| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
So Ahmadinejad, who has called again and again for the destruction of Israel, now wants a cease-fire since his side is losing.
It reminds me of this recent post by blogger David Bogner:
A difficult lesson.
When I was in the Navy, I once witnessed a bar fight in downtown Olongapo (Philippines) that still haunts my dreams. The fight was between a big oafish Marine and a rather soft-spoken, medium sized Latino sailor from my ship.
All evening the Marine had been trying to pick a fight with one of us and had finally set his sights on this diminutive shipmate of mine... figuring him for a safe target. When my friend refused to be goaded into a fight the Marine sucker punched him from behind on the side of the head so hard that blood instantly started to pour from this poor man's mutilated ear.
Everyone present was horrified and was prepared to absolutely murder this Marine, but my shipmate quickly turned on him and began to single-handedly back him towards a corner with a series of stinging jabs and upper cuts that gave more than a hint to a youth spent boxing in a small gym in the Bronx.
Each punch opened a cut on the Marine's startled face and by the time he had been backed completely into the corner he was blubbering for someone to stop the fight. He invoked his split lips and chipped teeth as reasons to stop the fight. He begged us to stop the fight because he could barely see through the river of blood that was pouring out of his split and swollen brows. Nobody moved. Not one person.
The only sound in the bar was the sickening staccato sound of this sailor's lightning fast fists making contact with new areas of the Marine's head. The only sound I have heard since that was remotely similar was from the first Rocky film when Sylvester Stallone was punching sides of beef in the meat locker.
Finally the Marine's pleading turned to screams.... a high, almost womanly shriek. And still the punches continued relentlessly.
Several people in the bar took a few tentative steps as though they wanted to try to break it up at that point, but hands reached out from the crowd and held them tight. I'm not ashamed to say that mine were two of the hands that held someone back.
You see, in between each blow the sailor had begun chanting a soft cadence: "Say [punch] you [punch] give [punch] up [punch]... say [punch] you [punch]were [punch] wrong [punch]".
He had been repeating it to the Marine almost from the start but we only became aware of it when the typical barroom cheers had died down and we began to be sickened by the sight and sound of the carnage.
This Marine stood there shrieking in the corner of the bar trying futilely to block the carefully timed punches that were cutting his head to tatters... right down to the skull in places. But he refused to say that he gave up... or that he was wrong.
Even in the delirium of his beating he believed in his heart that someone would stop the fight before he had to admit defeat. I'm sure this strategy had served him well in the past and had allowed him to continue on his career as a barroom bully.
Finally, in a wail of agony the Marine shrieked "I give up", and we gently backed the sailor away from him.
I'm sure you can guess why I have shared this story today.
I'm not particularly proud to have been witness to such a bloody spectacle, and the sound of that Marine's woman-like shrieks will haunt me to my grave. But I learned something that evening that Israel had better learn for itself if it is to finally be rid of at least one of its tormentors:
This is one time an Arab aggressor must be allowed to be beaten so badly that every civilized nation will stand in horror, wanting desperately to step in and stop the carnage... but knowing that the fight will only truly be over when one side gives up and finally admits defeat.
Just as every person who had ever rescued that bully from admitting defeat helped create the cowardly brute I saw that evening in the bar, every well-intentioned power that has ever stepped in and negotiated a cease fire for an Arab aggressor has helped create the monsters we see around us today.
President Lahoud of Lebanon, a big Hezbollah supporter and a close ally of Syria, has been shrieking non-stop to the UN Security Council for the past two days to get them to force Israel into a cease fire.
Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Arab Despots' by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.
There's more. Read the whole thing.
#1
#2A.M. your missing the point. There's a fundamental difference between Americans and Muslims. Americans believe in doing what's right, while Muslims care about nothing beyond killing anyone who isn't Muslim.
The other Marines stepped aside because they knew the guy was a bully who needed to be taught a lesson. The guy in Iran is a bully himself and will support anyone who wants to kill non-Muslims. It's as simple as that. That's why Islam must be soundly defeated.
If you want to know more I reccomend reading Victor Davis Hansen.
#3I did check Snopes, prior to posting; there's no entry.
