Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[BluffTHIS!]

Since the subject of this thread is off topic to another one where it is getting a lot of play, I thought the topic deserved its own thread. Although of course history is the background of the mid-east situation, nonetheless, the reality of the political situation today is what is important.

I would like to propose the following questions to be debated by the 2 parties:

1) Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear from its neighbors as it is militarily stronger. But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbors, but from its most militarily capable and hostile foe, should Israel have to endure before it is justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to reduce that threat? A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?

3) Should Israel be given more aid and support by the US according to the level of Islamic extremist violence against not just Israel but also throughout the entire world? And should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

If Cyrus & MMMMMM would like to debate these questions, then they should of course feel entitled to add more points of discussion.

[nicky g]

I'll give my opinion on number 2:

"2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? "

It is entitled to its internationally recognised boundaries and any territory it acquires under mutually satisfactory negotiations with otehr parties. This equates more or less, with potential slight revisions, to its pre-1967 boundaries.

"Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?"

If the Palestinians or the Syrians are willing to cede it some in negotiation, which in the case of the Palestinians would be the likely outcome of any final status talks (in return for land elsewhere), it would be entitled to those. It is not entitled to any land on the basis that it was attacked or as the spoils of war. International law condemns the acquisition of land through war of any kind, and Israel is no more entitled to it than Egypt would have been entitled to chunks of Israel if it had have managed to take some following the Suez invasion. Even if there were some law (which there isn't) saying countries were allowed to hold on to territory gained after having been attacked, Israel would not be entitled to any of the West Bank or Golan Heights, given that in the war in which it seized them, it attacked first, and in the case of the Golan seized the territory after its rightful owner (Syria, which never attempted to launch an invasion of Isreal during the way) had agreed to a ceasefire.

[Jdanz]

i think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.

Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?

(I honestly don't know, other then i think the most important unit of analysis is the individual rather then the state)

[nicky g]

Good points, my argument only makes sense in a state-centred approach. I agree the individual is more important, and would be quite happy with a solution that gives all individuals equal rights in a one state solution for instance. However I think while states exist and claim rights over territory, there are still going to be arguments about bits of territory (eg Golan) that don't much relate to individuals but still need resolving somehow.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, it is not. MMMMMM claimed that Islam is inherently closer to the intolerant philosophies that plagued Western Europe than Judaism. I am still waiting form MMMMMM to bring that nonsense up in a new thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Is this even debatable ?

[ QUOTE ]
But how much risk of a certain level of harm or even total destruction not from the sum of its neighbours, but from its most militarily capable and hostile foe, should Israel have to endure before it is justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to reduce that threat?

[/ QUOTE ]I have no hard and fast answer (or a "figure") for you. Pre-emptive, defensive, military action is something quite legitimate.

But, if you are referring to the Six Day War, well, since the numerous and serious revelations of the research undertaken by modern revisionist historians * (including a significant number of honest, honourable Israelis or simply Jewish), Israel had much, much less to fear at the time than it claimed. But the Six Day War is worthy of an entire, its own thread !

[ QUOTE ]
A related question is does any Arab state need nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, there is not, absolutely not. Not any longer. . The reason Arab states sought nuclear weapons in the past was NOT to face off or threaten America. They were not that stupid!

The reason they wanted nukes was to get on a somewhat closer pedestal to nuclear-armed Israel -- which still is the only country in the region, let's not forget, which possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, i.e. nukes. (And this is not even debatable.)

[ QUOTE ]
To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state?

[/ QUOTE ]Funny you should ask !

I am not aware of Israel declaring finally and resolutely that XYZ should be its rightful frontiers and nothing more. Israel, if you were to look up any maps of the region, keeps expanding its territory. some of the acquired territory is kept for good, some of it has an unknown future, while some of it is used for bargains. In any case, Israel has no official frontiers declared!

[ QUOTE ]
Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Israel should be allowed to keep more than the 1948 boundaries. The Arabs, no matter what the cause or the villain(s) in this movie, lost four or five wars. This should count for something. The Arabs and especially the Palestinians, must seek accommodation with Israel, co-existence with an independent Palestinian state, or --better yet-- live inside one, democratic state which is ruled western-style, a s a republic, and with its security guaranteed by both the UN and America.

...Hey, guess what? The Palestinian leadership has gone the extra mile for all the declarations and denouncements and agreements that were required by Israel. But, guess what, Israel claims it's all hypocritical! I have no idea what can be realistically expected in such a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
Should Israel be given more aid and support by the US according to the level of Islamic extremist violence against not just Israel but also throughout the entire world?

[/ QUOTE ] The degree of American assistance to Israel should be tied to the effort Israel shows towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict. Let's go for the Bush Roadmap! I'd be all for it, personally.

However, Israel shows no signs of moving towards genuine peace. The leadership obviously reserves a future of pure second-class citizenry for the Palestinians, keep 'em as modern helots. The Palestinians see the writing in the wall. And start blowing themselves up. Desperation has set in, deeply and obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
Should the degree of democracy/totalitarianism of Arab governments also factor in this?

[/ QUOTE ]All attempts towards democratisation of the Arab regimes were drowned repeatedly in blood by the local "anti-communist, nationalist, religious" leaderships, with the enthusiastic support of the United States.

