism?

Nowhere in any of my posts in the years I have been at DU have I suggested that Israel does no wrong. But those who suggest that Israel has a bunch of alternatives they're refusing to try are fooling themselves.

Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone.

[PA Democrat]

55. You have never heard of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty or the Israel-Jordan

Peace Treaty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace

But then, I guess things can continue on as before with one attack retaliated by a counter-attack retaliated by a counter-counter attack, ad nauseam. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Great letter by former CIA near east analyst on Daily Kos:

"One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this this, it has backfired. Every single time. The national philosophy (it is really deeper and more significant that just a military tactic) that underlies this devotion to massive over-reaction, and particularly its corollary, collective punishment, is obviously and demonstrably foolish and futile. It does not intimidate or deter the Palestinians, and it never will. It hardens their determination to resist and to defy. I don't care whether you consider the Palestinians to be terrorists or common criminals or freedom fighters or national resistance heroes. If you are an intelligent and sensitive human being, you learn from your past mistakes and you make a rational decision to try something different. The Israeli leadership for all these many generations has been incapable of performing that really rather simple mental and moral exercise.

Nor does it matter who "started it". If you take land and houses and personal freedoms away from individuals, and if you systematically deprive a whole people of dignity and national identity, they do not forgive or forget their deep sense of injury, deprivation and injustice. Giving them a thorough beating at regular intervals, or endlessly frustrating their hopes of enjoying the benefits of political self-determination and economic prosperity, does not diminish their personal bitterness of alleviate their collective hunger for revenge and restitution. That point should be beyond debate, in my opinion.

I have a memory, too. My first job for the CIA in the early 1950's was establishing an informant network in the Palestinian refugee camps in Southern Lebanon --- in a region where my ancestors had established Christian mission schools starting a century before. It was in exactly that same year, 1953, when a secret unit of the Israeli army slaughtered sixty-eight innocent Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, in a village called Qibya, near Tel Aviv, under official orders from Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. The unit was commanded by an ambitious young lieutenant, exactly my age, named Ariel Sharon. That "lesson", administered before there was a Fatah or a Hamas or a Hizballah, and long before "terrorism" became a household word, was supposed to end Palestinian resistance once and for all, right from the very start. That was only five years after Israel came into existence. Tragically, the intended object lesson has not been learned (by either side) in the 56 years since that day. Who "started it"? I go back to that old definition of madness mentioned above."


more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/13/202447/377

[thinkingwoman]

65. Egypt and Jordan

are not the ones rocketing and suicide-bombing Israel these days are they?

We're speaking of Hamas and Hezbollah. Where have negotiations helped with these groups that refuse to honor them?

[PA Democrat]

84. Well, no, that would be a violation of their treaties. Peace negotiations

were successful, in those cases, were they not?

But hey. Let's not try for a different approach, let's just continue the cycle of violence that empowers groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Let's get Iran, Syria, and the US into the war. Maybe when it spills over into an all-out world war, people will realize they should have been more forceful in bringing the governments of Israel, Palestine and Lebanon to the bargaining table.

The only way to break the back of Hamas and and Hezbollah is to marginalize the effectiveness of the use of terrorism. And here's a hint. That is NOT done by the heavy-handed disproportionate retaliation currently underway which has the entire Middle east on the verge of disaster.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. And You Accused Me Of Ignoring History?

Really?

Maybe it is you that could stand to do some reading. It has happened repeatedly.

How many times has more violence ended such violence? NONE.

[thinkingwoman]

68. It has happened repeatedly with Hezbollah

and Hamas?

Name once.

The only thing that has happened repeatedly with Hezbollah and Hamas is that they violate any and all agreements reached.

[havocmom]

69. Same can be said about inane, knee-jerk responses

to posts of pretty valid historical evidence made by respected authorities.

[thinkingwoman]

79. pretty valid historical evidence?

Interesting qualifier.

[thinkingwoman]

33. Your lack of immediate reply is not the problem

and certainly didn't make me "pissed."

As I stated in the post you just responded to:

"it pisses me off when they change or completely ignore history in the process."

