What do they (Islamic terrorists) want?

[inJESUS]

this shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You just think that reading a bit makes you knowlegeable. No he was in prison for a claim that he bombed a church and was declared innocent but he was kept in prison nonetheless by a pro-Syrian regime back then, hence breaking the law that states once innocent you must get out of prison.

Show me one poll that puts any group ahead of Nasrallah and Aoun. Just one.

well i live in this country and i know people from all parties. Polls do not work anymore because things change everyday. 2 days ago Geagea and Aoun met and had lunch together and expressed their same views regarding Nasrallah’s claims for power. If Aoun keeps swinging as he always does, you’ll get swinging polls as well and people are really tired of his swinging and changing policies, that’s why his popularity dropped.

Strange, despite your view, Nasrallah held the biggest rally ever in Beirut a short while ago. And there were flags waving there from every major Lebanese party and group.

the ones you see on tv carrying flags from different parties are in fact Shias. Christians rarely went with them on streets, and when they did , and as soon as the Shia started saying Go Nasrallah go Syria, Aoun’s supporters felt ashamed and withdrew.These things you do not see on tv. Aoun is not pro-Nasralah in everything and this was shown clearely lately. Geagea’s supporters are not against Nasrallah for being Muslim, but for being pro-Syria and Pro-Palestine and pro-Iran. After all, Christians are pro-Sunni because Sunni are no longer pro-Syria.

You do seem to admit that Christians are supporting him. Of course it’s not out of love, but the fact is, Nasrallah is more powerful in Lebanon today than he was before the war.

no not all Christians are supporting him and more Christians now if not all reject his claims for power. As to him having power now, it depends on what angle you look at it…some say : well he “defeated” Isreal so he’s our hero. Others say : he destroyed our country and he’s an ****. Others say : on the outward it looks as if he won but in fact he lost. Others say : he did what Iran wants…So you can say Shia take pride by what they “think” is a victory , but other Lebanese put him on his limits. And do not forget that he “feeds” the Shia so of course a mother who lost 7 children will say : all for Nasrallah!! but who is she kidding?..she does not dare say otherwise anyway, after all he’ll be paying her and supporting her afterwards…all about interests and propaganda when Shia were being fed and sheltered by Christians in Christian cities, yes the same Christians who are Anti-Nasrallah.

Hahah, the Lebanese army that served tea on silver platters to Israeli troops? Oh yeah, some defense that was. The fact is, there is no “Lebanese army”, just a bunch of militias, and Hizbullah has the strongest militia by far. If they had been inclined to take Lebanon by force, they could have wiped out the opposition within a day. But unlike Geagea and the Phalangists, Hizbullah doesn’t want to go around killing left and right to stay in power for a few days.

Hizbullah is a militia. It is the duty of the Army to do whatever necessary to be done. Regarding wiping out the opposition, Nasrallah knows he can’t and it is Geagea who advised him NOT to go on the streets because any “provocation” by anyone ( could be palestinians among the crowd) could lead to disasters that no one wants. And Shias are a minority in the area and rest assured Sunni hate them like nobody else does and Sunni will make sure to oppose the “wiping out” you are talking about and Nasrallah is no idiot and he knows he can do nothing and he already admitted that the once held idea of Islamizing Lebanon is no longer thought of because Christians here are pround Christians…no dhimmitude would ever be allowed, and no Sunni individual or country wants the Shia version either. Many attempts throughout history to wipe out Christians but they failed miserably.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Oh yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

Sure, everyone knows I always tell the truth.

pro:

So in other words, the UN resolution did nothing to help Israel, and Israel knew this beforehand, yet agreed to the UN plan anyway? Because Israel…was winning? That sure makes sense, err, something.

Israel always like to take the moral high ground - that is why it wanted the UN to admit it should be doing more to stop Hezbollah’s aggression - which it had failed in the past despite resolutions to do so.

You see - Israel isn’t interested in staying in Lebanon nor ruling it - it just wants to be left alone, and damned if it will allow itself to be attacked.

pro:

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, Nasrallah might be a politician wo says things to make people feel better, even if he doesn’t mean it?

He also said a few days later that he thought Israel was going to do it anyway, and was happy he got to fight them.

Sure - that is why he ordered the Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel. Some victory.

pro:

Again, under your theory, this makes no sense. Why would they have to pressure him if he was losing anyway?

