how israel reacts to attacks
 

always they return with many times the force that was put upon them.
look at it this way. if someone cuts off your finger and you do the same to him. then a toe and you do the same. soon both of you are lying there with no movement left. so israel cuts off three fingers first. then a hand and foot. then blows off the head.
since anyone attacking them knows that they return aggression like this, the attacker must accept the outcome, or dont attack in the first place.
so basically the groups that attack israel are mearly pawns for larger ggroups like syria and iran which benefit from the violence so they wont have to do it themselves.
to survive in that region israel must make it clear to all countries that if they mess with them it will be full scale distruction until the attacker stops and surrenders.
if the countries around israel want its demise then they have to wait until they are stronger and can win.
i think both sides are clearly wrong on how they treat each other. and unfortunately it looks like the confrontation is coming to a head with the stronger going to displace the weaker.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Ray, the major issue regarding this attack is a vast sense in Israel that we have lost some of that deterence factor you are talking about.

I am not sure if we succeed in returning that (i.e., don't attack us or suffer the extreme consequences), but that is def. one of the goals, even if not spoken upon officialy.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

The real pawns of Syria and Iran are the ordinary and law abiding citizens of both Lebanon and Palestine...

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real pawns of Syria and Iran are the ordinary and law abiding citizens of both Lebanon and Palestine...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it not the case that the dirty little secret in Middle Eastern affairs is that most governments could give a rat's behind about the plight of the Palestinians and they are merely convenient to use to bash the Jews and stroke domestic audiences?

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real pawns of Syria and Iran are the ordinary and law abiding citizens of both Lebanon and Palestine...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it not the case that the dirty little secret in Middle Eastern affairs is that most governments could give a rat's behind about the plight of the Palestinians and they are merely convenient to use to bash the Jews and stroke domestic audiences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is why most arab countries refused to take in palestinian refugees.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally. There is actually a consensus that the reaction should be proportionate, but since that word has no agreed definition the international discussion centers around what is proportionate.

I think the consensus that it should be proportionate stems from a similar logic that existed through much of the cold war, each side wants to win, but also each side wants to maintain the state of a "limited war" as the consequence of a full war would be too devastating for both sides. If you stop keeping things inside proportion and scale this scenario up to a full war this actually again (as during the cold war) includes Russian nukes fired at New York.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Knowing that every military action has a political cost, Israel's response to any and all attacks should be proportionate. Thus far their response has been appropriate and proportionate and I hope for a swift conclusion, though I don't see that happening. Iran is pulling the strings and they are perfectly content with what is happening now. Lebanon needs to stand up to Hezbollah if they want this to end soon.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Your comments remind me of a passage in Thomas Friedman's book From Beruit to Jerusalem in which he discusses 'Hama Rules'. In discussing the Syrian tragedy at Hama (Wiki is your friend), he tells the fable of the old man and his turkey which helps describe the mentality of some in the middle east. I dont have have time to type of the entire fable but found a nice little summary of it here.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

i think all people act like the turkey thing. they wait too long to react to someone stepping on their toes for fear of some confrontation. the confrontation which they are making inevitable to happen just for that reason.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

arfin and irv,

the right thing seems to return in proportion. but as the turkey story shows all it does is encourage more attacks. nothing works like a punch in the nose when someone pokes you in the chest. unfortunately in this case it involves the killing of civilians on both sides. the only logical thing is for the people that hate israel to draw back and stop all aggession and let things quiet down. then they can point out if israel attacks first. and get international support. until then if they continue to be the instigators the world knows who is in the right.
in the right i mean israel versus hamas and hisballa. not israel against all those surrounding them. which comprises many ordinary people that just want to live.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

firstly, please stop relegatin all members of both sides to eithe one pole. Stop seeing all Israelis as the supporters of the attacks and all palestines as terrorist supporters. This is not true.

Next, both Israel and Palestine have become a farce. What used to be centers of greatness now lands of nonsense.


With all this nonsense oing on I am astounbded by still how many people there are that take ffaith in the common "Abrahamic God."

Next, that land belonged to dinosaurs and atheistic civilizations before any of the folks fighting for it today even started claiming it.

Honestly, do you think that God exists???//?

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Arnf...

I think it would be reasonable to expect that if a missile were to hit Tel Aviv, that Damascus would be the target of retaliation.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
Arnf...