The United States should not be acting like an agent of justice in punishing the totalitarian Arab regimes, but rather like someone who needs atonement. The blood of the hundreds of thousands of those pro-democracy agitators of the 50s, 60s and 70s is, at least partly, on Washington, too.



--Cyrus

* The term “revisionist historians” does not imply the ignoble bunch of Holocaust deniers.

[Jdanz]

completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

[Jdanz]

i disagree that israel isn't making any strides for peace, Sharon leaving Likud is a big step. I think there is a great deal of inierta and entrenched power struggles, but i legitimately believe that Sharon is willing to work for peace.

This is certainly not a blanket endorsement of isreali pliticians only an acknowledgement that there are people on both sides struggling for a true peace (who know what the end result might be?)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this begs the questions of how all states arise, and what exactly the international community is.
Who is a state? what "right" does a state have to land?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nation-states have mostly been created through the most extreme violence and bloodshed, and under ideologies of exclusion, intolerance and irredentism. This much is true.

But we (are supposed to) have moved on!

This is no longer the 19th century, nor the worst part of the 20th century. It is true that there are no "rules" as to the "creation of new states". There are general rules however, now, which lead to more respect of minorities' rights (incl. language, religion, etc), the effective weakening of the significance of borders, the retreat of the supremacist ideologies (after WWII the notion of supreme races or nations went bankrupt), etc etc.

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
completely agreed, but i don't think we can resolve these arguements by going back in history and saying well, state A used to have this so they should have it now. Otherwise American's should be giving back their land to the few native americans left.

I'm not saying Israel deserves the land it has (it, not being a person, certainly doesn't), but the solution should stem from what would make the people on the ground most happy, as opposed to what may or may not have been in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely agree but there are still problems. What about for example a sparsely populated area that is of significant strategic importance, such as the Golan? What also about deliberately changing the facts on the ground; once this has been accomplished, should everything be forgotten about? Such a situation would basically encourage and legitimise ethnic cleansing, settlement etc. And while simply going back to the past is impossible as you can never reach a point where you should stop, many of these things have happened within the current international legal framework, which should be the basis for their resolution. You can't just go back but I think you also can't/shouldn't implement a might is right policy regarding territorial concerns.

[Jdanz]

i kind of agree.

Isreal however is not really much different then most states NOW. Regardless of how a state is founded we today deal with....today. I personally don't think we're past violence. I think it's something to strive for, but i also think it's naive to ignore that we're not there yet.

Given that:

What do you mean by this

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether to agree or not, what are the pracical applications of this statement?

[Jdanz]

no i don't think so either, but that's not what i meant to say either. When i said "would make the people on the ground the happiest" i implied but did not explictly state, for now and in the future.

This would neccissarily encourage a resoultion that would result in people having the incentive to act "correctly" in the future.

If a certain resolution of the israel dispute led to some unhappiness for israels now, but encouraged a better net social outcome in the future, i would consider this a soulution that would make "the people on the ground" happiest.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know whether to agree or not. What are the pracical applications of this statement ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not implying, of course, that Israel should cease to exist!

Bu the tenets underlying the very creation of the state of Israel, which also determine Israel's policies ever since its creation, have become absurdly anachronistic!

Israel was created as a state by Jews for the Jews, with exclusivity all over it. (Herzl's principles were "improved" by the Reformed Zionists of Zabotinsky.) This seemed absolutely legitimate, if not vital, in the 19th century. It was the era of nationalism. It was also the time when anti-semitism reared its ugly head quite forcibly on the world stage, once again, as witnessed, among other events, by the Czarist pogroms in Russia and the Dreyfuss affair in France.

But not anymore! Creating and running a state now by the Ruritanians for Ruritanians under stricty Ruritanian customs and laws is silly, if not criminal! (Which is why, incidentally, the Balkans remain, too, an anachronism. Witness the Kosovo mess.) The modern model for nation-states should be the United States of America, which is our most advanced model -- end of story!

This is why I'm saying that the solution to the problem (although it is quite a romantic one, by now) is the one-state solution. A country that encompasses ALL the disputed land, perhaps even including the damn Golan heights, from Gaza to the Jordan river. With the same rules, laws and regulations that apply in every western democracy, explicitly forbidding one nation or religion runnign roughshod over another. With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America.

Now THAT would propel the whole of the Middle East towards modernisation, democratization and secularization, you betcha!...

[Jdanz]

i actually think that'd be a fantasitc solution, but only if the people involved were willing to play within the parameters you've set out.

America works because even people who don't like the end of government policy like it better then they'd like rebelling.

Iraq (currently) doesn't because insurgents who don't like the end government policy don't like it better then they like rebelling.

I think the solution you propose would lead to large elements (though not all parts) of the citizenery choosing the second option.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[zipo]

>> Quote:
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

Yes. Is this even debatable ?<<

If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed.

Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

[Gamblor]

The key doctrine that governs Israeli military policy is the notion that should any given Arab state lose a war, the citizens will still be part of an ethnic and religious majority in any other Arab country, while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse) and be once again living under the policies of a different ethical standard.

[zipo]

>>while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse)<<

Given the Iranian president's recent publicly proclaimed vow to "wipe Israel off the map", I'd say that they're looking at "or worse".

[Gamblor]

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

Israel is only an anachronism to the united states in which all forms of group identity are lost.

