Lebanon -- the British view

[Nono]

Speaking on behalf of the United States' main Western ally in the "war against terror", Britain's foreign office minister has just been saying in a BBC television interview that Israeli massive destruction of Lebanese lives and infrastrucure was "hard to understand" (diplomat-speak for totally incomprehensible).

He said that the airstrikes were "not surgical" and that far too many children and other innocents had died.

So, bishop&co, this is Tony Blair's mouthpiece, not the representative of some pansy-pacifist European eunuch-entity.

Your analysis of the thing as being within the bounds of proportionality is increasingly untenable.

[shrike]

Nono could you remind me Blair's party affiliation?

He said that the airstrikes were "not surgical" and that far too many children and other innocents had died.

How he would know? Did he was present where IAF stricken? Did he count how many innocents and children were killed?

[dreamer]

LINK.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5205658.stm

Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has criticised Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, while on a visit to Beirut. He said Israel had not carried out "surgical strikes" and attacking the Lebanese nation was not the answer. Downing Street said the prime minister would stand by Mr Howell's comments, adding the British government had "always urged restraint on Israel". Meanwhile thousands of people across the UK are joining demonstrations against Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

And here are the demonstrations.
link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5203450.stm

Thousands of people across the UK have joined demonstrations against Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Eleven rallies were organised by groups such as Stop The War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain. They were held in towns and cities including Birmingham, Glasgow, London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Exeter and York.

This time its up setting the masses

[Trotsky]

Quote by: Nono Speaking on behalf of the United States' main Western ally in the "war against terror", Britain's foreign office minister has just been saying in a BBC television interview that Israeli massive destruction of Lebanese lives and infrastrucure was "hard to understand" (diplomat-speak for totally incomprehensible). He said that the airstrikes were "not surgical" and that far too many children and other innocents had died. So, bishop&co, this is Tony Blair's mouthpiece, not the representative of some pansy-pacifist European eunuch-entity. Your analysis of the thing as being within the bounds of proportionality is increasingly untenable.

Nono, mate, seriously you're wasting your time methinks. The only party further to the right than Tony Bliars "New Labour" is the BNP, yet our friend Shrike here sounds off like he's some bleeding heart liberal, you might as well post the comments from my government, but no doubt Shrike will say we are a terrorist state who supported the murder of innocent people. There is a mind-set in the new right, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", anything outside this is just liberal hogwash. Shrike cannot see the wood from the trees. His opinion is the IDF is right, always right and the Arabs/Palestinians are always wrong. The ultranice conservative black and white view of the world.

[shrike]

Quote by: trotsky Nono, mate, seriously you're wasting your time methinks. The only party further to the right than Tony Bliars "New Labour" is the BNP, yet our friend Shrike here sounds off like he's some bleeding heart liberal, you might as well post the comments from my government, but no doubt Shrike will say we are a terrorist state who supported the murder of innocent people. There is a mind-set in the new right, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", anything outside this is just liberal hogwash. Shrike cannot see the wood from the trees. His opinion is the IDF is right, always right and the Arabs/Palestinians are always wrong. The ultranice conservative black and white view of the world.

Such a long big but with no any reason straw man. Or maybe you a mind reader?

Apparently BNP is far more on the left than labor or Tory. So it's probably more close to your worldview?

[Trotsky]

Quote by: shrike Such a long big but with no any reason straw man. Or maybe you a mind reader? Apparently BNP is far more on the left than labor or Tory. So it's probably more close to your worldview?

The BNP similar to my world view? The party whose candidate in the constituency at the last election said that they would pay for my repatriation back to Ireland!
The BNP is no more on the left than the cat, I'm no more on the bloody left than the cat. How that was calculated is beyond me, most likely by some twat with no idea of UK politics.

As for what I base my opinions on you, no need to be a mind reader, just read your posts and its quite plain to see where you stand in the political spectrum.

[bishop]

it isn't very surprising to hear these comments from britain. they generally tote the european view which always points the finger at israel before anyone else.

those pushing the proportionality argument are using it as cover for what they really want - an immediate ceasefire.. not a bad thing to hope for, but not very realistic either. they think that by putting world opinion pressure on israel, they can limit their behavior - and i think it is working to some degree.

nonetheless, any resolution condemning israel's response is likely to be vetoed. i doubt it will come to that point.. we're currently giving israel a pass to take quick action against hezbollah, but i don't think we'll let this continue indefinately.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5195128.stm

[dsanthony]

The Lebanese govt is responsible to secure its borders and prevent terrorists from attacking Israel. In fact, the UN passed a declaration saying so years ago. If they cannot do so, then Israel is justified in taking action to secure the border themselves. Where is the outrage (from certain people) about Hezbollah intentionally firing missiles into Israeli cities. Israel is a sovereign nation, and has the right to protect itself. Hezbollah is a gang of terrorists and criminals and should be exterminated.