Your OP claim that Israel created Hezbollah by invading Lebanon in the 80s changes or completely ignores history. Since this latest post contains this gem: "I am well aware of Israel's stated reasons for entering Lebannon in 1982" the only logical conclusion to draw is that you are completely ignoring history.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but opinions that ignore facts are worthless. Congrats.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. Are You Going To Refute My OP?

Nothing you have said yet challenges anything I have said. Not a thing. Your insults do not change the facts from the OP one bit. Refute the facts in the OP or do not waste my time with your pointless and baseless insults.

Do not wait on any more replies from me of all you can do is hurl insults. You want to bring some facts to make your case that my OP os "stupid", I'll be back. If you have nothing, expect nothing.

I am bored with these attacks on me which contain not a shred of refutation of the OP you are attacking.

[The Magistrate]

41. What Has Probably Got People Going, Sir

Is that they read the headline of "created Hezbollah" as an allegation this was done as a purposeful, clandestine action, and that what is being alleged is that Hezbollah is some kind of "false flag" for Israel. There have been some claims in the discussion of this matter that "really" Israel itself "captured" the soldiers, and the like, and people get on edge....

But your statement is, at bottom, quite corect. Hezbollah arose in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon a querter century ago, and has gained its political prominence by successful opposition to Israel in southern Lebanon. There are, as always, additional complications in the detail of the organization's history and situation, but they do not alter the accuracy of your basic claim.

[DistressedAmerican]

45. Well, Kneejerkers Will Be Kneejerkers.

What can you do?

[thinkingwoman]

54. You are mostly correct, but I'd like to add

and clarify a couple of things.

What prompted me to respond to this thread while ignoring the many other half-truths and outright nonsense posted on DU about this issue today, was the OP's tone and wording.

The tone and wording of the OP suggest that Israel was the aggressor a quarter century ago and that Hezbollah formed as legitimate response, which ignores the fact that Israel was defending herself at the time.

There is also a lot of nuance that the OP is ignoring about Hezbollah. Sure, the name is new, but who formed that group, and, equally important, what group or groups were they affiliated with or members of before Hezbollah officially formed?

Because of those two points, the OP's claim that Israel created Hezbollah is, at bottom, not correct. When something this complicated is oversimplified to the point that it has been in this thread, a general truth can become a specific falsehood.

[The Magistrate]

56. In That On-Going Conflict, Ma'am

Determining who was being the defender and who the attacker at any given time is pretty difficult.

Certainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the eighties, intended to destroy the P.L.O. in that country, had serious negative consequences for Israel, and must be classed as poor decision poorly executed, in my view.

[thinkingwoman]

71. poor decision poorly executed

On that sir we can completely agree!

[DistressedAmerican]

57. No The OP Said Quite Clearly That Helbollah Formed As A Reaction

to that incursion. I assigned no blame for the incursion to anyone. I never said a damn word about who was to blame for the incursion. Just pointed out the results and the likely results of similar actions today.

Frankly the blame game bullshit is a major reason why this fucking violence never ends. It is time that everyone stiop pointing the damn fingers everywhere and take the goal of peace as a far larger goal than blaming the other side.

I merely pointed out the clear fact (still totally unrefuted by anyone here) that they formed as a response to that action. I further said that such actions therefore create terrorists. If you want to attack me, do it based on what I actually said and not your biased reading thereof.

Israel is ALWAYS just defending herself. More of the pointless and counter-productive blame game.

Israel did create Hezbollah. They would not exist without the incursion in the 1980's.

No truth ever becomes false. That of why they are truths.

[thinkingwoman]

76. I can't tell

if you are purposely misreading and misrepresenting or if you are just so angry you can't think straight. Oh well, no matter.

First, I want to pat you on the back for your typo/freudian slip: "Helbollah" That's a classic.

Now, re: your latest post:

1. Who are the humans that formed Hezbollah? What were they doing before they formed Hezbollah?

2. The blame game is pointless because it always points to the people who don't think Israel has a right to exist under any circumstances within any borders. They are the ones perpetuating violence for decades.