Do you think people capitulate immediately they know they’re losing? Hey, some people like to fight to the death, regardless of what it costs to people around them.

pro:

They defeated IDF troops on the ground in combat. That is most definitely a victory.

Don’t make us laugh - victorious troops don’t hide behind women and children like the Hezbollah’s brave fighters. Yeah, right.

 

[cestusdei]

Let’s keep on mind here that pro wants the Islamicists to win. The idea of a worldwide Caliphate dictatorship is appealing. Frankly I believe after the dems do their cut and run that the result will be attacks here at home. Then the electorate will think again. That’s when the real fighting will start.

 

[rtconstant]

Talk about chest beating.

As an American, I can say based on a lifetime of experience that Americans greatly exaggerate the power of their own country.

Let’s see…nuking Iran and the middle east would wipe out about half the world’s oil supply, and turn most of the third world (where industrial production happens) radically against the US. That would mean that the source of all this neat military hardware, the economy, would be destroyed. And guess what happens then?

All those Muslims left alive remember who we are, and we don’t have the military to stop the ones that race to rebuild in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. (That’s assuming that Turkey is taken out too…otherwise we’ll have to deal with whatever they can muster as well.)

These fantasies of wiping out the Muslim world are mainly sick, twisted dreams of a Nietzschean America. But on top of the fact that they’re sick, they’re also just plain…well…hate to say it, but just plain dumb.

This is the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan without a serious plan. That’s why we’re losing. This is also why the IDF was defeated by a bunch of villagers in Lebanon…arrogance is deadly.

Umm, you actually have no idea what you’re talking about do you? First of all no one from this board was meaning too litterally nuke them. That was just a quick way of saying total war. Now I do know many muslims who think nuking the region might be a good idea but most Americans know that would be a bad idea for everyone. Though not for any of the reasons you listed.

Second, we’re not the ones with fantasies of annihalation. You’re desperation to appear enlightened doesn’t really help the people in that region. You may be happy to watch them self-destruct but really I’m not.

You did almost get something right in your post though. Breaking the region militarily would create a lot of conflict eventually. If we did that then it would the US, Canada and possibly Russia that would become the major energy providers. This would throw the entire region into an even darker abyss of poverty. Since none of the leaders of the middle eastern nations are spending any of their vast wealth on industry or infrastructure without the Oil trade they’ll have litterally nothing. This could create widespread hopelessness.

Anyway, we were having a discussion do you have anything to add or are you here too insight a reaction so you have something to champion?

 

[melbourne_guy]

Everybody in here should be studying the history and times of Israel. They have been a peaceful, persecuted people through out the ages, and now they are standing up for themselves. They have embarrased muslim countries surrounding them for decades through self defense. They have flourished with their land producing great agriculture and oustanding science. Israel is truely a blessed country.

 

[pro_universal]

Umm, you actually have no idea what you’re talking about do you? First of all no one from this board was meaning too litterally nuke them. That was just a quick way of saying total war. Now I do know many muslims who think nuking the region might be a good idea but most Americans know that would be a bad idea for everyone. Though not for any of the reasons you listed.

How many is “many”? I haven’t met a single Muslim who thinks more wars are the answer. I’ve met some who think ending military support for Israel and the dictatorships surrounding Israel is a good idea, though.

You did almost get something right in your post though. Breaking the region militarily would create a lot of conflict eventually. If we did that then it would the US, Canada and possibly Russia that would become the major energy providers. This would throw the entire region into an even darker abyss of poverty. Since none of the leaders of the middle eastern nations are spending any of their vast wealth on industry or infrastructure without the Oil trade they’ll have litterally nothing. This could create widespread hopelessness.

What military strength does the region have to be broken? What exactly do you mean by “break the region militarily”? Could you list some specifics as to what this includes?

Your little theory about Russia and the US becoming major energy providers leaves out the problem of markets. If half the supply disappears, the price will go up…way up. Do you think paying five times the price for a barrel of oil is going to allow for any economic growth at all?

Anyway, we were having a discussion do you have anything to add or are you here too insight a reaction so you have something to champion?

I would hope that you’d consider seriously the argument against militarism. But I don’t expect you to do that, because too much of your ego is already wrapped up in this.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, I know several hundred million Muslims who think war, jihad, is the answer.