I think it would be reasonable to expect that if a missile were to hit Tel Aviv, that Damascus would be the target of retaliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I think that inernational support, specifically from Russia and maybe even France will be important for Israel.

The regime's in Iran and Syria are ticking timebombs.

Hopefully, the world will realize this, and prepare likewise.

North Korea should be on a far lower priority that Iran/Syria. Give them aid, give in to Russia/China plans in return for their support in the Middle East.

This is a major crossroads and hopefully it will be handled well. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the current support in our nation for doing what needs to be done to secure the region.

Although it will be tragic, a "Pearl Harbor" or "Lusitania" might be coming, and hopefully it isn't too late.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were a GI getting ready to invade the Japanese home islands, the dropping of the bomb was plenty proportionate. Interesting how a cessation of hostilities occurred immediately thereafter, and how a society that glorified suicide bombers(kamikazes) became a benign and productive one relatively quickly. Perhaps disproportional force has its merits and isn't applied enough in the Middle East.

\"There\'s another side to that coin\"
 

Your points about proportionality are well taken. Let me add this, which is not unrelated to game theory:

If A is attacked by B and A reacts disproportionately but does not eliminate B, then the next time that B intends to attack he will know what to expect from A. Which means that either B will refrain from attacking (in which case, deterrence works), or B will attack more massively than originally intended, since the response will be devastating but not conclusive) in any case. In other words, the escalation of by one side raises the stakes for both sides, for the whole conflict.

...I dare not add the assumption that both sides are rational. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: \"There\'s another side to that coin\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your points about proportionality are well taken. Let me add this, which is not unrelated to game theory:

If A is attacked by B and A reacts disproportionately but does not eliminate B, then the next time that B intends to attack he will know what to expect from A. Which means that either B will refrain from attacking (in which case, deterrence works), or B will attack more massively than originally intended, since the response will be devastating but not conclusive) in any case. In other words, the escalation of by one side raises the stakes for both sides, for the whole conflict.

...I dare not add the assumption that both sides are rational. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of what my father said (in the context of business)...

If you are going to hit a man, you better make damned sure that he can't get back up.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Be careful what you wish for now, it cuts both ways after all.

Mack

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Israel seems pretty freaked out. They have relied on having military superiority as a deterrent for so long, but they can't keep their neighbors as technological primitives forever. Israel needs a permanent solution.

Both Israel and its opponents seem to see compromise as a sign of weakness, so are loathe to give in on any point. Any solution in the region will probably have to involve the United Nations acting from above, bolstered by troops which, quite frankly, will have to include a lot of US forces. Then, neither side loses "face" more than the other. Guaranteeing the borders of Israel and a newly-formed Palestinian state seems like a better use of American military might than the woeful, misplanned (or unplanned) effort in Iraq.

I have heard stories (no documentation) that Israel has deported Palestianians who advocate a non-violent Gandhi-like resistance. Not sure if it's true, but I can see why they would fear such a thing.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

The current Israeli terrorism in Lebanon isn't about reacting to "attacks," it's about Israel defending its right to kidnap, to drag people from their homes at night and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence or trial.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

Why do people act like this tactic is something new? This is the situation Israel has been in since they declared independence. Their neighbors have always been perfectly happy to trade life for life. Israel has to respond to each attack overwhelmingly, this is a proportional response when you are outnumbered in the region by over 20-1.
The desire to destroy Israel started May 14, 1948 and has nothing to do with the occupation of Gaza, or the West Bank, or the Golan, or any of the other excuses that have been developed in the past 58 years. A Jewish state is unacceptable to the majority of the Middle East under any circumstances, but "defending our poor Palistinian brothers" plays better on TV and garners more sympathy than the truth.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
The current Israeli terrorism in Lebanon isn't about reacting to "attacks," it's about Israel defending its right to kidnap, to drag people from their homes at night and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence or trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on, brother, but why stop there. I heard (from a very reliable source at Al-Jazeera) that the "Hezbollah" members who "kidnapped" the Israeli soldiers were actually Israeli agents, that the whole thing was staged to allow Israel an excuse to bomb Lebanon back to 1982, and that the soldiers and the "Hezbollah" members are right now drinking pina coladas on the beach in Mykonos.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

I saw on Moveon that they were really CIA agents posing as Mossad agents at the behest of Karl Rove to stir up unrest so Iraq would get out of the news for a few weeks.