[DistressedAmerican]

88. My Last To You And Your Insults.

Re-read your own posts. When people show up calling me stupid and shit, it does piss me off and I swing back. Welcome to the real world. People ususally respond to insults hurled their way. You do not want that tone from me, don't show up with it yourself. Quite simple really.

Who formed Hezbollah? People that were living under Israeli occupationn in Lebannon. What were they doing? Some were terrorists already, many were not. Thhose many were radicalized by the occupation. Some grew up under it and joined when they came of age to do so. Certtainly you are not impllying that every member of the newly formed Hezbollah was already an active terrorist? If you are, I'll be waiting on some proof of the claim.

As to your second (rather prejudiced) point, it is clear that you have a such a strong hate for those on the Palestian side that you can do nothing but blame and I guess endorse killing them.

Here are some more facts for you since you are under the nonsensical impression that the ones perpetuation violence are always Palestinians (there are only one kind of terrorist perpetuating violence over the decades right?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_terrorism

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Zionist underground committed multiple acts of political violence, during their campaign for a Jewish National Homeland in the British Mandate of Palestine. These include actions by the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, against the British, UN personnel, Arabs, and suspected Jewish collaborators. At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context.

The Haganah and Irgun suspended their activity against the British after the beginning of World War II so as not to distract the British from the fight against Nazi Germany. The Irgun resumed attacks in 1944, after the defeat of the Nazis was assured. The smaller Lehi continued anti-British attacks and direct action throughout the war.

Irgun and Lehi attacks
Main article: List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s
During the period 1937-1939, the Irgun conducted a campaign of bombings and other acts of violence against Arab civilians.
Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.
The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during "The Hunting Season" (1944-1945).
The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91 people.
Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946.
The 1947 reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
In September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.


NOW do you see how pointless it is (and how factually innacurate) to assign all blame to one side or the other? If not, you are just perpetuating the violence yourself with the blame and hostility towards Palestinians.

See ya.

[thinkingwoman]

91. This is just priceless!

NOW do you see how pointless it is (and how factually innacurate) to assign all blame to one side or the other?

OMG that is precious!! After all, you are the one who blamed Israel for Hezbollah in your OP.

You have been all up and down your thread shouting and frothing at anyone who disagreed with your OP and your later contradictions accusing everyone but yourself of failing to read what is written and then you post that?!?

That's great! Thank you for the entertainment. I have thoroughly enjoyed this! :rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

97. See, I don't think anyone can know that

"They would not exist without the incursion in the 1980's."


If not that confrontation, then any other may have spurred it. There are plenty of Arab regimes quite eager to point unemployed, frustrated young men into violence directed outside their own country. I don't think Hezbollah needed a great deal of encouragement, and I think most any excuse for violence directed at Israel might have sufficed.

But since we're in the "what if" territory here, neither of us can know for sure.

[PA Democrat]

101. See this BBC article:

"Hezbollah was conceived in 1982 by a group of clerics after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was formed primarily to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Israel's (and specifically Ariel Sharon's) complicity in the massacres of Palestinians within the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in southern Lebanon in 1982 also probably helped Hezbollah gain power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

[JerseygirlCT]

102. My point is that if not that incident, then the next down the road

may just as easily have started things.

[PA Democrat]

104. These incidents were not trivial.

Just as suicide bombings of Israeli civilians are not trivial. Such atrocities help radical elements on both sides gain power. We have seen the same thing here in the US with the power afforded to the neocons after 9/11.

[JerseygirlCT]

105. Never said they were trivial -- of course they are not.

What they are, however, are one in a long history of violence from both sides. The chances that another thing would have set off those same clerics is pretty high given that history, don't you think?

[PA Democrat]

107. Whatever.

I was merely offering evidence supporting DA's original post, to which you and a number of posters responded stating that he was more or less ridiculous. When I pointed out that a number of experts on the Middle East agreed with that premise, those experts were called "stupid" by another poster.

At this point, it's pretty petty to argue whether it would have been this action or that action by Israel that instigated the formation of Hezbollah.

Personally, I think it is much more important to understand the roots of terrorism . I don't think the solution is an ever-increasing spiral of violence. I think it's important to realize that the heavy-handed retaliation against one party's atrocities often serves to empower the most radical elements on the other side.