 

[Darrel]

What do terrorist want?

They want they other 85 percent of Islam to become as extreme as they are, to please Allah. They are frightened of the fact that it appears that Islam it’s self is becoming a bunch of Kafirs under the influence of American and Israeli pigs who are subhuman and in need of extermination. They want a glorious death for God that ends with an eternity of sex with multiple partners for God.

-D

 

[rtconstant]

Pro, you actually didn’t read any of the posts before you jump in here did you? I’ve been here saying I wish we could find a better solution than a military one. You’re so desparate to find a victim to champion that your inventing them. Anyway on to your post.

How many is “many”? I haven’t met a single Muslim who thinks more wars are the answer. I’ve met some who think ending military support for Israel and the dictatorships surrounding Israel is a good idea, though.

Well like most people they have a wide range of thought. Some want Islam everywhere. Some just want the death of Isreal. Some just want to get drunk and eat bacon, Some just want to be left a lone and some don’t think they’ll be able to be left alone until all the crazy people back home are gone.

What military strength does the region have to be broken? What exactly do you mean by “break the region militarily”? Could you list some specifics as to what this includes?

Your little theory about Russia and the US becoming major energy providers leaves out the problem of markets. If half the supply disappears, the price will go up…way up. Do you think paying five times the price for a barrel of oil is going to allow for any economic growth at all?

I’m not talking about breaking their military. This is why it’s imporatant to read before posting. I’m talking about breaking the people. See what you missed is that the discussions we were having about total war was on theoretical level. I was saying that if we did continue with a military strategy we would likely have to go with a total war approach in order to be successful. However, I was also saying that I’m not sure anybody would want that kind of blood on their hands. See? You miss things when you jump to conclusion and don’t try too understand where people are coming from.

As too the energy powers umm where did half the oil go? The oil would not stop being there just because the nations on top of it change.

I would hope that you’d consider seriously the argument against militarism. But I don’t expect you to do that, because too much of your ego is already wrapped up in this.

That’s what I’ve been doing since I’ve been on the thread. Seriously if you’re not going to read what people post and add nothing to the discussion find another thread create a cause to champion there.

 

[pro_universal]

I’m not talking about breaking their military. This is why it’s imporatant to read before posting. I’m talking about breaking the people. See what you missed is that the discussions we were having about total war was on theoretical level. I was saying that if we did continue with a military strategy we would likely have to go with a total war approach in order to be successful.

But I’m pointing out that this approach is a proven failure. Even if you don’t want the blood on your hands, what do you plan to do? Do you think bombing cities and blowing up infrastructure is going to make Muslims more or less willing to fight against you?

Hint: This is not a novel idea, and it’s been tried before…and failed miserably.

As too the energy powers umm where did half the oil go? The oil would not stop being there just because the nations on top of it change.

It would stop being pumped. If you think the oil infrastructure (built up over nearly 100 years at this point) would survive a war…well, just look at Iraq’s output compared to pre-war levels (and that wasn’t even a total war.)

That’s what I’ve been doing since I’ve been on the thread. Seriously if you’re not going to read what people post and add nothing to the discussion find another thread create a cause to champion there.

Strange. Supposedly, you had nothing to respond to, yet you made two points above…looks like we’re having a discussion to me.

 

[rtconstant]

Strange. Supposedly, you had nothing to respond to, yet you made two points above…looks like we’re having a discussion to me.

Heh, heh I was correcting your misinterpretation of what I was getting at. You seem to really, really want me to be anti-arab. Sorry too disapoint I’m not. They’re people just like everbody else.

But I’m pointing out that this approach is a proven failure. Even if you don’t want the blood on your hands, what do you plan to do? Do you think bombing cities and blowing up infrastructure is going to make Muslims more or less willing to fight against you?

Hint: This is not a novel idea, and it’s been tried before…and failed miserably.

Actually it’s about the only method of war that has been proven affective.

Hint: it was tried before, was a success and now we have good relations with the nations.

Your statement is confusing though. Are you mad at me because I think the region can (if we’re willing to go there) be defeated militarily or are you mad because I don’t want too see millions die?

It would stop being pumped. If you think the oil infrastructure (built up over nearly 100 years at this point) would survive a war…well, just look at Iraq’s output compared to pre-war levels (and that wasn’t even a total war.)

