Quote:Original post by MDI

Quote:
Notice that Israel didn't go rampaging into Lebanon until AFTER the soldiers were kidnapped and NOT when the Israeli families were getting killed.

So you'd have favoured Israel's invasion of Lebanon after the first rocket attack. I see. Israel has been more than accomodating for the Lebanese government to get these rocket attacks under control. They haven't. The illegal kidnappings of the soldiers escalated the situation.

I don't understand why you are MISSING the point!! Israel could CARE LESS about the fact that those families died! If they found it that serious, then they would have pounded that stronghold ferociously with missiles. Period. It was not until the the soldiers were taken did they considered Hezbollah's actions "an act of war". Actually, they placed the blame on Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Why? Because they want to flex unnecessary muscle. They are conducting an one-sided full-scale battle. For 3 soldiers!! Not because families were killed and rockets were hitting civilian cities. But because soldiers were kidnapped!! Every time they led a new offensive they stated publicly and matter-of-factly it was because of the soldiers!!

Quote:Israel is acting as any government should.

No, Israel is acting as any arrogantly nuclear powered government would. Which quite frankly is disgusting.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37
Hezbollah launched dozens of missiles into Israel and killed civilians in the process. The Lebanese government has done nothing to put a stop to the organization or even the attacks. That is an act of war. If Lebanon would handle the problem themselves, then Israel would not be justified in hitting Lebanon (and they wouldn't need to anyway). Israel's situation is something most of us Westerners can't really understand, because we live in secure nations that have no chance of being attacked. If a Mexican guerilla group started launching missiles at the US, Americans would expect Mexico to handle it.

Isn't the Lebanese government relatively new? Do they not have issues with Syrian spies and pro-Syrian factions in their government? Do you think that a fledgling government can handle those two things quickly and tell a militant group that was/is supported, financially and militarily, by their previous occupier to "get out and leave or else"? No. Of course not it's, to put it mildly, very very naive to think so. Don't believe me ask Iraq. So to sit here and be all high and mighty and tell this newly formed goverment to forcibly kick people out, which would most likely cause another civil war and a reoccupation by Syria is, as I said before, naive.

Quote:For the most part Egypt and Jordan figured out how to handle their extremists, and they now enjoy peaceful relations with Israel. Now Lebanon just needs to grow some balls and take out Hezbollah. They know it won't be easy, which is why they are avoiding it. But it is their responsibility to do it. So it isn't fair to claim Israel cannot go into Lebanon and fix the problem themselves considering Lebanon isn't doing it.

Egypt and Jordan have veteran governments who keep a very tight noose around their government and its people. Lebanon is nowhere near that experienced, powerful, or influential to do that yet.

Quote:And all things considered, Israel has been relatively restrained. Compare it to virtually any other nation in the world that has been in even a slightly compareable situation, and it is an undeniable fact that Israel has acted moderately.

It's sad but true that the amount of destruction and death Israel has caused actually "restrained and moderate". If they're already considered beasts now, I would hate to imagine them going full force.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37
Hezbollah launched dozens of missiles into Israel and killed civilians in the process. The Lebanese government has done nothing to put a stop to the organization or even the attacks. That is an act of war. If Lebanon would handle the problem themselves, then Israel would not be justified in hitting Lebanon (and they wouldn't need to anyway). Israel's situation is something most of us Westerners can't really understand, because we live in secure nations that have no chance of being attacked. If a Mexican guerilla group started launching missiles at the US, Americans would expect Mexico to handle it.

Your recall of events is one sided. Israel bombed the Beirut airport before Hezbollah launched those hundreds of missles. Israel didn't wait for the Lebanese government to respond before it launched it's attacks. If there is an act of war here, it's the Israeli bombing of Beirut and naval blockade of Lebanon. As for your remarks about Mexico, think again: Mexican incursions inflame border situation. According to Israeli logic, and apparantly yours, the United States should presently be at war with Mexico.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37
For the most part Egypt and Jordan figured out how to handle their extremists, and they now enjoy peaceful relations with Israel. Now Lebanon just needs to grow some balls and take out Hezbollah. They know it won't be easy, which is why they are avoiding it. But it is their responsibility to do it. So it isn't fair to claim Israel cannot go into Lebanon and fix the problem themselves considering Lebanon isn't doing it.

Malarkey. Once again Israel has upset the balance of political forces in Lebanon. I suspect that you are too young to remember the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. You might want to read up on it. From 1975 to 1990, Lebanon was a cauldron of struggle between displaced Palestinians, Christians, Shiites, Syrians and Israelis [1]. It was a damn bloody mess. That's something that some of us Westerners don't seem to be able to understand very well, of course, understanding and bloodlust are mutually exclusive...

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37
And all things considered, Israel has been relatively restrained. Compare it to virtually any other nation in the world that has been in even a slightly compareable situation, and it is an undeniable fact that Israel has acted moderately.

That's just wrong. Restrained? Not! Review the wiki-pedia entry on Hezbollah that I dropped earlier. In 2004 Israel negotiated for the return of Hezbollah abductees. That was showing restraint. We don't have to compare the situation with how other countries would react, we can compare it with how Israel reacted in the past. This time they're simply losing their minds.