Yet, even in that united states, the statutory holidays are christian holidays and observant jews are still required to miss work on saturdays and holidays, costing millions in lost business.

In Israel, jewish holidays are statutory holidays and jews don't miss work for religious observances.

this is the most clear cut example.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Is this even debatable ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.

Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missiles expand the size of the neighborhood considerably.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still confused.

Regime changes have nothing to do with guaranteeing a nation's security.

If the U.S. had guaranteed Kuwait's security, yes, it would atttack any nation that attacked Kuwait. But it would NOT change the attacking nation's regime!

...Read that again. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Guaranteeing to take action after the fact and significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine.

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;If you honestly believe Iran is a neighbor to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do in your Geography to get up to speed.&lt;&lt;

Perhaps your native language is not English, in which case you should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country.

In any case, it is painfully obvious that you deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat.

Of course, your position is rationally indefensible, which I'm sure is why you chose to avoid further discussion of this issue.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guaranteeing to take action after ... significant harm is done is not always a deterrent, especially to pscyopathic dictators. Preventive care is always best, same as in medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posited the hypothetical case of a future Israel whose security would be guaranteed by the UN and America. You jumped to the conclusion that I want America to play world cop. Nothing of the sort was implied.

Your subsequent "clarifications" (minus the Latin) are exercises in irrelevancy : This was not about Iraq, Kuwait or Mongolia. You have simply missed the point.

And you are still missing it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You should avail yourself of a dictionary to inform yourself of the difference between a "bordering" country and a "neighboring" country.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of "Arab states" and "front-line states" do you find hard to understand? Ask and I shall explain -- once again.

I challenge you to point out a post of mine where I mention the term "bordering nation".

[ QUOTE ]
You deliberately ignored the salient point of my comment, which was to contest your ludicrous assertion that Israel has no enemies that pose a significant military threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tsk tsk tsk. "Salient"; "ludicrous"! All that verbiage to refute a non-existent point!

I never claimed that Israel is not threatened. One or two of countries would surely like to harm Israel, if they could. I never claimed that Israel has no enemies. You simply dreamed this. (Can you find it in yourself to acknowledge your error and apologize?)

I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, what I wrote : " Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." I went on to also posit that Israel is stronger militarily than at least all the front-line states combined!.

And I will now submit that this has practically always been the case.

...You know, we have not yet started to discuss this, in earnest. You seem stuck in the starting line of Pedantry. Let's hope you figure out the simple point I'm making, in order for us to discuss how the lack of military threat from the outside should have shaped Israeli foreign policy and America's policy towards the Middle East.

--Cyrus

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;" Israel has nothing to fear in military terms from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger." &lt;&lt;

Ah. There's the relevant quote.

Note you didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state.

Now that that's settled, let's see if we can home in a little further.

Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"?

Thanks in advance for clarifying this point.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't say "bordering states" or "arab states" - you clearly said "neighbors". By any acceptable English usage, Iran is certainly a neighbor state.

[/ QUOTE ]
The implication should have been clear: I'm referring to the front-line states. They are called front-line states because they are the ones (allegedly) threatening and (supposedly) attacking Israel ever since its creation. Every serious text about the Middle East conflict, from both sides of the argument, uses the term "front-line states" in collective reference to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. That's it.

However, if you want to expand this term to include "all countries in the general area" (i.e. the "neighborhood"), feel free to explain, please, the demarcation of the "neighborhood" of Israel.

Where does it end?? Let's take the East. In Iran? India? Vietnam?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously claiming that Israel has "nothing to fear" from Iran in "military terms"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless Iran is ever armed with nuclear weapons, no. Certainly not. I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise.

Of course, if Iran gets nukes, then a lot of countries, and not just Israel, will be de facto threatened, on account of the nature of the Iranian regime itself. (In any case, it is my personal speculative opinion that Iran will not be allowed to acquire nukes. But that's beside the point.)

[zipo]

&gt;&gt; I submit that Iran presents no serious military threat to Israel. And I would challenge you or anyone else to claim otherwise.&lt;&lt;

Well, we simply have to agree to disagree here.

Iran clearly is well on the way to developing nuclear weapons. Iran already has significant ballistic missile technology. Iran has a well developed military infrastructure, and is significantly developing its conventional and non-conventional military capabilities.

And, the new President of Iran has publicly announced Iran's intention to "wipe Israel off the map".

So, you don't believe Iran poses a significant military threat to Israel. I'm not sure how you can seriously put forth this assertion given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Simply put, we will have to evaluate all of your other assertions on this topic in the light of this one.

[Cyrus]

There are two scenarios:

1. Iran does NOT have Nukes.

Then, as I said, <font color="blue"> Iran does not pose any significant military threat to Israel. </font>

What could Iran do?? Let's see:

1.A Send ground troops to attack Israel.
Then Iran would have to move armies across (check yer map!) Iraq, then Syria, then get to Israel. Or after Iraq, turn south to Saudi Arabia, then north to Jordan and then Israel. Third option: attack Turkey first, then Syria, then Lebanon, and finally reach (gasp gasp) Israel.

Now, that's a lot of ground to cover, brother! And through some un-friendly countries as well. I'd say that would be one gigantically doomed operation. But let's see you say different.

1.B Wage air war against Israel.
Need I point out the total superiority in material (quantity- and quality-wise), in technical support and in personnel enjoyed by the Israeli Air Force?