You need to read US history if you believe this. Those fields would be pumping oil in a years time.

BUT, as I’ve said (and apparently need to say again) I’m not here to think up new ways to crush nations those methods are already known. I was hoping to get ideas from people as too how to get past this without devastating the region.

Do you have any thoughts?

 

[pro_universal]

Actually it’s about the only method of war that has been proven affective.

Hint: it was tried before, was a success and now we have good relations with the nations.

I’m thinking back…no, no examples of that. If you mean Germany and Japan, those wars ended when the military capabilities of the countries were destroyed…and not before. The carpet bombing was found to increase the strength of popular resistence, not decrease it, and it didn’t appreciably reduce military capacity either.

World War II was won because the opposing armies were destroyed, not because 40 million civilians were killed. The senseless killing without destroying militaries is what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan…some “total wars” those turned out to be, even with levels of destruction that surpassed anything that went on in world war II.

Your statement is confusing though. Are you mad at me because I think the region can (if we’re willing to go there) be defeated militarily or are you mad because I don’t want too see millions die?

I’m not mad at you. I just don’t think your position makes any sense. Militarily (in terms of ability to occupy and hold territory), the region is at the bottom of the world list. There are no real armies there anymore (except arguably Iran, but even that’s iffy.)

You need to read US history if you believe this. Those fields would be pumping oil in a years time.

So where’s all that magic flow from Iraq?

BUT, as I’ve said (and apparently need to say again) I’m not here to think up new ways to crush nations those methods are already known. I was hoping to get ideas from people as too how to get past this without devastating the region.

Do you have any thoughts?

Yep, my thought is that this idea that you can kill people into submission is as dangerous as it is wrong.

 

[pro_universal]

Don’t make us laugh - victorious troops don’t hide behind women and children like the Hezbollah’s brave fighters. Yeah, right.

Well, let’s see:

jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378392302&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Now even the conservative Israeli press is acknowledging that Hizbullah is stronger than ever. What a “success!” that war was

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Claims of increased strength of Hezbollah are irrelevant. The objective of the war was not to destroy Hezbollah but to stop the rocket attacks on Israel.

You don’t win wars by a points system but by whether you have met your objectives.

Of course the Lebanese support for Hezbollah is stronger with every conflict - that is only to be expected. Sure this is reported in the press but does it surprise you? Do you think the Lebanese will love Israel for bombing their country? No. We all know your Muslims stick to your Ummah even though they are poison. The situation now is that Muslims cannot possibly hate Israel more. It is humanly impossible. So who cares? I don’t. The Jews of Haifa who go about their daily lives without fear of rocket attacks certainly don’t.

A rational person looks at Israel today - largely intact and no rockets flying overheads.

Then this person looks across the border - at the ruins that will take years to rebuild, and no rockets flying overhead.

Who do you think won?

 

[cestusdei]

When provoked the IDF will win. Same with the USA. Unfortunately the ones with blood on their hands, the terrorists, seem determined to provoke us. I am betting with all their crowing about the dems electoral win that they will hit us again at home. All that will do is rain death and destruction on Muslims. The Muslims need to begin to reflect on where all this is headed.

Just today, again, the insane Iranian president is promising to destroy Israel.

 

[pro_universal]

Claims of increased strength of Hezbollah are irrelevant. The objective of the war was not to destroy Hezbollah but to stop the rocket attacks on Israel.

That is completely false. The objective, first out, was to destroy Hizbullah…this is what Israel said it would do. It didn’t. (They changed their rhetoric when it was obvious they weren’t going to destroy Hizbullah.)

And they didn’t stop the rocket attacks either. Stop implies that Israel, through its power, ended the attacks. It did not. Hizbullah chose to stop the attacks because the UN offered Hizbullah a valuable deal in exchange for stopping them.

You don’t win wars by a points system but by whether you have met your objectives.

Again, no objective of Israel was met by the war. The flood of rocket attacks was a wartime phenomenon (not a daily problem before)…so no, you can’t start a war, then claim that ending the war is your only objective, and end the war by treaty and then say “look, we won!” That would just be silly.

Of course the Lebanese support for Hezbollah is stronger with every conflict - that is only to be expected.

Funny, you were saying the opposite a couple posts ago.