I think Israel is escalating this conflict because ultimately it wants the United States to fight Iran and Syria for it and it's looking like the only way that's going to happen is by starting a regional war.

How's this for restraint: Israeli strikes demolish Beirut suburb

Quote:
BEIRUT, Lebanon - After Israeli missiles hit his neighborhood, a Hezbollah stronghold south of Beirut, 21-year-old waiter Tareq Jarah quit his job and hopped on his scooter.

He was just one of thousands fleeing Dahiyah — Arabic for suburb — after Israeli raids targeted the densely populated district, ripping the facades off dozens of homes and blanketing sidewalks with broken glass and other debris.

By late afternoon, almost all stores were shuttered, and the streets were deserted except for residents buying bread.

Before nightfall, a tense and expectant atmosphere prevailed in Dahiyah. Dozens of Hezbollah gunmen were deployed in the so-called "security square," where the Iranian- and Syrian-backed guerrilla group has its headquarters. A fire raged in one apartment bloc after an Israeli strike that was said to have targeted Hezbollah‘s radio station.
...

Meanwhile: Syria says fully backs Hizbollah against Israel

Quote:
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria will support its allies Hizbollah and Lebanon against Israel's attacks on the country, the ruling Baath Party said on Friday.

"The Syrian people are ready to extend full support to the Lebanese people and their heroic resistance to remain steadfast and confront the barbaric Israeli aggression and its crimes," said a communique from the party's national command issued after a meeting.
...

That's not good.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:Your recall of events is one sided. Israel bombed the Beirut airport before Hezbollah launched those hundreds of missles. Israel didn't wait for the Lebanese government to respond before it launched it's attacks. If there is an act of war here, it's the Israeli bombing of Beirut and naval blockade of Lebanon.

Israel bombed the Beirut airport after hezbollah entered Israeli territory and killed/captured Israeli soldiers. Would you prefer that to be the act of war?

That would make for a flimsy act of war - especially when contrasted with blowing up an airport, television stations, cell phone towers, electric power plants and apartment buildings.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:As for your remarks about Mexico, think again: Mexican incursions inflame border situation. According to Israeli logic, and apparantly yours, the United States should presently be at war with Mexico.

That's not my logic at all. I have no doubt Mexico and the US are working together to resolve the problem.

So why didn't Israel seek to work with Lebanon to resolve the problem?

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:Once again Israel has upset the balance of political forces in Lebanon.

Yes, upsetting the balance of political forces by dislodging hezbollah would be a good goal considering they just conducted numerous attacks against a foreign nation...

I don't think you know what you're talking about. You're saying that a rekindling of the civil war in Lebanon would be a good goal.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:

Quote:And all things considered, Israel has been relatively restrained. Compare it to virtually any other nation in the world that has been in even a slightly compareable situation, and it is an undeniable fact that Israel has acted moderately.

That's just wrong. Restrained? Not! Review the wiki-pedia entry on Hezbollah that I dropped earlier. In 2004 Israel negotiated for the return of Hezbollah abductees. That was showing restraint. We don't have to compare the situation with how other countries would react, we can compare it with how Israel reacted in the past. This time they're simply losing their minds.

If you want to compare Israel to how it has acted in the past, that's fine. I don't see what that accomplishes, or how it affects my point. The fact is, Israel is exercising more restraint than almost any other country would given its circumstances. On the list of problems in the world, Israel is a minor one. There's 10,000 children that died yesterday in Africa that could use some sympathy.

I provided an example of how Israel responded in the past. How about you provide some examples of other countries and how they would respond before you start pushing complete canards about Israeli restraint and making feeble attempts to change the subject to Africa.

Why didn't Britain occupy Ireland? Why didn't India occupy Sri Lanka? Why didn't Spain occupy the Basque lands? Let's hear your list.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:Isn't the Lebanese government relatively new? Do they not have issues with Syrian spies and pro-Syrian factions in their government? Do you think that a fledgling government can handle those two things quickly and tell a militant group that was/is supported, financially and militarily, by their previous occupier to "get out and leave or else"? No. Of course not it's, to put it mildly, very very naive to think so.

That's my point. Israel needs to go in there and get the job done, because Lebanon isn't doing it. Do you seriously expect the Israelis to sit around and get shot at while the Lebanese get their act together?

You really need to familiarize yourself with the history of Israeli involvement in Lebanon before you start talking about invasions and occupations and restraint and the like.

Quote:Original post by Wutalife37

Quote:Your recall of events is one sided. Israel bombed the Beirut airport before Hezbollah launched those hundreds of missles. Israel didn't wait for the Lebanese government to respond before it launched it's attacks. If there is an act of war here, it's the Israeli bombing of Beirut and naval blockade of Lebanon.

Israel bombed the Beirut airport after hezbollah entered Israeli territory and killed/captured Israeli soldiers. Would you prefer that to be the act of war?