I'd say that anyone who would be foolish enough to attack Israel by air, would soon get to know the full wrath of the Israeli Air Force. Dare you say different?

1.C Wage a combination of air and ground war against Israel.
See above.

2. Iran HAS nukes.

Then Iran would be posing a de facto serious threat not just to Israel but to the whole region, on account of the nature of its regime -- which is politically autocratic and unstable, and ideologically extreme and obsessive. (But wait! I already wrote this!)

...Are we getting there, yet?

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;What could Iran do?? Let's see:&lt;&lt;

You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon (oh wait - hizbollah is already working for Tehran)...

Given the events of the last few years, I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

The president of Iran recently proclaimed - loudly and publicly - his vow to "wipe Israel off the map".

Connect the dots.

[John Cole]

And, as well, "Death to America." Both statements were roundly condemmed by many countries. The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric. It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] that. They are totally responsible for their rhetoric and should assume it will be taken seriously and acted upon by those threatened.



I can't joke to my neighbors that I am dangerous and want to kill them, without expecting some type of reaction.

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;The Iranian reaction, though, may be telling. They reacted with surprise that anyone actually believed the rhetoric.&lt;&lt;

This of course was a pathetic attempt at spin control by those in the Iranian government who were alarmed that their President tipped the Iranian's hand.

Imagine if George Bush publicly proclaimed that he was going to "wipe Iran off the map".

The argument that the Iranian president's remarks can't be taken seriously can't be taken seriously.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked that asymmetrical and/or nonconventional tactics didn't appear on your list of "threats".

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

It should not be, because it is really quite simple : Terrorists inflict serious harm on individuals and sometimes whole neighborhoods, but the state of Israel itself is in no danger of finding itself, from their activities, militarily defeated or under some foreign occupation.

A military threat, on the other hand, comes almost always on a much grander scale, from another country, and is backed up by a plentiful military capability.

It should be abundantly clear to any one with half a mind to be accurate in what one says, that Israelis are suffering from terrorism but Israel has practially nothing to fear from outside military threats.

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot 1.d - Finance and provide personnel, logistical support, and materiel including fissile, chemical, and biological weapons for deployment by terrorists on a large scale, perhaps by leveraging, say, existing terror networks such as hizbollah in Lebanon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hezbollah will continue to stage sporadic suicide bombings, guerilla incusrions (followed by suicide missions) and clumsy rocket launches -- but that's it. Hezbollah will not resort to using biological or other such mass destruction weapons, if not for any other reason because this will kill indiscriminately and on a large scale Palestinians as well.

And what's a fissile ? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind? &lt;&lt;

There are several possible explanations for this comment of yours - the most charitable of which is that you are being deliberately obtuse, having found yourself desperately clinging to an illogical, unrealistic, and untenable argument. Unfortunately, if this reply is an attempt on your part to save 'face', it failed miserably.

State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

And any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve it's foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

[Gamblor]

Why are you confusing the terrorist threat with the military threat? Is it all a jumble of confusion in your mind?

A terrorist threat is a military threat if you consider the result of both is a big pile of dead Israelis.

With reference to your one-state solution, you ignore the most obvious reason why it would never work - neither party wants it.

Arabs want a state where the state holidays and institutions are Islamic (even if the state is secular in principle), and jews want a state where the institutions are Jewish (even if the state is secular in principle).

Your romantic version of the United States of the Middle East is nice, but even the United States is difficult on obsevant jews. I suppose its better live as a visitor in comfort than a host in squalor.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. Any attempts to spin, twist, wriggle, or evade this simple fact is laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is laughable is your total lack of concern for any pretense at accuracy. You will happily bundle together all threats big and small, serious or light, imminent of future, all for the sake of satisfying your paranoia.

Or it may be all due to ignorance.

In any case, and for your (possible) edification, a military threat is NOT the same as a terrorist threat. But you can, of course, carry on abusing those notions. It's a free country.

[ QUOTE ]
Any claim that Iran is not willing and capable to use terrorism and other forms of asymmetrical warfare to achieve its foreign policy objectives (for example, it's publicly stated goal of "wiping Israel off the map") is equally laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are extremely confused.

Iran's foreign policy objective is to wipe Israel off the map! Right. (He said it! Its president said something like it. It must be true.)

Iran can hit Israel with asymmetrical warfare (?! -- the moment I heard the phrase on TV, I lamented the millions of gullible who would adopt it without knowing what it means).

Oh it's a veritable theatre of the absurd. QUICKLY! Hide in the basement! The Iranians are coming -- asymetrically! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

When O when is MMMMMM going to weigh in?

This thread is quite remarkable.

Question for you, zipo:

Could Iran, using "terrorism", "wipe Israel off the map"?

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;Question for you, zipo:

Could Iran, using "terrorism", "wipe Israel off the map"?&lt;&lt;

Well, you are confounding the issue here.

First, Cyrus categorically refutes the notion that asymmetrical warfare is warfare, and that it can be carried out by Iran's military. This is obviously absurd - it is clear that he persists in this line of 'reasoning' only because his factual arguments have been soundly refuted.

The issue of Iran's president proclaiming that Iran's goal is to (quote) "wipe Israel off the map" was only raised to clarify Iran's intent. Honestly - how can one seriously deny that this is Iran's intent? When a head of state makes such a declamation, is this not to be taken seriously?