Re: \"There\'s another side to that coin\"
 

cyrus, its a tough one, which course to take. israel choses to take the road to overwhelming retaliation to being attacked. for most countries that are fighting another of similar size that tactic isnt good, as it can lead to full time war. israel is stuck in between a bunch of countries that have an agenda to wipe it out. or so it seems to me.
so for israel to survive it cant just trade equal blows as they surely will end up the loser in that game. so it wisely picks the course of super return fire to anyone that dares to invade.
i do think its their best course until such time as all the surounding countries willingly accept israel in their neighborhood, and are also willing to leave it alone. then i think peaceful co-existence can happen. if the other countries wont let israel alone then israel must move into more territory and occupy it as a buffer. which would make a bigger war more likely.
sooner or later israel will win with help from outside its borders, or will get swallowed up and its people will immigrate to another place again.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence or trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just confusing Israel with the U.S.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may know soon if you are correct, since Lebanon claimed today to be close to a missile that could reach the East Coast of the US. (Delusional, imo, but hey, if they want to stick their necks out with such delusions, I say go for it).

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may know soon if you are correct, since Lebanon claimed today to be close to a missile that could reach the East Coast of the US. (Delusional, imo, but hey, if they want to stick their necks out with such delusions, I say go for it).

[/ QUOTE ]

was that lebanon or iran? last i checked lebanon didn't have a missile that could reach southern lebanon.

Edited to say that you probably meant hezbollah, but i think that is all smoke and mirrors. Any arab nation that would launch a missile at america would be asking to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Re: how israel reacts to attacks
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it had been that simple, Ray, all military bases in Syria would have been bombed by US warplanes and cruiser missiles during this weekend. As they weren't, i.e. US (and most others) sees a point in not reacting disproportionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the news that syria (or even terrorists from syrian soil) lobbed missiles into manhattan.

I am pretty sure the US dropping 2 a-bombs on japan in WWII wasn't quite "proportionate."

Could you imagine america's response if hezbollah had the capability of sending missiles from lebanon that could land in america? The entire country of lebanon would have been carpet bombed by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may know soon if you are correct, since Lebanon claimed today to be close to a missile that could reach the East Coast of the US. (Delusional, imo, but hey, if they want to stick their necks out with such delusions, I say go for it).

[/ QUOTE ]

was that lebanon or iran? last i checked lebanon didn't have a missile that could reach southern lebanon.

Edited to say that you probably meant hezbollah, but i think that is all smoke and mirrors. Any arab nation that would launch a missile at america would be asking to be wiped off the face of the earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

my bad..yes, it was Iran, but since Iran has its own little Hezbollah scout troop Im sure they could earn a merit badge by sending one over.

Not in this casino
 

[ QUOTE ]
israel is stuck in between a bunch of countries that have an agenda to wipe it out.

[/ QUOTE ]I have all the episodes on video and trust me; Lebanon does not have "an agenda to wipe Israel out". Neither does Jordan. Neither does Egypt. With the possible excpetion of Syria, all the neighbors of Israel have accepted de facto Israel's presence and have other, much more pressing priorities, mostly social and economic.

If we can agree on this premise, we have to logically accept also that those neighboring countries are seeking a way to accomodate themselves with Israel without losing too much face.

But apparently until the state of Israel takes on a size that is "defensible" and "reasonable", which means all of the West Bank is annexed and its inhabitants get cleared off or confined to reservations, accomodation is not in the Israeli agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
for israel to survive it cant just trade equal blows as they surely will end up the loser in that game.

[/ QUOTE ]We are not talking about attacks from sovereign nations here, nor attacks of any military significance. We are talking about individual and sporadic acts of terrorism, including (I agree) a few organised attacks by paramilitary units. Still, IMO Israel now responds disproportionately, as it had with Egypt in the 1950s, with Syria and Jordan in the 1960s, with Lebanon in the 1980s, etc, and causes death and mayhem among thousands of civilians.

BTW, you are making the assumption that Israel is the weaker party in this conflict, hence Israel will lose if it retaliates with only equal blows etc. But it is not. Israel is stronger militarily and by far than all its neighbors combined.

[ QUOTE ]
sooner or later israel will win with help from outside its borders, or will get swallowed up and its people will immigrate to another place again.

[/ QUOTE ]The Jewish people abandoning Israel is not in the cards. It's not even in the damn cardroom.