Bognor's blog post has been widely linked, from very reputable sites (see the trackbacks for it), and does not yet appear to have been disproved.
#4I am not obtuse; I understand the point of the story.
And Vik, I do accept that this is a true story, but I don't think it is the norm.
The Marines would have stepped in to stop the bully from being killed, which almost seemed to be the case. They have their own sense of justice and would have 'counseled' him themselves so he wouldn't ever do that again. In addition, there would have been a great deal of respect shown to the feisty Navy shipmate by the Marines, but in the scenarios I have been aware of in the past, there would have been some intervention.
Now let's get back to the intended point of the story:
Our military, with very few (albeit glaring) exceptions, are decent, moral men and women and I continue to have complete faith in them. It must be difficult to both battle and befriend such treacherous people and maintain one's Judeo-Christian core values.
It is obvious that the West and Israel are fighting miscreants who do not have a sense of humanity - even amongst themselves. It is impossible to wage either war or peace because of their fractiousness, cultural divisions. and complete disregard for civilized conventions.
It was reported in today's, New York Times, that Hezbollah is setting up rockets between civilian homes in the Christian sector because the Israelis will target the source of the rockets; obviously, Hezbollah feels that Lebanese Christians are expendable and fit as residual damage.
But the Islamofacists will close ranks and step in because it is evident that Hezbollah is losing (and losing badly) and they will capitalize on the civilian deaths and destruction in Lebanon to justify their actions.
Naturally, Iran will be using this as an excuse to enter into the arena and become more pro-active despite their hatred of other Arab nations and Islamic sects. They are trying to win the hearts and minds of their Arab brothers in order to solidify a power base. (Iraqis beware!)
It doesn't matter to them that Hezbollah has been a thorn in their respective sides. What matters is that Hezbollah is being whooped by infidels.
Logically, where I am concerned...I'll stand there in a corner and hold Israel's coat.
#5Again, I am going to be provocative:
At what point can a defender become a bully, himself?
I think Israel crossed the line.
--------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I shall be on a business trip for a week; please do not interprete my apparent silence to anything other than that.
#6This is a far cry from 'holding Israel's coat.' Crossed the line? Hezbollah has been killing Israeli women and children for more than 20 years. Israel has tried everything short of war to put an end to this. Israel has tried targeted killings of terrorist leaders, and has even given back tons of land on the absurd theory that if it was just nice to Hezbollah, Hezbollah would be nice back. None of it worked. Don't you think Hezbollah "crossed the line?"
Why is it okay in your view for Hezbollah to "cross the line" to kill Israeli women and children, but not okay in your view for Israel to "cross the line" to save its women and children and its own existence? Do you believe it's more important for Israel to live up to this nonsensical standard of morality, than for it to save its own people and its own existence? There is no higher morality for a country than to save the lives of its civilians from attack.
#7There is no higher morality for a country than to save the lives of its civilians from attack.
Does this argument also apply to Iraqis saving the lives of its civilians from attack?
#8Yes, I've changed my view a bit - but I have never said that it was OK for Hezbollah to kill Israelis. Never.
Hezbollah have always crossed the line. The good citizens of Lebanon who have been held hostage by Hezbollah have wanted to rid their country of them. Unfortunately, Hezbollah were too entrenched for even the forces of the new government to deal with them.
In my view though, the deaths and displacement of innocent Lebanese and Israeli civilians on boths sides will only result in a Pyrrhic victory for the Israelis, while the Islamofascists will prey on the losses due to the perceived Israeli 'aggression'. Already there is recruitment of terrorists from all over the Muslim world.
Most people in the Middle East are not logical; if their houses and businesses are bombed and destroyed by Israelis because Hezbollah have set up their weapons there, the people will forget about Hezbollah and blame the Israelis. Intellect and memory go out the window when one has to deal with immediate adversity.
Israel has a right to defend herself. I just wish it could have been done in concert with the Lebanese government and people.
#9I just wish it could have been done in concert with the Lebanese government and people.
As you point out, that was not a possibility.
The good citizens of Lebanon who have been held hostage by Hezbollah have wanted to rid their country of them.