As far as whether state sponsored terrorism can "wipe Israel off the map", this was not the issue raised in the thread. Cyrus clearly asserted that Iran was not a military threat to Israel - I merely pointed out that state sponsored terrorism is indeed a military threat.

If you wish to weigh in refuting this point, go right ahead.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
A terrorist threat is a military threat if you consider the result of both is a big pile of dead Israelis

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a military threat is considered a terrorist thread when you consider the result of both is a big pile of dead palestinians --- ooops ragheads dont count!

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes me wonder, sometimes, for whom these sorts of statements are really intended

[/ QUOTE ]

Quit wondering. You answered your own question.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh it's a veritable theatre of the absurd. QUICKLY! Hide in the basement! The Iranians are coming -- asymetrically! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of New Yorkers who would have been glad of a warning of imminent assymetrical danger.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When O when is MMMMMM going to weigh in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been reading this thread with interest, but have refrained from commenting, as the list of topics spelled out were not the issue I was arguing with Cyrus; also I have discussed many of these issues in previous threads, and have no wish to rehash old ground while I am busy trying to win a jackpot.

I will however note that Cyrus is all wet, because Iran and their minion army Hezbollah obviously pose a potentially serious threat to Israel, and are capable of inflicting severe damage if they so decide. Just because they could not (at present) defeat Israel, does not mean they could not harm Israel severely.

Hezbollah is an extremely well-trained, well-organized, and well-equipped terrorist army, and may in fact pose a potentially graver threat to even the United States, than al-Qaeda.

[Gamblor]

The very purpose of a State is that it's citizens' lives, Arab or Jewish, are more valuable than the lives of non-citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
&gt;&gt;Question for you, zipo:

Could Iran, using "terrorism", "wipe Israel off the map"?&lt;&lt;

Well, you are confounding the issue here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you refusing to answer the question?


[ QUOTE ]
First, Cyrus categorically refutes the notion that asymmetrical warfare is warfare, and that it can be carried out by Iran's military. This is obviously absurd - it is clear that he persists in this line of 'reasoning' only because his factual arguments have been soundly refuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in your interpretation of what Cyrus has said. His statements are in this thread for all to see, as are yours. I'm quite certain that people can judge for themselves who has the better of the argument.


[ QUOTE ]
The issue of Iran's president proclaiming that Iran's goal is to (quote) "wipe Israel off the map" was only raised to clarify Iran's intent. Honestly - how can one seriously deny that this is Iran's intent? When a head of state makes such a declamation, is this not to be taken seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely irrelevant to my question.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as whether state sponsored terrorism can "wipe Israel off the map", this was not the issue raised in the thread. Cyrus clearly asserted that Iran was not a military threat to Israel - I merely pointed out that state sponsored terrorism is indeed a military threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you refusing to answer the question?

[Gamblor]

Why are you turning a complex issue that affects millions of lives into a simple question?

If Iran could kill one Israeli with terrorism, doesn't the Israeli government have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to prevent the death of that Israeli?

It must be fun to criticize everyone while living in a state that has no real military threats.

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;Why are you refusing to answer the question? &lt;&lt;

I gave a comprehensive, cogent reply to your question in context, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not trolling.

You are no longer entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If Iran could kill one Israeli with terrorism, doesn't the Israeli government have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to prevent the death of that Israeli?


[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, and in full agreement with Zipo's position too, 1 Israeli equals 10,000 Israelis, i.e. the preventive measures and the response for the murder of one Israeli by a suicide bomber are the same measures and response for 10,000 Israelis killed in battle. OK, I begin to understand how the pair of you equate "military threat" with "terrorist threat"...

You two should be teaching at West Point. Confuse the hell outta the cadets!.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran and their minion army Hezbollah obviously pose a potentially serious threat to Israel, and are capable of inflicting severe damage if they so decide. Just because they could not (at present) defeat Israel, does not mean they could not harm Israel severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are more clever than Zipo. That, or you had the benefit of reading our li'l exchange before ..."weighin' in". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You were careful not to put the word "military" in there -- as in, "military threat". Good job.

Yes, Iran is a serious worry for Israel, on account of Tehran's inherently unstable, autocratic, fanatic, fundamentalist regime and the mullahs' assistance to various anti-Israeli groups, including terrorist groups. And if Iran acruired nukes, the whole region will be threatened - and not just Israel. (Note that, in this very thread, I have already said as much. But the fanatics' eyes tend to glaze over and ignore text when it doesn't agree with their pre-ordained world view.)

HOWEVER, a military threat is something else completely!

This whole sub-thread started when Zipo, moronically, started insisting that
-- a terrorist threat is the same as a military threat, and
-- Iran is a neighbor to Israel (it's in the same 'hood, y'all! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

Just to prick once more the grunting fanatics' skin, I will repeat it : Israel is under no military threat from its neighbors because israel is militarily stronger than all its neighbors combined!

...Now prepare yourselves for a serious, serious howler, and I mean serious :

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown">Hezbollah ... may in fact pose a potentially graver threat to the United States, than al-Qaeda.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, perhaps others know of 2+2 posts in 2005 with a higher calibre of outrageousness. I don't. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

For me, that is our MMMMM Post Of The Year, right there. It goes into the Archives, immediately.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, Hezbollah represents both a terrorist AND a military threat to Israel. Why are you defining "military threat" only as one which might completely defeat a nation? Methinks you are taking too narrow a view of the meaning of the word "military".