Re: Not in this casino
 

Cyrus,

Another nice attempt at misdirection by erecting an artificial distinction between Hezbollah and the state that they operate from when that state is unwilling or unable to stop them.

And as well attempting to maintain that territorial adjacentness is the standard for being surrounded, when it is actually being within missile range as well.

Wordsmith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another nice attempt at misdirection by erecting an artificial distinction between Hezbollah and the state that they operate from when that state is unwilling or unable to stop them.

[/ QUOTE ] Why is the distinction artificial?

Do you seriously believe that Hezbollah attacking Israel carries the same gravity as Lebanon attacking Israel? (The discussion is getting really weird.)

[ QUOTE ]
And as well attempting to maintain that territorial adjacentness is the standard for being surrounded, when it is actually being within missile range as well.

[/ QUOTE ] This convoluted jumble does not make any sense. But is "adjacentness" even a word ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Wordsmith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously believe that Hezbollah attacking Israel carries the same gravity as Lebanon attacking Israel? (This discussion is getting really weird.)

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see how you wouldn't believe that if you value jewish lives less in value than the ones of radical moslems or their supporters/enablers.

Re: Wordsmith
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously believe that Hezbollah attacking Israel carries the same gravity as Lebanon attacking Israel? (This discussion is getting really weird.)

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see how you wouldn't believe that if you value jewish lives less in value than the ones of radical moslems or their supporters/enablers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oddly enough he values both lives the same. Likely pretty high.

The muslims value both lives pretty much the same. The value here is quite low, whether that of a relative child sent as suicide bomber or that of a relative child killed in a suicide attack.

The Jews value muslims (and perhaps Christian, at least Lebanese Christians) as less than those of a Jew. 2 captured Jews equals at least 100 dead non-Jews, and a 100,000 displaced and dispossessed non-Jews.

If there is a double standard, it is not Cyrus.

Re: Wordsmith
 

[ QUOTE ]

The muslims value both lives pretty much the same. The value here is quite low, whether that of a relative child sent as suicide bomber or that of a relative child killed in a suicide attack.

The Jews value muslims (and perhaps Christian, at least Lebanese Christians) as less than those of a Jew. 2 captured Jews equals at least 100 dead non-Jews, and a 100,000 displaced and dispossessed non-Jews.

If there is a double standard, it is not Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that muslims value their lives any less (or equal to a jew) because a few become sucidie bombers, but rather they value the reward of becoming a martyr and the 72 virgins.

Do you think those few terrorists on 9/11 valued their lives the same as the thousands they killed in their attacks?

Your argument is an atrocious one and i hope you truly understand that and were only trying to stir things up. If you actually believed what you wrote i honestly feel bad for you.

Honestly, do you just defend radical muslim terrorists for fun, or are you going to come up with something useful?

Re: Wordsmith
 

Please explain why my argument is atrocious? Can you point to a statement I have made that is incorrect?

Some of it is debatable -- do militant muslims actually value their lives less than or more than Jews. Not sure, I do believe that they place little value on any life. This is actually also pretty much true in most of Asia and Africa, where life is not viewed the same way as in the west.

Some is not debatable. The example I gave of the captured soldiers vs the numbers of dead and displaced lebanese; the number of dead Israelis in the last 20 years vs the number of dead Palestinians at the hands of the other.


The 72 virgins is just smoke screen. Lets talk about the fundamental view of the militant islamist, the western world, and the Israeli.

I rarely write what I dont believe -- and then it is obvious.

Re: Wordsmith
 

Why is my statement that radical muslims have demonstrated that they do not value any life, a defense of their viewpoint?

It is a viewpoint I do not share and find unacceptable.

Re: Wordsmith
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain why my argument is atrocious? Can you point to a statement I have made that is incorrect?

Some of it is debatable -- do militant muslims actually value their lives less than or more than Jews. Not sure, I do believe that they place little value on any life. This is actually also pretty much true in most of Asia and Africa, where life is not viewed the same way as in the west.

Some is not debatable. The example I gave of the captured soldiers vs the numbers of dead and displaced lebanese; the number of dead Israelis in the last 20 years vs the number of dead Palestinians at the hands of the other.


The 72 virgins is just smoke screen. Lets talk about the fundamental view of the militant islamist, the western world, and the Israeli.

I rarely write what I dont believe -- and then it is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre point was that jews value their lives more than muslims value their own lives. In doing so, you made it seem as if muslims are on a higher moral ground since they equally don't value human life. So when a muslim kills a jew, you can defend the muslim by saying that at least the muslim is applying his morals equally.