We have managed to create more terrorists with our invasion of iraq, and Israel, I fear is doing the same by attacking Lebanon. And the US will suffer blow back from Israel's actions thanks to the Bush administration's ineptitude.

[lonestarnot]

62. Sir, we can read.

[JerseygirlCT]

96. While Hezbollah may have been formed largely in response to the

Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the implication that I and others have read is that that makes Israel somehow culpable for Hezbollah's existence. I reject that premise.

[WinkyDink]

58. It's a crying shame Arabs have no free will, and can just be MADE

to be terrorists by Israelis.

Quite the interesting variation on "The Devil made me do it".

[DistressedAmerican]

63. There Is Not Free Will When You Are Oppressed.

Economic hardship strips free will. No freedom of movement restricts free will. Having your house bulldozed or bombed from the sky limits free will. There is nothing that limits it like having your body torn in two be a precision guided munition.

Terrorists CHOOSE to be terrorists because they live with these facts daily. You can ignore that all you want and just try and assert that they are just evil or some shit. But, there are real causes for people becomming terrorists.

In this instance, many of those causes could be correwcted and removeds if Israel wanted to as they are the ones creating those conditions in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians certainly do not choose to be poor, bombed out of their homes or dead.

[thinkingwoman]

78. That's nonsense

People cannot control what is done to them, but they always control how they react to it.

Asserting that people who are oppressed cannot choose how they respond strips them of what little dignity they had left. It dehumanizes them.

[DistressedAmerican]

82. That Is Not My Argument.

The person I was replying to stated that these people had free will. That is not true. I then said wquite clearly that people are led to CHOOSE terrorism because they consider it a response to the very oppression that limits the very free will the other post was asserting they had in spades. Most people understand tha=ose connections. I guess they escape you.

You should really start reading my replies. Or are you just kneejerking at this point.

[thinkingwoman]

83. I did read your reply

and then you just reiterated what I replied to with this:

"The person I was replying to stated that these people had free will. That is not true."

Then you contradict yourself by adding:

"I then said wquite clearly that people are led to CHOOSE terrorism because they consider it a response to the very oppression that limits the very free will the other post was asserting they had in spades."

The contradiction is yours. The fact that you are trying to argue both sides does not negate the fact that you declare they have no free will. Your words are clearly: "That is not true."

Now, as for this:

"Most people understand tha=ose connections. I guess they escape you."

I confess that I do not understand what you mean by "tha=ose" because that isn't a word that I have ever seen before. However, nothing you are saying escapes me at all, especially the part about you contradicting yourself and arguing both sides of the free will debate.

P.S. Nice use of "kneejerking" as a verb. I love when new verbs are made from nouns and adjectives. I appreciate it even though it is a non-sequitor and does nothing to further your debate.

[WinkyDink]

80. I wonder why their rich Arab brethren choose not to aid them.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Because it suits their own agendas not to do so.

Money for guns and bombs? No problem. Help with human needs doesn't come so quickly, unless tied to extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Serious attempts to solve the problem through diplomacy? With the exception of Egypt, and to some extent, Jordan -- not a glimmer.

So long as they can keep their underclass focused on hating Israel, they don't turn an eye toward their own corrupt, authoritarian governments. Handy, huh?

[cali]

87. Nonsense.

Oppression and economic hardship certainly contribute to expression in the form of terrorism, but they don't strip free will from the equation. Free will may be narrowed and concentrated, but it doesn't disappear.

[DistressedAmerican]

90. Restricted, Curtailed, Limited FREE WILL?

By definition FREE WILL is unrestricted. It is free. You admit that their are constraints on their freedom. Therefore your assertion of "free" will is totally bogus. At best they have limited freedom.

And in that limited freedom, many choose violence as they see it as a method for getting more freedom.

Restricting people's "free will" pisses them off. Some turn to violence.

[cali]

92. Restricting peoples' options

pisses them off. Free will really is a different concept. Oppression and economic injustice do indeed create terrorism. My assertion wasn't bogus. You just don't have a grasp on the concept.