You may be buying into the "innocent civilians" myth. As discussed by Dershowitz, a tremendous number of those Lebanese civilians are intentionally providing support for Hezbollah. They are purposely helping to kill Israeli civilians. In opposing the actions Israel takes to defend itself, you are (without meaning to) supporting Hezbollah, and denying Israel the right to defend itself.
#10As discussed by Dershowitz, a tremendous number of those Lebanese civilians are intentionally providing support for Hezbollah.
Where does Dershowitz say that a tremendous number of Lebanese civilians are intentionally providing support for Hezbollah?
#11Unanswered questions:
1. Does the argument "there is no higher morality for a country than to save the lives of its civilians from attack" also apply to Iraqis saving the lives of Iraqi civilians from attack?
2. Where does Dershowitz say that a tremendous number of Lebanese civilians are intentionally providing support for Hezbollah?
#12I wish I could say the non-response was a surprise.
Obviously the answers are:
[Insults deleted]
#13Ruth what is with the [insult deleted] obsession over Iraq? Vic was talking about Israel not Iraq.
#14Vik purports to believe that "there is no higher morality for a country than to save the lives of its civilians from attack." If he actually believes that, his argument should apply equally to Iraq, and it would be easy enough for him to confirm that. If he doesn't believe his own argument, I would think he would want to offer a clarification.
But I'm not holding my breath.
#15Ruth, yes, I do feel it applies to Iraq. What's your point?
#16Does it apply to Iraqis protecting its citizens from attacks by US troops?
#17Does it apply to Iraqis protecting its citizens from attacks by US troops?
Sure, if that's what the Iraqi people wanted to do. But they don't. It appears that the majority of Iraqis feel the US isn't attacking Iraqi citizens as such. They feel the US is helping them stop the terrorists and install democracy.
#18Sure, if that’s what the Iraqi people wanted to do. But they don’t. It appears that the majority of Iraqis feel the US isn’t attacking Iraqi citizens as such. They feel the US is helping them stop the terrorists and install democracy.
Do you have a source to back up this assertion?
#19Ruth, the assertion is hardly unique or original. I'm sure you can Google up lots of people saying the same thing, with supporting links. I regret that I am not available to have a debate with you on this subject at this time.
#20Okay, we've established that you can't back up your assertion.
#21Ruth, good strategy -- demand that I take a lot of time to debate you on something, and then when I decline to, say something hostile and rude. It's a textbook example of a troll. One more and I'm going to ban you from this site.
#22I haven't made any demands. Whether you wish to back up your assertions is entirely up to you.
#23You may be buying into the “innocent civilians” myth
I don't think that is an entirely fair comment.
I can't imagine that the Lebanese who are Christian or other non-Islamic faiths are party to Hezbollah's terrorism.
Hezbollah are setting up their rockets in many of the areas populated by the very people who have been victimized by them; these victims feel they are powerless to do anything in light of the number of weapons Hezbollah has amassed and the retribution that would be inflicted on themselves and their families.
#24Okay, we’ve established that you can’t back up your assertion.
What's been established is that you are unwilling (or incapable) of doing elementry due diligence. If you really think that everyone else should have to play by different rules than you (where's your sources, eh?) you should start your own blog -- maybe a couple of people will drop by.
#25If you really think that everyone else should have to play by different rules than you (where’s your sources, eh?) you should start your own blog—maybe a couple of people will drop by.
My sources for what?
#26This bickering is annoying.
Cease and desist.
Get to a real substantive point germane to the discussion or move to another blog!
#27Hezbollah are setting up their rockets in many of the areas populated by the very people who have been victimized by them; these victims feel they are powerless to do anything in light of the number of weapons Hezbollah has amassed and the retribution that would be inflicted on themselves and their families.
I saw video recently of a reporter for one of the major U.S. networks, reporting from Lebanon, and saying that the citizens of Southern Lebanon were Hezbollah. I've been trying to find it, but I haven't tracked it down yet.
#28All the citizens of Southern Lebanon are Hezbollah?
Is that possible? How can that be?
Perhaps it is the majority?