Hezbollah is both an army and a terrorist organization--and as such, they represent both threats to Israel.

[ QUOTE ]
.Now prepare yourselves for a serious, serious howler, and I mean serious :

[ QUOTE ]

Hezbollah ... may in fact pose a potentially graver threat to the United States, than al-Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK, perhaps others know of 2+2 posts in 2005 with a higher calibre of outrageousness. I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely ignorant of such things, obviously, good Cyrus. There have long been made intelligence assessments of the potential for Hezbollah to harm the USA. Suffice to say, that while Hezbollah is not now actively prosecuting such plans, their potential capability for terrorist attacks against the USA is actually greater than that of al-Qaeda.

Hezbollah is more organized, better trained, more disciplined, and better equipped. Their army is BETTER than those al-Qaeda terrorists who were training in Afghaninistan prior to the U.S. assault on their base there. Their army is fully schooled in terror tactics as well. Also, they are not actively being hunted down right now, so they aren't laboring under the same kind of pressures al-Qaeda must face.

Fortunately, Hezbollah has not taken it upon themselves to send suicide bombers to the USA...or to do far worse. If they did so decide, they would potentially pose a greater danger than al-Qaeda, because they are simply more capable, as organizations go. By the way, Hezbollah has long had clandestine operatives in the USA. Hezbollah's slogan is "Death To America!" For whatever reasons, though, they have not begun a serious terror onslaught against the USA. That DOESN'T mean that they aren't capable of it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Cyrus, I just want to commend you on your rhetorical techniques. Defining the terms as you see fit to justify your predetermined conclusions. It is you who should be a teacher. In fact your greatest opportunity for success is probably in the ad industry, since marketing is all about deceptively framing the pitch so that a substandard product is made to seem superior to one that is actually better. Bravo.

[ QUOTE ]
&gt;&gt;Why are you refusing to answer the question? &lt;&lt;

I gave a comprehensive, cogent reply to your question in context, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not trolling.

You are no longer entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. You most decidely did not answer the question. Instead, you gave your spin of this thread. Now, rather than answer, you are attacking me.

The fact is that rather than take on Cyrus's overall point about the type of nation-state Israel is, you chose to engage in semantic nitpicking about the definition of "neighbor" and "military threat". And that's fine. If you want to debate those points, knock yourself out.

But don't think for a second that readers can't see what you're doing.

in regards to hizbollah constituting a militry threat to israel, i disagree. a couple days ago, hizbollah launched a suprise attack on the sheeba farms with the intent of distracting the bulk of israeli soldiers in the region so they could snag some israeli hostages in the golan. final score, 0 hostages, to the best of my knowledge 0 israelis dead, 5 hizbollah dead. keep in mind, this was a suprise attack, and the largest effort by hizbollah in years. military threat? me thinks not. the next day, israeli planes demolished some hizbollah outposts in southern lebanon with zero resistance. hizbollah absolutely retains the ability to inflict terroristic damgage on israel, but to label them a military threat is a stretch, no matter how loosley you define the term.
as for being a threat to the usa, it is ridiculous to compare hizbollahs capabilities to al qaeda, and them label them a serious threat. hizbollah was created after the israeli invasion of lebanon with the aim of resisting the israeli forces. due to the funding they have recieved from iran, there has been some of the usuall iran flavored rhetoric, but hizbollah aim after the withdrawl of israel is to regain what they believe is their land/provide representation for poor shia (and syria and iran) in lebanese government. Hizbollah has concrete goals, and acts within these goals. there actions are generally prudent to their aims. al qaeda on the other hand is operated by maniacss, albeit capable ones. their goals are much broader, and less defined. Al qaeda operates without the constraints of borders, everyone knows where to find hizbollah. to put them in the same league as the qaeda's in regards to their threat levle to the usa is ridiculous. Hizbollah is moving (very slowly) into the political proscess in lebanon. i believe they have a minister in the cabinet. it is the aim of the lebanese govt to incorporate them into the political process. it's hard to imagine qaeda doing the same thing. to gauge their threat level to the usa based on military capabilities is ignorant. as for operatives in the usa, the ira had/has operatives in the usa. their purpose to raise money. same with hizbollah. there are alot of rich lebanese in the us, and the "operatives" are there to get money.

[MMMMMM]

Hi in40892,

The fact that Hezbollah has chosen merely to harry Israel with minor attacks over the years is not indicative of its full potential for serious combat, nor its potential for serious terrorist operations.

I'm not talking about their current threat level to the USA, but rather their *potential* for serious threat to the USA. They are a not only a better army, but also a better-organized and more competent terrorist organization, than al-Qaeda.

On September 5, 2002, Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, declared that "Hezbollah may be the A-Team of terrorists, while al-Qaeda may actually be the B-Team."

Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than had any other terrorist organization.

Following is an excerpt from a different source (USA Today):

(excerpt) "The A-Team' of terrorists

Terrorism investigators and analysts say Hezbollah could attack U.S. interests at home and abroad if the Bush administration were to take on Iran, the group's chief benefactor, or Syria, its supply pipeline between Lebanon and Tehran.