[JerseygirlCT]

98. And the Palestinians have continually chosen

leaders who have allowed those conditions to flourish.

And the Palestinians *chose* not to create a homeland along with Israel, instead gambling on their Arab brethren to wash Israel into the sea. They lost that bet, didn't they?

This is so not the one-sided situation you seem to want to make it.

Are the Palestinians in a bad way? Sure thing.

Are the Israelis often guilty of over-reactions and violence? You bet.

Are the Palestians not to a great degree responsible for their own situation? Yes, along with the surrounding Arab nations. All of whom have been historically happy to use the Palestinians for their own ends, and few of whom have been willing to do things that actually help.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Also

I also think the PLO put a cap in an Israeli diplomat's ear as well to spark that crisis.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Oh for heaven's sakes. Get a little information before

shooting off your mouth.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. Maybe You Can Give Me The Information Before Shooting Off Yours?

If you are going to snark, bew prepared to refute what I have said. Otheerwise, don't waste everyone's time.

What is it you assert I am missing? Fill me in professor.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. You know what? I'll apologize for snarking; it's not my character

to do so.

Wonder if you'll do the same for what seems to be intentionally provocative hyperbole?

[Igel]

9. Let's not forget the incredible expansion of Spain,

with all the slavery and conquest ... created by the Muslims' military incursion into Spain. No Muslims, no "New World", as history has it recorded. No United States.

And the US invasion of Arab lands ... just a bit of blow-back.

You'd think the Muslims would at least be honorable and take responsibility for it. Without their expansionist jihad in the 700s , there'd be no reason for this jihad.

[Balbus]

11. Well, then it looks like Israel is us is borrowing a line from

Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable: "I brought you into this world - I can take you out."

[DistressedAmerican]

14. They Are Not Going To Take Shit Out.

They are creating more terrorists every day of this incursion. That takes nothing out and it totally COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. It does not lesen terrorism, it fuels it.

Just the way we are in Iraq.

What do people seem to miss about this parallel. How long have people here sais the same thing about Iraq? Why is the situation different here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Because The Americans Can Leave Iraq

The Israelis don't have that luxury or option.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. That Does Not Refute My Basic Claim That This Will CREATE More

terrorists.

There is nothig about the length of the stay that mediates that fact. Other than the facct that the longer they act like this the greater the hostility will be. If they are side by side doing this shit for decades (as they already have) that will create EVEN MORE terrorists than we've created in Iraq.

The problem is even worse. Not better.

[Balbus]

21. And what won't create more terrorism?

If Israel was eradicated from the face of the earth like the 200 million people that surround them want? Yeah, that's a good solution :eyes:

[DistressedAmerican]

25. What A Stupid Set Of Words To Try And Put In My Mouth.

What will reduce tensions is more fair treatment of the Palestiians. They will NEVER be bludgeoned into submission. There must be a negotiated settlement and that will never happen as long as the Palestinians see no real benefits like the right of return.

That is how to stop this. More violence in the region has NEVER done anything but create even more violence.

And you seem to be routing for that. Jesus.

Stop your pointless hyp[erbole and assertions about my beliefs and refute what I've said. Either that or accept the fact that more violence in the ME has never and will never end that violence. The very notion it could is idiotic in the face of historical fact.

[Balbus]

17. Iraq wasn't responsible for the terrorism against the U.S.

Hezbolla is directly responsible for the terrorist attacks against Israel. Try again.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Does That Refute My Point?

No.

There is nothing about who was attacking who that changes the facts from the OP. Israeli action resulted in the creation of Hezbollah just the way this incursion will create more to follow them.

Are you denying that simple statement?

[Balbus]

22. No, just shows how you're trying to pull stuff out of your ass.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. Great Argument You Are Making.

Again, I'll ask you to refute what I've said with some facts. So far they seem quite lacking.

[Balbus]

28. And the point you're making is idiotic.

It's like saying ketchup causes cancer - What doesn't cause cancer? Everything causes cancer. And it's the same for terrorism. No one needs a reason to create terror - if it's not for one reason it's another. Yes, more violence causes terrorism - I agree with you. There, you got me to admit it. But non-violence causes terrorism also. Complicity encourages terrorism. Ignorance escalates terrorism. Difference of beliefs forms terrorism. Non-action causes terrorism. Everything causes terrorism.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. BS.