[Trotsky]

Quote by: dsanthony The Lebanese govt is responsible to secure its borders and prevent terrorists from attacking Israel. In fact, the UN passed a declaration saying so years ago. If they cannot do so, then Israel is justified in taking action to secure the border themselves. Where is the outrage (from certain people) about Hezbollah intentionally firing missiles into Israeli cities. Israel is a sovereign nation, and has the right to protect itself. Hezbollah is a gang of terrorists and criminals and should be exterminated.

Sinn Fein/IRA are terrorists and criminals, yet the American government is quite happy to cozy up to them with Tony Bliar, in fact I'd go as far as saying they are more criminal than Hezbollah. Should they be exterminated too?

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Trotsky Quote by: dsanthony The Lebanese govt is responsible to secure its borders and prevent terrorists from attacking Israel. In fact, the UN passed a declaration saying so years ago. If they cannot do so, then Israel is justified in taking action to secure the border themselves. Where is the outrage (from certain people) about Hezbollah intentionally firing missiles into Israeli cities. Israel is a sovereign nation, and has the right to protect itself. Hezbollah is a gang of terrorists and criminals and should be exterminated. Sinn Fein/IRA are terrorists and criminals, yet the American government is quite happy to cozy up to them with Tony Bliar, in fact I'd go as far as saying they are more criminal than Hezbollah. Should they be exterminated too?

Sinn Fein and the IRA ended their terrorist tactics BEFORE the US "cozied up to them." If Hezbollah/Hamas were to end their terrorits tactics, both Isreal and the US would negotiate with them. Trotsky would not like you using his name.

[Matt W]

Quote by: dsanthony Sinn Fein and the IRA ended their terrorist tactics BEFORE the US "cozied up to them." If Hezbollah/Hamas were to end their terrorits tactics, both Isreal and the US would negotiate with them. Trotsky would not like you using his name.

Rubbish. Sinn Fein leaders were visiting the White House for St. Pats' in the '80s - check your facts.

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Matt W Quote by: dsanthony Sinn Fein and the IRA ended their terrorist tactics BEFORE the US "cozied up to them." If Hezbollah/Hamas were to end their terrorits tactics, both Isreal and the US would negotiate with them. Trotsky would not like you using his name. Rubbish. Sinn Fein leaders were visiting the White House for St. Pats' in the '80s - check your facts.

I clearly wrote Sinn Fein AND the IRA. Regardless. The US remained Britain's stauch ally throughout the "troubles" and bombings of the IRA. While there might have been a few visits by Sinn Fein leaders to the White House (which I'd like to see proof of), the US did not recognize the IRA or Sinn Fein's leadership until they disarmed and ended their terrorist tactics.

[Trotsky]

Quote by: dsanthony Sinn Fein and the IRA ended their terrorist tactics BEFORE the US "cozied up to them." If Hezbollah/Hamas were to end their terrorits tactics, both Isreal and the US would negotiate with them. Trotsky would not like you using his name.

Sinn Fein/IRA are still at their acts of terrorism, intelligence gathering, money laundering, assassinations, robberies, punishment beatings and lets not forget bank robberies. And the US "cozied" up to Sinn Fein/IRA long before the first ceasefire and continued to deal with them even after the Canary Warf bombings, the murder of Gda Jerry McCabe and the attempted murder of Gda Ben O'Sullivan, the Warrington "Mothers day" bombing and so forth. Couple that with the murder of british intelligence officer Denis Donaldson this year and several armed robberies in the Irish republic this year, I don't think the "terror tactics" have gone away.

Two points of order which should be made, 1)there is NO difference between provisional Sinn Fein and the provisional IRA. They're the same bunch of murdering criminal thugs. 2) Over 80% of funding for the IRA in the 70's, 80's and 90's came from the US, principly fund raising rallies, with the remaining 20% coming from bank robberies and other criminal activities in the Irish republic.