U.S.-Syrian relations have been strained by accusations that Syria helped top Iraqi officials flee coalition forces. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently warned Syrian President Bashar Assad against aiding Palestinian terrorist groups.

But when it comes to Hezbollah's potential threat on U.S. soil, the bigger worry is Iran and its reaction to U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq, says Magnus Ranstorp, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrew's University in Scotland.

"If Iran's agenda isn't satisfied," he says, "the threat from Hezbollah to the U.S. rises exponentially."

U.S. officials have called Hezbollah (which means "party of God" in Arabic) "the A-Team" of terrorist organizations. A radical Shiite group, its leaders are known for carrying out synchronized attacks — a technique al-Qaeda has copied.

Within a year of its creation in 1982, Hezbollah carried out a suicide bombing that killed 241 people at the U.S. Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. In 1985, Hezbollah members killed a U.S. Navy diver during the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in Lebanon. And in the 1990s, the group kidnapped several Americans and Westerners.

Terrorism analysts say Hezbollah attacks on Americans declined as its leaders focused on making the transition from terrorists to political players in Lebanon. Equally significant, analysts say, Hezbollah and other radical Muslim groups realized that they could raise millions of dollars in the USA — legally and illegally — as long as they didn't draw attention by killing Americans.

So far, Hezbollah has no reason to jeopardize its money train, Ranstorp says. But if Hezbollah decides to target Americans, he says, "the cost-benefit calculation will be very rational."...

..." More capable than al-Qaeda

U.S. officials say Hezbollah has more operatives in the USA than al-Qaeda, access to chemical and biological agents through Iran and active training camps in Lebanon.

"Hezbollah has a significant presence in the United States waiting for a call to action," says Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He says he is worried about law enforcement's ability to confront the threat.

The task is daunting, Ranstorp says. "Hezbollah is not an organization you just tackle. They are not some small hornets' nest you stick your hand in and get moderately stung. These are super bees who can, because of the Iranian connection, wreak serious havoc to the United States."(end excerpt)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-13-hezbollah-usat_x.htm

The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has made the following statement: "Death to America was, is, and will always be our slogan."

You can find much more on the web about Hezbollah's capabilities if you care to do so.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Iran could kill one Israeli with terrorism, doesn't the Israeli government have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to prevent the death of that Israeli?


[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, and in full agreement with Zipo's position too, 1 Israeli equals 10,000 Israelis, i.e. the preventive measures and the response for the murder of one Israeli by a suicide bomber are the same measures and response for 10,000 Israelis killed in battle. OK, I begin to understand how the pair of you equate "military threat" with "terrorist threat"...

[/ QUOTE ]

"A man who saves one life saves the whole world"
- The Talmud

[zipo]

&gt;&gt;Cyrus, Hezbollah represents both a terrorist AND a military threat to Israel. Why are you defining "military threat" only as one which might completely defeat a nation? Methinks you are taking too narrow a view of the meaning of the word "military".&lt;&lt;

Well, when I forced Cyrus to confront the errors in his analysis, instead of graciously acknowledging the flaws in his reasoning he began spinning furiously and attempted to obfuscate the core issue under discussion.

Cyrus forgot the important rule - "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

Sadly, he just keeps digging himself deeper.

[cdxx]

i don't get it. the title of the thread and the OP led me to believe that there will be genuine discussion. i feel very strongly on the issue. nothing said here has made any sense yet.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't get it. the title of the thread and the OP led me to believe that there will be genuine discussion. i feel very strongly on the issue. nothing said here has made any sense yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Threads have a way of meandering off topic. Address the OP questions yourself and steer it back.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]

Threads have a way of meandering off topic. Address the OP questions yourself and steer it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

wish i could

[ QUOTE ]

I would like to propose the following questions to be debated by the 2 parties:

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
When I forced Cyrus to confront the errors in his analysis, instead of graciously acknowledging the flaws in his reasoning he began spinning furiously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the positions which you supported in this thread. Let the light shine on 'em :

- Iran is neighbor to Israel.

- A military threat is the same as a terrorist threat.

- State sponsored terrorism is a military threat. (A variant of the main theme...)

- Iran poses a significant military threat to Israel.

And one lovely Yogi-Bearism from Zipo, truly original:

- Asymmetrical warfare is warfare!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

...Tell me, which is your personal favorite? Mine is the neighbor thingy, where Iran is neighbor to Israel. Gives me acid flashback where Tajikistan is neighbor to Paraguay and everybody is neighbor to everybody else! Oh man.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, I just want to commend you on your rhetorical techniques. Defining the terms as you see fit to justify your predetermined conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wanted to commend you again. Plus add that stating something is not something it is known to be is the greatest technique of all.

[ACPlayer]

bonjour MMMMMM


Your comment regarding Hezbullah
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about their current threat level to the USA, but rather their *potential* for serious threat to the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first paragraph of the article you linked:
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism investigators and analysts say Hezbollah could attack U.S. interests at home and abroad if the Bush administration were to take on Iran, the group's chief benefactor, or Syria, its supply pipeline between Lebanon and Tehran.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see what the Bush administration should not do?

If attacked, the *potential* for serious threat will come from the group being attacked (what ever that group). For some reason people dont like to be taken on, attacked, occupied, ruled by foreign entities. Go figure.