What have I said that is untrue? Helbollah was created in direct response to the occupation in the 1980's. That is a fact.

Your analogy is idiotic.

Everything does not cause terrorism. Helplessness, poverty and violence inflicted creates terrorists. What are you missing?

"Everything causes terrorism"? Like our freedom? Right George. There are no real causes. These people just hate. Stupid. :crazy:

Great refutation of my basic argument...

[Balbus]

30. And the circle is complete - Israel created Hezbollah

Irael is going to try to take them out. And I hope they do.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. AGAIN, They Will Create More Not Take Them Out.

There is only one circle here. Violence radicalizes and creates more violence.

Why don't you just admit you can't refute my OP and stop wasting my time?

[Balbus]

35. On post 28 I told you I agreed with you.

I just escalated it above the 2nd grade level to show how silly your OP is.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. So You Agree With An Op You Think Is silly?

This is what you think of as elevating the discussion? Really?

If you accept the premise, why are you so openly hostile to it?

[Balbus]

38. Peace brother, I just quoted a line from the "Bill Cosby Show"

Didn't mean for that to be taken as a hostile lob of verbal venom toward you.

on edit: I need 3 more reasons to reply! Help me out!

[DistressedAmerican]

40. That And Called My Post Idiotic And Claimed It Was Pulled Out Of My Ass.

Don't try to play all innocent now. Your insults are right there for all to read. Just quoting Cosby my ass.

Why again is it you are insulting me and my OP when you have stipulated they are accurate? What crawled up you exactly?

The only things being pulled out of asses here are your attacks so far.

Poor you. DA is so mean. I mean all you did was quote Cosby. What a dick. (/SARCASM MODE)

[Balbus]

42. Well, the original post is idiotic....

Sometimes a snarky reply is all that's necessary to make that point. But when the person who wrote that idiocy so vehemently tries to defend it, albeit unsuccessfully, other forms of education are called for.

on edit: Changed OP to original post in subject line. Didn't want to be accused of calling YOU an idiot. You've actually educated me on a number of things in the past.

[DistressedAmerican]

44. So Idiotic You Stipulate It Is True?

WFT?

Unsuccessfully? Who here has refuted a single word I've said? Not you.

[Balbus]

48. In the most simplistic form it is true...

I'll try another analogy... If I step on a cockroach in my garage, no I didn't end all cockroaches across the world. Yes, there will be cockroaches born tomorrow. Eventually, there may very well be another cockroach to take his place in my very garage. But that fucking cockroach I crushed earlier is never going to cause me grief again!

Now my question for you is, in your world, who is the cockroach? The Jew or Hezbollah?

[DistressedAmerican]

49. Again Your Analogy Is FALSE.

If you step on a roach it does not create two more roaches. That is exactly wehat happens everytime Israel "steps" on Lebannon. They CREATE MORE terrorists. There is not some finite number of these folks and each one you kill is one less. These heavy handed "steppings" breed hate and resentment. They are a major recruitment tool. Does your stepping on a roach recruit more to take its place? If it did, I'd suggest you watch where you tread or find yourself up to your neck in creep crawlers.

Are you trying to imply that I think Jeews are cockroaches? I reject ALL forms of bigotry (while your analogy makes it clear you don't).

Don't believe me while you are busy implying my anti-semitism?

Better look at this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1528989

Don't try the same old fucking game here. You can't refute my point. That much is clear. You will not make any points by trying to paint me an anti-semite. I clearly am not. But, nice of you to act just the way I expected when your non-argument stalled in the face of facts. Shows people who I'm dealing with here.

[Balbus]

51. If it's so false, why the hostile reaction?

Defensive much? Or maybe it's a little to close to home...