You then make it seem as if jews look down on muslims as if they are somehow superior to muslims which is why they feel they can kill 100 muslims for every 1 jew killed.

This is what i understood from your post.

My response was that your point only serves to justify the muslim way of doing things. However, the fact is that muslims do value their own lives very deeply. And the main reason they do not kill as many jews in these conflicts, is not by choice, but because they are militarily incapable of doing so.

I am sure if you asked any muslim comming out of a mosque in your local town if he thought he valued his or his fellow muslims any less than the jews value their own lives, you may get a bit of an argument.

Muslims, by nature, are not suicide bombers. Only a handful out of millions ever kill themselves in the name of allah.

Gluttony
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously believe that Hezbollah attacking Israel carries the same gravity as Lebanon attacking Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]I can see how you wouldn't believe that if you value jewish lives less in value than the ones of radical moslems.

[/ QUOTE ]Boy, are you a glutton for punishment! Do you get a kick out of your "arguments" being made mincemeat on the forums like this or what? Be honest.

We were comparing the gravity of Lebanon attacking Israel as opposed to Hezbollah attacking Israel. This comparison is made because you blithely claimed that Hezbollah staging attacks against Israel is the same as if Lebanon did that -- ergo Israel has every right to retaliate as if it is in war with Lebanon, etcetera.

Lebanon has some 310 heavy tanks and 1,300 armoured vehicles. Also, 6 aircraft and 60 helicopters. The standing army is about 70,000 strong. These are figures, not hearsay or "opinion". Pause a little over them. Let the figures sink in. Get it now? No one in his right mind could claim that Hezbollah could be a threat to Israel as much as Lebanon could.

I'm not saying that Lebanon would win!.. Neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah nor all the Arab "front-line" countries combined can do that! I'm stating the obvious (which has to be hammered into your think tank, presumably, more than once) : Hezbollah cannot be compared to the state itself of Lebanon. "It's not even close!" Therefore, arguing that Israel must respond against Hezbollah with the same severity that it would attack Lebanon is an argument based on a plain and simple fallacy.

--Cyrus

stultus es
 

Cyrus,

Hezbollah has to attack from some geographical location, and also use other geographical locations to supply those bases from which they attack. Therefore Israel has to focus their attacks on such geographical locations and not an imaginary Hezbollahistan that exists apart from Lebanon.

And let's look at those figures you give for the Lebanese military. They certainly seem sufficient to occupy the border areas and deal with a militia. If they aren't doing same then that nonaction is a policy of the Lebanese government which de facto makes them part of Hezbollah's attack. And if the case is that they don't actually have the resources to deal with Hezbollah, then they have effectively abdicated their sovereignty in such areas or had it taken from them by Hezbollah.

Re: Gluttony
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you seriously believe that Hezbollah attacking Israel carries the same gravity as Lebanon attacking Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]I can see how you wouldn't believe that if you value jewish lives less in value than the ones of radical moslems.

[/ QUOTE ]Boy, are you a glutton for punishment! Do you get a kick out of your "arguments" being made mincemeat on the forums like this or what? Be honest.

We were comparing the gravity of Lebanon attacking Israel as opposed to Hezbollah attacking Israel. This comparison is made because you blithely claimed that Hezbollah staging attacks against Israel is the same as if Lebanon did that -- ergo Israel has every right to retaliate as if it is in war with Lebanon, etcetera.

Lebanon has some 310 heavy tanks and 1,300 armoured vehicles. Also, 6 aircraft and 60 helicopters. The standing army is about 70,000 strong. These are figures, not hearsay or "opinion". Pause a little over them. Let the figures sink in. Get it now? No one in his right mind could claim that Hezbollah could be a threat to Israel as much as Lebanon could.

I'm not saying that Lebanon would win!.. Neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah nor all the Arab "front-line" countries combined can do that! I'm stating the obvious (which has to be hammered into your think tank, presumably, more than once) : Hezbollah cannot be compared to the state itself of Lebanon. "It's not even close!" Therefore, arguing that Israel must respond against Hezbollah with the same severity that it would attack Lebanon is an argument based on a plain and simple fallacy.

--Cyrus

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its an argument based on Hezbollah being a proxy for Iran and Syria, and is in fact a far more dangerous enemy than an army that reflects the impotence of the central Lebanese government.