Sure this is reported in the press but does it surprise you? Do you think the Lebanese will love Israel for bombing their country? No. We all know your Muslims stick to your Ummah even though they are poison. The situation now is that Muslims cannot possibly hate Israel more. It is humanly impossible. So who cares? I don’t. The Jews of Haifa who go about their daily lives without fear of rocket attacks certainly don’t.

Again, this is a marked reversal of your previous position that Lebanese “hate hizbullah” for inviting destruction.

A rational person looks at Israel today - largely intact and no rockets flying overheads.

Then this person looks across the border - at the ruins that will take years to rebuild, and no rockets flying overhead.

Who do you think won?

The side that got what it wanted.

Israel is also a country today that was defeated militarily by a poorly armed, small guerrila force, that is still hated by all of its neighbors, and whose arch enemy is soon to be a nuclear power.

So your assumption that Lebanon is a dump and Israel is sitting pretty is a hasty one. Where would you rather build a house today that you intend on keeping for the next 50 years? Israel, or Lebanon?

 

[pro_universal]

When provoked the IDF will win. Same with the USA. .

Question: Was the capture of two Israeli soldiers inside Israel not provocation? If it was, then why didn’t the IDF win?

Same for the USA…where’s that “big victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I won’t bother answering your post because you’re going around in circles and pushing the same old same old Islamo-triumphalism. Yeah, just like the Arabs claim to have won the Yom Kippur War even though they got whipped. You know, the Egyptians still celebrate the Yom Kippur War as though they had won it, even though Ariel Sharon’s divisions were 40 km from Cairo with not a single Egyptian military formation between them.

And General Peled’s army took the road from Tiberias to Damascus and shelled the outskirts of Damascus.

The Israelis would have taken both Cairo and Damascus within a day if the Soviets had not threatened nuclear war to prevent Israel from completely annihilating the Arabs.

Yup, the Arabs still think they won that one.

All I can say about the latest Lebanon war is that the Israeli civilians can go about their daily lives without dodging Hezbollah rockets. All the damage from the rockets have largely been repaired. Life is back to usual.

However, on the Lebanese side - there is still considerable misery and plenty of ruination.

Yup. And no Hezbollah rockets flying.

I know which side I would rather be on.

 

[pro_universal]

I won’t bother answering your post because you’re going around in circles and pushing the same old same old Islamo-triumphalism. Yeah, just like the Arabs claim to have won the Yom Kippur War even though they got whipped. You know, the Egyptians still celebrate the Yom Kippur War as though they had won it, even though Ariel Sharon’s divisions were 40 km from Cairo with not a single Egyptian military formation between them.

And General Peled’s army took the road from Tiberias to Damascus and shelled the outskirts of Damascus.

Actually, this is very similar to the Israeli talk on Lebanon. Good comparison, but you chose the wrong one.

Hizbullah shelled Haifa, defeated the Golani brigade, and killed a top Special Forces Commander (although that happened after the war.) Israel did nothing to Hizbullah’s military capacity, and Hizbullah’s leaders are giving public speeches in Beirut now.

All I can say about the latest Lebanon war is that the Israeli civilians can go about their daily lives without dodging Hezbollah rockets. All the damage from the rockets have largely been repaired. Life is back to usual.

Yeah, they don’t have to worry about those pesky memories of captured soldiers, the Syrian army (which is better than Hizbullah’s) right next door, or the Iranians who are building nukes. It’s just business as usual today!

Yup. And no Hezbollah rockets flying.

There were no regular rocket attacks before the war either. There have been rockets fired, though, since the war, and there was even an Israeli commando leader killed by Hizbullah after the war. So yeah…your argument that Israeli force subdued Hizbullah makes no sense.

I know which side I would rather be on.

I know which side too, but it’s your fantasy, not your rational faculty, that leads you to the conclusion

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What? You forgot the Israelis already assasinated the past leader of Hezbollah? How does that compare to any small military action you did? The casualty ratio between the IDF and Hezbollah is about 2.5 to 3.5 even according to the UN and Lebanese sources.

The problem with you Muslims is that you think a single IDF soldier killed is a glorious victory for you, regardless of the cost to your own side.

I should think that Hezbollah are busy licking its wounds right now. Meanwhile in downtown Haifa, it’s business as usual.