Should Bush rename our "War against Terror" to "War against non-Israeli Terror"?

Question

Our taxpayer-funded Israeli military terrorized the whole nation of Lebanon while supposedly only targeting the Hezbollah. Hundreds of Lebanese killed, thousands injured, at least a million homeless, devastating destruction of the bridges, highways and other infrastructure (at least 2.5 billion in damage) and the fouling of the once-beautiful Beirut beaches. Our government has not acknowledged and condemned this terrorism, so I guess we should rename our "War against terror" to "War against non-Israeli terror", because that's what it is now.

Answer 1

Exactly!


Apparently, according to CONs, taxpayers shouldn't dole out money unless its billions in grants and free weapons so Israel can flatten Lebanon (and still fail - Iraq style)

Answer 2

This, of course, is the typical "logic" that perpetuates the problems in the world. Lebanon, and the people, are part of the problem in that they endorse (even elect) Hezbollah and its actions (either directly or by turning away from doing anything about them). That part of the world only responds to force and lots of it- and that is what they got for their years of indifference to the actions of Hezbollah - including buying advanced weapons and storing them in their cities.

Let's also remember that Israel has shown restraint in the past and where did it get them? Nowhwere. We have to stop judging that part of the world from a Western standard. The middle east is a region that exists in an uncivilized world driven by hate where restraint is weakness. You can only be grateful this didn't happen sooner and that it didn't last longer.

Hitting infrastructure that supplies weapons to your enemy is also not terrorism. It's warfare. It's ugly, but it is the way you fight a war. Again, Lebanon can stop the flow of weapons if it wants to. But once the war starts the way you fight it is to target the supply lines of your enemy. Sadly, civilians may suffer- but that is also a fact of war.

Israel also had little reason to agree to a ceasefire as the enemy would not stand by any agreements and would regroup and re-arm. This left them with the strategy of non-stop action until there is a meaingful agreement in place. Seems ugly by Western standards, but in that part of the world (with hate-driven, ammoral enemies) it is a sound, though very painful strategy.

And finally the "logic" above forgets that all of the madness unleashed was preventable if Hezbolllah did not attack in the first place. If you start a war you cannot complain when your enemy responds in whatever manner they see fit to beat you back. Agreements were in place after Isreal withdrew from Lebanon that were supposed to have Lebanon disarm Hizbollah - that never happened either. So again, you reap what you sow.

Answer 3

Got an opinion don't you?

There is no arguement that a lot of folks got killed. However, the truth of the matter is that the Israelis went after an armed force who has been firing rockets at them and attacking them. This same force hides their weapons in schools, hospitals and religous facilities, you name it. They do this for the PR value they get when their facilities get hit. It makes it a lose/lose situation.

Unfortunately, until the arabs are willing to work things out non violently, this is not going to stop. A huge part of the problem is the ego involved here where the arabs feel that they must "win" without concession. Israel isn't going to go away, and Hamas and Hezbollah are dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

There was a similar situation in the US 70 years ago. It was an organization called the KKK. Until mainstream society was willing to stand up and say "you guys are nuts, get the F#*K out of here", the militant nutcases were able to control things.

I understand your view, but the truth of the matter is that this is an enemy who understands the value of PR and does not honor international law when it comes to doing things like putting military facilities in a school, etc. It makes the carnage horrible, but the only ones who can stop this are, in this case, the Lebaniese. Until they say go away to the Iranians and the Syrians who are backing this crap, it won't stop.

Answer 4

I know! Let's just throw up our hands and let the REAL terrorists (not Israel) have the run of the world. President Bush was, and is, right to take the fight to the terrorists. Where do you think we'd be if he'd sat on his hands and done nothing? Do you think the US would have been free of terrorism over the last 5 years? No! If we had let the terrorists get away with it there would probably have been hundreds of thousands of dead American men, women and children. As for Saddam Hussein, he is a mass murderer, killing thousands of his own people (innocent men, women and children). Our country has been blessed by God. With great wealth and power comes great responsibility. God bless America! God bless President Bush! And God bless our troops!

Answer 5

How can you only target the Hezbollah when the put ammo dumps and missile-firing ranges in peoples basements and back yards??

When the Hezbollah set up military operations in residential neighborhoods why don't the Lebanese locals say:
"Hey, you f--king cowards, get your artillery away from my house!!"

Answer 6

certainly, no. The 60's have been a great era for activism, yet as quickly as we've been given out of Viet Nam, and Nixon resigned, there have been no real reasons to get keen approximately. How do you protest against Ford or Carter? 2 advantageous adult males, somewhat bland, yet no longer protest-inspiring.

Answer 7

Well since he actually named it the "war on terror" I believe he meant "War OF Terror."

Answer 8

dont worry..we will rebuild them... bush is a moron..he is killing this country too..all this war is ..is a way for him to make more money...dont forget who his friends are....bin-ladin...and other terrorists this war is all about his dad wanting to get back at iraq...i cant wait till he is out of office

Answer 9

Absolutely well said