No matter how many times you stroke yourself and pat yourself on the back, within your own post (no that's not tacky :eyes:), it's still a very simple, very un-educated, very myopic view of what's actually going on, notwithstanding all your hatred and anger. :shrug:

[DistressedAmerican]

53. Well, Lets See. Who Has Been Insulting Me For An Hour?

Hmmmm? Wonder who that was?

I do not have anger and hated. I had an OP. You were the one coming here to hurl insults at me in leiu of being able to refute a word I had to say. Does that annoy me a bit? Yep. I hate people that can offer no arguments and try to hurl insults instead as if that makes a bit of difference to the facts at hand.

I'm done with you. You clearly have nothing to offer to this thread. I have given you more chances to actually address and refute the OP. You say you agree with it but, keep attacking me anyway. On top of that you have the nerve to imply I'm an anti-semite. I guess I'm a dick for taking exception to your pointless and useless snarks? Take that nonsense outside where it belongs.

I have not time for asshats with no arguments and nothing but insults. Have fun with that. I think our exchange to date is plenty for people here to decide if it is you or I who is pulling shit out of their ass and acting an idiot.

Buh-Bye Captain Snark-A-Lot.

[cali]

89. Wait a minute

I've read this thread carefully and the OP has never said anything that is remotely anti-semitic. In fact, despite my objection to his/her initial post because of its over simplification, many of the OP's other posts make absolute sense.

[lonestarnot]

66. Spot on!

[DistressedAmerican]

75. Nah, I'm Just An Idiot.

Seems to be the consensus among those that can't seem to refute anything I've been saying.

I'm the idiot.

[lonestarnot]

77. Well you damned idiot you! LOL

:rofl:

[cantstandbush]

13. Israel may have withdrawn in 2000 but they continued incursions

inside Lebanon killing and capturing Lebanonese. Israel is and has always been the aggressor in the area either by provocation or by direct actions.

[DistressedAmerican]

15. I'm Waiting For One Actual Refutation Of What I Have Said.

Sa far those in disagreement appear mostly unable to do that. Instead bringing pointless snarks.

If you disagree with the OP, refute it with some facts. So far none have.

[cantstandbush]

19. You won't get an honest refutation because there is none. You will only

a re-framing of the argument and a charge of anti-Semitism.

[leftchick]

23. Juan Cole agrees

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1639258

:hi:

[eleny]

32. "It should also be remembered that Bin Laden said....

It should also be remembered that Bin Laden said, at least, that he started thinking about hitting New York when he saw that 1982 Israeli destruction of the skyscrapers or "towers" of Lebanon. How many future Bin Ladens are watching with horror and rage and feelings of revenge as Israel drops bombs on civilian tenement buildings? When will this blow back on Americans? (I mean blow back in other ways than an already painful further spike in petroleum prices)."

From your Cole link. http://www.juancole.com /

[DistressedAmerican]

43. A Lot Of Folks Don't Seem To Like What I'm Saying. But...

I have yet to see a single person offer refutation of my argument.

I guess some folks just do not like the facts as they exist. Attacking the person pointing them out seems to be the best that can be done in those circumstances.

[Bretttido]

46. Thanks for not taking crap from any of your critics

Their arguments were never addressing your original OP and hopefully you enlightened a few minds through their tangential remarks.

[Kazak]

60. Bang.

Bang.Bang.

Bang.Bang.Bang.

Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.

Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.

Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.Bang.



BOOM.

[lonestarnot]

61. Are you shoot'n at something? And did you hit it?

[Clarkie1]

64. What a load of bunk.

So, it's not a terrorists fault if they kill little babies, but the people who pissed off the terrorists?

Really, you ought to think very hard about the lunacy of what you have posted.

[jonnyblitz]

72. where in fuck did the OP say what you claim he said?

talk about lunacy, you are posting shit he didn't even write. He just simply stated WHY Hezbollah exists NOT that "it isn't terrorists fault that they kill babies". He was explaining the why not passing judgement on the acts one way or the other. the IDF has killed it's share of babies ,too, btw. man you Israel supporters sure suffer from cognitive dissonance posting and being progressive on most issues but when it comes to Israel you all cling to the far right position...

but then your Lieberman threads make no sense either so what should I expect.