[Cyrus]

Are you seriously accusing me of the following ?[ QUOTE ]
Defining the terms as you see fit to justify your predetermined conclusions.
Stating something is not something it is known to be is the greatest technique of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a thread started by YOU about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. To your original post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4002469&amp;an=0&amp;page=0&amp; gonew=1#UNREAD)'s questions, I responded (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4002604&amp;an=0&amp;page=0# Post4002604) item by item!

Zipo hijacked (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4003402) the thread by posting a few standard (and irrelevant to your query) inanities of the fanatical pro-Zionist lobby. I tried to address 'em as best as I could.

Unfortunately, onto the irrelevancy was added absurdity. To wit : "Iran is neighbor to Israel"; "Iran threatens Israel militarily"; etc. I cannot help it if Zipo sees the world this way.

Still, it's nice to be appreciated, even if for all the wrong reasons! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than had any other terrorist organization.


[/ QUOTE ] all but a couple in the marine barrack bombing. it is a bit of a stretch to attribute this to hizbollah, or atleast hizbollah as it exists today. in 1983 hizbollah was a loose orginaization of various shi'ite groups, some of whom pooled rescources to pull off that attack. hizbollah objective then was to not only fight israel, but to turn lebanon into an iran like religious state. an objective they have long since dropped. sure they are better organized then al qaeda, but the point is their objectives don't resemble those of al qaeda. at this point in addition to being a militia, they are the lone political party of the shia in lebanon. [ QUOTE ]
[Terrorism analysts say Hezbollah attacks on Americans declined as its leaders focused on making the transition from terrorists to political players in Lebanon./quote]


i don't see this tren reversing even if the us dramatically increases pressure on iran. as they have entered the political arena in lebanon, they are not merely lackeys of iran and syria. hizbollah recieves alot of money from syria, and as the us has increased pressure on syria, hizbollah's rhetoric towards the us has not changed dramaticallly.

[MMMMMM]

hi again, in48902,

I'm not trying to argue that Hezbollah is motivated currently to attack the USA, or that it represents a greater present threat than al-Qaeda. I'm merely saying that it has the potential to be a bigger threat, as it is more capable than al-Qaeda.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to argue that Hezbollah is motivated currently to attack the USA, or that it represents a greater present threat than al-Qaeda. I'm merely saying that it has the potential to be a bigger threat, as it is more capable than al-Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me on this, kid. Never mess with a good joke trying to make it better.

And yours was already already world class! [ QUOTE ]
Hezbollah may pose a potentially graver threat to the United States than al-Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/laugh.gif/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

And why would you find MMMMMM's view on the threat Hezbollah poses to the US so ridiculous? Are you suggesting that they could not attract the same sources of funding/support as Al-Quaeda when they have many similar goals and a similar world view?

Your statements like this and those ridiculing zippo's mostly correct statements on warfare lead me to believe you are merely trolling or are incredibly dense. All your views basically amount to is saying that a wolf is not a threat until he is at your door and preventive defense policy and threat analysis serves no purpose.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you find MMMMMM's view on the threat Hezbollah poses to the US so ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ] Because Hezbollah and al Qaeda are vastly different!

We have to go on the basis of what we know :

- Hezbollah enjoys the open support of hundreds of thousands of people. Al Qaeda is a clandestine organisation.

- Hezbollah is a strictly local, Lebanese organisation that is for all practical purposes operating above ground. Al Qaeda is an international network, operating clandestinely.

- Hezbollah has never attacked Americans outside of Lebanon. Its targets have been almost exclusively Israeli. Al Qaeda's priorities are American. They have hit the U.S. directly to the heart and are threatening to do it again.

[ QUOTE ]
... zippo's mostly correct statements on warfare ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, then you saw some of the howlers too? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tell me which ones, so's I can fill you in on the rest. (Hint : Zipo's got practically everything wrong| Quite an achievement.)

[ QUOTE ]
All your views basically amount to is saying that a wolf is not a threat until he is at your door
and preventive defense policy and threat analysis serves no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

A wolf that is now atacking is posing a different kind of threat than a wolf that could decide in the future to attack. Threat analysis (or the whole SWOT rigmarole) is not this administration's forte -- and that goes for its supporters from the looks of it!

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you find MMMMMM's view on the threat Hezbollah poses to the US so ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Hezbollah and al Qaeda are vastly different!

We have to go on the basis of what we know :

- Hezbollah enjoys the open support of hundreds of thousands of people. Al Qaeda is a clandestine organisation.

- Hezbollah is a strictly local, Lebanese organisation that is for all practical purposes operating above ground. Al Qaeda is an international network, operating clandestinely.

- Hezbollah has never attacked Americans outside of Lebanon. Its targets have been almost exclusively Israeli. Al Qaeda's priorities are American. They have hit the U.S. directly to the heart and are threatening to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, my view is that Hezbollah has the *potential* to pose a greater threat than al-Qaeda; not that they currently do.

Secondly, all of the above stated reasons by Cyrus are irrelevant, because Hezbollah has in recent years openly contemplated declaring full terroristic war against the USA--but decided not to at the current juncture.

Hezbollah's motto is "Death to America!" (and "Death To Israel!"), but that motto does not imply that they are willing to undertake full hostilities at present. That, however, could be subject to change in the future.