[dsanthony]

Quote by: Trotsky Quote by: dsanthony Sinn Fein and the IRA ended their terrorist tactics BEFORE the US "cozied up to them." If Hezbollah/Hamas were to end their terrorits tactics, both Isreal and the US would negotiate with them. Trotsky would not like you using his name. Sinn Fein/IRA are still at their acts of terrorism, intelligence gathering, money laundering, assassinations, robberies, punishment beatings and lets not forget bank robberies. And the US "cozied" up to Sinn Fein/IRA long before the first ceasefire and continued to deal with them even after the Canary Warf bombings, the murder of Gda Jerry McCabe and the attempted murder of Gda Ben O'Sullivan, the Warrington "Mothers day" bombing and so forth. Couple that with the murder of british intelligence officer Denis Donaldson this year and several armed robberies in the Irish republic this year, I don't think the "terror tactics" have gone away.

We also "dealt" with the PLO. Again, not the same as recognizing them (which we did eventually with both Sinn Fein and the PLO)...

Regardless, the point here is Lebanon and Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Hamas is our enemy. Islamic terrorism is our enemy. Israel has a right to defend itself in Lebanon, just as we did in Afghanistan.

As for the Foreign Minister's comments... Foreign diplomacy is complex. Good cop, bad cop is not a new tactic. I don't know what was behind his comments. Britain is not as strong an ally of Israel as the US is, but they experienced Islamic terrorism in a very personal way recently. They may admonish Israel to try to stop "collateral" damage (as Bush himself did).

[Nono]

Quote by: Trots (...) no doubt Shrike will say we are a terrorist state (...)

I don't know about that, but shrike seems incapable of discerning any shade of grey.

As for the British political spectrum, that isn't where it's at. It's true, I'd rather see Ming Campbell at Number 10, but it ain't happenin' eh?

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop we're currently giving israel a pass to take quick action against hezbollah

(wearily) Again: We've been here before -- in 1982.

If you think about it, bishop (you're a bright guy, even if you're drifting into the neocon camp here), you'll realize that Hezbollah and their like will emerge from this vastly strengthened in the long term.

He who igones history is condemned to repeat it.

[bishop]

i have a simple question for ya.... should any action be taken in hopes of disarming hezbollah, or should we simply permit it to resupply itself with missiles and point them at israel?

[Nono]

And I have a simple answer (not rising to the bait of reductio ad absurdum):

Yes, with due care not to end the lives of too many sleeping civilians. That means perhaps being less effective militarily, but hey -- that's what civilization is all about.

Remember that conventional military strength has proven increasingly elusive in the Middle East setting (see suicide bombings).
Really, bishop, you should read up a bit on the recent history of the place.

Israel evacutated southern Lebanon in 2000 with its tail between its legs. Why had it gone in 18 years previously? To "put an end to terrorism". By the time it left,.Hezbollah was going strong, thanks almost solely to Isreal's presence, which swung huge portions of the local population behind the bearded loonies.

Here's a question for you, b: Why is Israel (and its American sponsors) doing so much at the moment to turn Lebanese opinion against it and strengthen Islamic extemism? One has gotta wonder.

If you can see the counter-productive effect of US action in Iraq, it simply amazes me that you can't see it in this case.

[bishop]

taking out hezbollah weapons caches (and hopefully assassinating its leadership) is markedly different from israel's previous espades in lebanon where they were occupiers.

the reason why i feel my country is right to support israel in this case (and that we should not be directly involved right now) is because i do not believe that placating hezbollah is a long-term solution. this group broke the fragile stalemate that existed on the border without being motivated by israel - and i do not have faith that hezbollah wouldn't attempt to do this again (probably with better weapons from syria/iran). the lebanese military is a joke and wouldn't dare confront hezbollah.. the incompetence of u.n. peacekeeper missions is known throughout the world - unless in this case, these proposed peacekeepers have the power to hunt down and disarm the guerrillas.

it isn't that i don't realize the political counter-productive aspects of it all.. it's that i don't feel that we can trust these people nearly enough to be able to rely on them to take real action towards peace. when they constantly turn to militarism, do you simply expect the israelis to greet them with flowers and peace symbols? i don't believe either of our positions to result in any long-term peace, which is why i think israel should go after these militants while they have a window of opportunity.


fyi, my stance on this issue is hardly "neocon"... a recent poll today showed that some 65% of americans agree with my position. (supporting israel's aggression, and not supporting u.s. involvement)

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono ... Here's a question for you, b: Why is Israel (and its American sponsors) doing so much at the moment to turn Lebanese opinion against it and strengthen Islamic extemism? One has gotta wonder. ...

Nobody is buying my theory that the US/Israel alliance is purposely creating a powerful surge of terrorism, sure to prove useful as an opponent in years of profitable war ahead?