Thursday, July 27, 2006

Kill or be killed

In 1973 Israel was attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur, by Syria and Egypt. (Jordan and Iraq forces joined when it thought it was going to miss out on killing Jews.) It is known as the Ramadan War in the Arab world. (I guess it's o.k. to initiate a war during Ramadan while receiving one during Ramadan is an offense against Islam.) Israel, caught by surprise, was almost overrun by these forces. It went on nuclear alert and the lore is that it had three nuclear weapons loaded on F-4s ready to nuke Damascus and Cairo. It didn't have to do that as the military tide turned. But I wonder if Syria or Egypt had had nuclear weapons in 1973 would they have hesitated to use them against Israel on Yom Kippur. I have no doubt they would have happily nuked Tel Aviv and then danced in the streets handing out sweets and candies. Then as now Israel hasn't acted disproportionately but rather has restrained their actions and their military.

We hear of face-to-face combat in the town of Bint Jbail, Lebanon and ground troops being killed by Hezbollah terrorists. Ask yourself why doesn't Israel just flatten the town like Syria did to its own people in Hama killing maybe 20,000 Muslims. Remember, Muslims killing Muslims, as in Iran-Iraq war, Lebanese civil war, Jordan/Black September, Iraq-Kuwait war, Iraq civil war, Egypt killing protesters, Darfur (Arab Muslims killing African Muslims), etc., etc., etc. it's business as usual. Shi'ites killing Sunnis. Sunnis killing Shi'ites. Boys will be boys. But an Israeli killing a Muslim because the Muslim fires rockets into Haifa? Well, then the world must condemn it. Kofi and Chirac and Putin (having destroyed Muslim Chechnya) condemn Israel and call for a cease-fire so Hezbollah can re-arm and Israel can wait for the next rocket barrage because some blood-thirsty murderer in Bint Jbail decides to please Allah. But back to my question. Why doesn't Israel nuke Iran? Why doesn't it lay waste to south Lebanon instead of telling residents and terrorist alike where they will attack so they can lose infantry just to avoid bad p.r.? Why not? Because they're not blood-thirsty animals intent on targeting civilians like the Islamic terrorists do when they launch unguided missiles into Israel's third largest city. That's the difference.

Israel and its army has morals and the other side does not. Even the U.N.'s humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, accused Hezbollah of "cowardly blending" in among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of fighting. Egeland told reporters, "Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

The bottom line is Islamic radicalism or whatever you want to call it, these bomb laying rocket launching terrorists are ruining the world. Pick a side before they get nuclear weapons and pick one for you.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent Post. How right you are. It is a matter of time. Check out my blog. I see Israel as America's only other ally beside GB. The enemy is well defined and I thought we had a President who would finish the job. Politics and the media pressure have all but destroyed the imputus President Bush had to wipe out the radical muslims. I think Israel has to do it. Check out Isa 17:1
Isaiah 17 KJV

1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
here is my blog

2:55 PM  
Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

And now al Qaeda wants to undo the reconquista and take back Andalusia in the great struggle to subdue the infidel.

It's sad. Islamic Spain used to be a place of religious tolerance, philosophy, science and mathematics. I doubt that would be the case under these mad dogs.

4:47 PM  
Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Since when do armies have morals? According to your posts, Israel is the most pure, innocent, kind place that has ever existed on earth. Nothing but nice people who would never hurt a fly if they didn't have to.

You've become the Pat Robertson of Jews. No wonder you've started to attract fundies who would otherwise call you a moonbat liberal traitor.

When you tell people to leave because you're about to bomb, even though you've destroyed all the roads that lead out and you bomb the cars leaving the towns, that's not moral, that's sadistic.

8:56 AM  
Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

You're stretching it a bit. Israel is not pure or faultless and nobody said so. They gave three hours warning and that is not much, it's true. We could have a long debate about what level of impurity justifies 58 years of terrorist attacks, but this is not the place.

Israel gave only short notice, but that's about three hours more warning than Hizbullah ever gave anyone, isn't it?

Still, when hostages get killed, the hostage taker is not free of guilt, is he? Apparently it's a better choice in tactics to see Lebanon burn than to give back one hostage.

Oh and yes, the religious nut jobs are showing up - not that Hizbullah are religious nut jobs. . . .

9:30 AM  
Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Why do you continue to judge Israel's conduct by the Hizballah yardstick?

That is the same as judging the US's conduct by the Iraqi insurgency yardstick.

If that is your argument, that is fine, but you both will have a lot of posts to retroactively rewrite.

12:12 PM  
Blogger Crankyboy said...

None of this is inconsistent. I am against torture but if you tell me Bin Laden is standing with innocent bystanders I would have trouble risking their lives to kill him. And by the way, the U.S. invaded a country without provocation and I am agains that. Same as Hezbollah invading a country and starting a war unprovoked. No inconsistency here laddie.

12:43 PM  
Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Hizballah didn't invade a country. It snatched two soldiers, who are still alive.

if you tell me Bin Laden is standing with innocent bystanders I would have trouble risking their lives to kill him.

If this is true, then why is it okay to kill innocent Lebanese to get Hizballah?

4:20 PM  
Blogger Crankyboy said...

Hizballah didn't invade a country....

Interesting. I guess the historical revisionism starts early.

If this is true, then why is it okay to kill innocent Lebanese to get Hizballah?

It is. Maybe you don't get my point. I'd target Nasrallah if he were standing in a pre-school. The difference is Nasrallah would target the pre-school because children were standing in it. That's the difference you Israel haters don't get and never will.

4:57 PM  
Blogger Crankyboy said...

I left out the "no" before "trouble." I'd target bin laden just about no matter where he was standing.

5:00 PM  
Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

That's all you've got. To call me a revisionist and an Israeli hater?
Priceless. Just like the Republicans. Armchair quarterbacks who don't have the guts to fight the real battle. Why don't you go enlist there? You don't have to live with the consequences of these decisions, so it's easy to chime on endlessly. Why don't you go put yourself in the service of your country and put your money where your mouth is?

Oh, and it is the Israelis who call it a "kidnapping" of two soldiers, and not an invasion, so quit making up bullshit.

6:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home