[DistressedAmerican]

73. Another Snarky Non-Refutation Of My OP?

I assigned no blame to anyone in that OP. Point out where I did.

I merely pointed out historical facts. Hezbollah was formed as a direct result of the 1980's incursions. That is a fact. As is the notion that such incursions create terrorists not rid the world of them

If you can refute those basic facts, please do. If you just want to insult me, line up behind several others and I'll deal with you all in due time. I have plenty of offers on that for now thanks.

[lonestarnot]

74. We have created terrorist throughout the world. There is nothing wrong

with this premise. Israel hardliners have done the same thing. It's no secret now is it.

[helderheid]

67. Israel/Palestine area is taking half of these threads. Not sure why some

and not others :shrug:

[lonestarnot]

81. What is up wit dat?

:shrug:

[jean]

70. Clinton said: "For good or ill, we live in an interdependent world.

... here's the whole statement:

“For good or ill, we live in an interdependent world. We can't escape each other. And while we have to fight our enemies, we can't possibly kill, jail or occupy all of them. Therefore, we have to spend our lives trying build a global community and an American community.”

Clinton, at the dedication of his presidential library, Nov. 18, 2004

[Behind the Aegis]

85. Wrong!

Hezb'allah was created by the PLO. It was their relentless attacks on Israel that led to the invasion of Lebanon. So, what ever new terrorist group created in response to the latest incursion will be the fault of Hezb'allah!

[pelsar]

86. creating or not creating terrorists is not the what its about....

what israel would like to happen is for lebanese army to come "south" and protect their own lebanese border...and keep hezballa away from the border. israel is not concerned with the amount of hizballa members, whether they grow or shrink, thats not the issue. Once the lebanese army is down south the hizballa becomes an internal lebanese problem, where it belongs.

[DistressedAmerican]

93. Funny. Is That Why They Announced The Goal Of "Destroying Hezbollah"?

They are on record with the goal of ridding the area of Hezbollah through force. Why don't you believe them?

The stated goal is to get rid of Hezbollah. They are not going to achieve that goal as these actions will create even more terrorists.

Lebannon is not moving troops in to deal with Hezbollah, Israel is.

[pelsar]

106. because i get more news then you....i listen to the IDF as well

the "stated goal" may be to destroy Hizballa, but the IDF and many israeli politicians know better and have different goals...to get the Lebanese Army down south....which is precisly what the PM of Lebanon says he wants to do (with UN help).

which if he does actually do it, it would mean Israel will have a good chance of having an additional peaceful border...and the lebanese a life without terrorists controlling them....which is probably a good thing

[ChuckyDee]

99. Wow, imagine...

I guess Israel should have allowed the PLO to arm itself to the teeth in Lebanon in 1980 and just wait until the PLO was good and ready to attack and destroy as much as possible.

People who hate Jews and want to exterminate them in a massive genocide need no reason from Israel, as the one you are proposing, to have animosity against a state full of Jews.

[Major Hogwash]

108. Wanted to recommend this thread, but can't from this forum.

Why is that?

Does keeping the hottest topics being discussed down in the Topics forums off the Greatest Threads page done for a reason?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maiden England]

111. Your OP can be misconstrued, but I am apologising for my reply

Dear Distressed American,

Look I know I really upset you with what I wrote in your thread yesterday in the I/P forum. For that I am truly sorry.

To my Jewish eyes, I've seen a lot of posts here at the DU, being really thinly veiled anti-semitic attacks, many revisionist histories popping up all over GD, and its scares the crap out of me to find so much of it on a democratic forum.

Yes because you are a well known poster, your post leaped out at me. It was so vague, I wasn't sure whether it was really an attack or not, but it did upset me.
Not everything comes across as well when you type something as when you meant it. I guess most of what I was trying to say, was trying to illustrate a version of what could easily be construed as the point you seemed to be making, whilst making a badly phrased attempt at asking for clarification. It just goes to prove that you should never post when you are angry.

I misunderstood your point, I'm sorry, I would love for you to clarify it, so it can be a positive and enlightening discussion, rather than a point lost in semantics and distrust.

[Lithos]

112. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article

Lithos
DU Moderator