I'm really not understanding how bombing a Beirut airport is justification for retaliating against a foreign power in a sovereign country (ie. Hezbollah [= foreign power] in Lebanon [=sovereign country]). If you wanted to get at Hezbollah then attacks Hezbollah property and areas and armanent. Lebanese suburbs, power plants, and airports which are all civilian not Bezbollah-controlled are not fair and legitimate targets.

Quote:

Quote:Once again Israel has upset the balance of political forces in Lebanon.

Yes, upsetting the balance of political forces by dislodging hezbollah would be a good goal considering they just conducted numerous attacks against a foreign nation...

Ok, I can agree with that. But do you think you can get Israel to attack the correct enemy and not the enemy of its choosing? Thanks.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:And all things considered, Israel has been relatively restrained. Compare it to virtually any other nation in the world that has been in even a slightly compareable situation, and it is an undeniable fact that Israel has acted moderately.

That's just wrong. Restrained? Not! Review the wiki-pedia entry on Hezbollah that I dropped earlier. In 2004 Israel negotiated for the return of Hezbollah abductees. That was showing restraint. We don't have to compare the situation with how other countries would react, we can compare it with how Israel reacted in the past. This time they're simply losing their minds.

If you want to compare Israel to how it has acted in the past, that's fine. I don't see what that accomplishes, or how it affects my point. The fact is, Israel is exercising more restraint than almost any other country would given its circumstances. On the list of problems in the world, Israel is a minor one. There's 10,000 children that died yesterday in Africa that could use some sympathy.

Considering that though Israel is creating massive chaos progressively relatively speaking it is restrained. Although "restrained" in this particular case, has a whole other and new meaning and standard.

Quote:

Quote:Isn't the Lebanese government relatively new? Do they not have issues with Syrian spies and pro-Syrian factions in their government? Do you think that a fledgling government can handle those two things quickly and tell a militant group that was/is supported, financially and militarily, by their previous occupier to "get out and leave or else"? No. Of course not it's, to put it mildly, very very naive to think so.

That's my point. Israel needs to go in there and get the job done, because Lebanon isn't doing it. Do you seriously expect the Israelis to sit around and get shot at while the Lebanese get their act together?

It's not that "Lebanon isn't doing it". It's the fact that "Lebanon cannot do it." If the Israelis want to go after Hezbollah for attacking their country then go ahead and fight them. Just LEAVE THE CIVILIANS OUT OF IT!!

Quote:Original post by firahs
Because the concept of their religious homeland was not even a concept at that time. It wasnt until the writings of Yehuda Halevi that the concept of homeland was even started.

Err... Yehuda Halevi lived from about 1075 to 1141. That's prior to or during the very beginning of Jewish migration towards Eastern Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if a desire to return to Israel and see the temple rebuilt existed ever since the diaspora began.

Quote:
About jewish scholorship. Look up scholars like Maimonodes (Rambam), Judah Halevi...few others...all have something in common.

The same Maimonides who was almost killed by a puritan Muslim sect? The same Maimonides who actually wrote of Jewish persecution under the Muslims?

Judah Halevi... the one who complained about Muslim persecution in Spain (particularly Cordoba) against his fellow Jews?

Yeah, I see something in common: Jewish scholars born in Muslim territory who moved around a lot and complained of persecution.


The fact of the matter seems to be that Jewish-Gentile relations fluctuated between bad and better in both the Islamic and Christian worlds but there is no evidence that Muslims were extraordinarily tolerant towards Jews or have had some sort of a "special" relationship with them. What is striking, however, is that most of the world has abandoned anti-Semitism (especially the West) and religious persecution whereas the Islamic world continues to do so.

Apologists would have it that it was merely the formation of Israel that degraded these relations but that doesn't really explain why anti-Semitism is so rampant in regions that are nowhere near the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor does it explain why anti-Semitism has spread so rapidly and why "the Jews" (as distinct from Israel) have been so easily demonized.

Quote:Original post by firahs
It was impossible for this particular empire to be spread at the tip of the sword. Look at the timescale. If you were to take travel and the time it took to battle...there must have been little or no fighting. A force of 30,000 strong could not have been expected to overrun the prior empires in the region in such a short time.

I don't agree that the timescale supports your assertion. Similar conquests occured with similar rapidity. Look at Alexander the Great, the Mongols, and the Spaniards.

Quote:
About dhimmi not being able to testify, there are accounts during the first 3 or 4 generations of Caliphate of appointed governors loosing their position because of not being just towards those who paid the poll tax. The dhimmi can approach and bring complaints to leadership. They cannot be used as witnesses during a trial, but to understand this, you'd need to study the qualifications of a witness and their importance during a trial.

What does dhimma status have to do with the qualifications of a witness?

Quote:
I dont think that there is evidence of Jews having to wear a badge that far back. I do remember something about non-muslims having to wear something under the Taliban but that was to signify that they did not have to follow laws that only applied to Musliims. Sources. But, even further, I'd rather not continue this conversation especially if all you contribute is "there is evidence" and other generalizations. Bring up specificities that can be verified through historical sources...even if you want to use orientalist works.

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

Are these decrees fabrications?