If anyone can track down that report, it would be interesting to see - but I'm not so sure it is entirely correct. (Of course, I'm not there to see for myself but my instincts tell me otherwise.)
#29...saying that the citizens of Southern Lebanon were Hezbollah...
Here are a couple of recent articles;
From an AP writer describing the sentiments of the Christians.
From The New York Times describing the tactics of Hezbollah in Christian areas
This proves that not all Southern Lebanese are Hezbollah
#30I think these links support some of the points I was making. From the AP link:
"So far, the Israelis only shelled the edges of the village," said Qleia Mayor Shafiq Wanna. "We asked people who live on the outskirts to move in with relatives in the center. If they shell there too, we will flee."
..."I am fed up with all this fighting," said Majed Hamza, a Druse from the village of Hasbaya who served a two-year sentence for his membership of the South Lebanon Army. "If they come again, I am moving to Israel and will stay there."
In other words, they are not being forced to stay as human shields. They say that in case of fighting they would not be human shields - they would flee and/or move to Israel.
From the NY Times link:
But for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah — a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.
That says that the vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon is Shiite and broadly supports the militia.
It appears that in the vast number of cases, the human shields are there because they "broadly support" Hezbollah, and that the number of Christians, who do not support Hezbollah, are able to leave.
Those human shields are not innocent civilians - they're there in support of Hezbollah, helping Hezbollah kill Israeli civilians, which is what they've been doing for over a decade.
#31Vik -
Au contraire!
It supports the point that not all in Southern Lebanon are supporting Hezbollah but rather the vast majority.
It is all well and good to say that the Christians (and others who do not support Hezbollah) are free to leave, but some may not be able to for various reasons. The opinions expressed by those who were quoted are from refugees who were able to leave rather than those who might still be stuck and imbedded there; this might include the indigent, elderly, sick, wounded, women, and children who are unwilling shields.
I am simply taking exception to the broad statement/notion that all in the South are Hezbollah.
It is my belief that it is only Hezbollah that is armed.
#32It supports the point that not all in Southern Lebanon are supporting Hezbollah but rather the vast majority.
Very good.
#33It appears that the majority of Iraqis feel the US isn’t attacking Iraqi citizens as such. They feel the US is helping them stop the terrorists and install democracy.
Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops
- Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
- About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.
#34Interesting statistics.
What is the source and who did the polling?
A.M.
#35I provided the link in the post above.
#36Hi Ruth,
It's amazing how two people can look at the same thing and glean two different perspectives!
Ok, it says, The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes but it doesn't say who gathered the data although it does concede that: The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. So that is a conclusive poll? I think not.
Now we get to something about the majority of Iraqis rather than the sampling taken by PIPA that claims: _A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case. Where did this statistic come from?
In any case, there are some revealing passages that follow:
_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll.
"What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely."
Iraqi officials have said Iraq's security was improving and expanding throughout the country, and most U.S. troops might be able to leave eventually.
Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."
QED
So what's your point?
While this is one of those instructive stories, it does not really ring true. (If I hadn't known better, I would have written it off to an 'Urban Legend' and checked it on Snopes.com)
I'm a 'Marine Brat' and lived for a while on base at Camp LeJeune. My brother just retired as a Commander in the US Navy, so I have some idea of how the military men operate.
Were there no Marines there to come to the aid of their comrade?!!!
If anything, despite the moral question, Marines would not have allowed another to be beaten to a pulp and certainly not screaming like a woman! I would have imagined that they would have intervened to come to his defense and that a free-for-all would have ensued which would have eventually involved the SP's.
Yes, those things did happen in Norfolk, Quantico, and Jacksonville, especially at the dives on Court Street.
So this morality tale, in my opinion, is flawed.
The Marines would have gone in to protect their comrade because he was a Marine and it would be unacceptable and dishonourable for an outsider to attack a member of the Corps.
In the same light, I expect that the Arab nations will support and give aid to Hezbollah because they resent Israel on 'Arab soil'. All this despite the moral question and righteousness of the defensive response by israel.
That's the way guys operate.
It's very much like an outsider getting involved in a domestic dispute; despite acrimony within the family, they will close ranks when a non-family member interferes.
Don't be naive.