Iraq; Bad as it has been

[Elspode]

Anybody else buy the theory that Dubya and his Fundy crowd are intentionally fanning the flames of unrest in the Middle East in order to hasten Armageddon so everyone can go hang with God?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Anybody else buy the theory that Dubya and his Fundy crowd are intentionally fanning the flames of unrest in the Middle East in order to hasten Armageddon so everyone can go hang with God?

Totally. I do not think that is beyond the realm of real possibility. Just one question: What about the rest of us? Do we get seven years to come to our senses and follow the Jesus crowd (whilst armageddon rages, natch) or are we just vaporized straight out? Or, is it a crap shoot? Most importantly--will the AntiChrist be named Damien? Coz, you know, if we had his name it would be a big clue.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Anybody else buy the theory that Dubya and his Fundy crowd are intentionally fanning the flames of unrest in the Middle East in order to hasten Armageddon so everyone can go hang with God?

One thing that doesn't fit that scenario is that the PNAC crew, that he ceded his foreign policy to, would not self-identify as Evangelical Christian. That it looks like he's intentionally fanning the flames really is disturbing. Our position pushing Syria into an unnatural alliance with Iran is also confusing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Right, I thought Syria and Libya were supposed to be proof of W's policy.

[tw]

From The History of Terrorism is this question of Israel's objectives:

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think that Israel's attack wasn't regarded as terrorism because it was not aimed to cause terror among the civillians of Lebanon. It may HAVE caused terror, but the AIM of the attack was to shut down the infrastrucure in preperation for invasion.

This is a major and mostly unanswered question. What was Israel's strategic objective? Before Hezbollah was massively launching missiles, Israel had already attacked Beirut's International Airport, et al. Why? Initially it appeared that if Israel attacked other part of Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's kidnapping, then Lebanon's army would move in to disarm Hezbollah to end the kidnapping and disarm Hezbollah per UN Resolution 1559. Obviously that did not work.

But then why did Israel not just move in and attack Hezbollah directly with ground forces? Israel has this fear of another Lebanon occupation. The Economist of 5 Aug 2006 explains more:

Inevitably, there are murmurs that Dan Halutz, Israel's first airman to hold the job of chief of staff, was too keen to show that Hizbullah could be dealt a crushing blow from the air alone, and that the army was too late in bringing in ground troops. But the preference for air power may well owe more to the politicians. Israel was wary of repeating its mistake of 1982, when what was meant to be a lightning offensive against Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) bases in south Lebanon turned into an 18-year-long quagmire for Israel's army.

Whether Israel's attack on Druze, Maronites and Shi'ites was intended to cause terror is irrelevant. It was intended to force emotion on Lebanon to become part of the problem - whether you define it as terror or just outright military attacks. Its purpose backfired especially when Lebanon then said an attack on Lebanon required the Lebanese army to then attack invading Israelis.

Since terror (or outright military attacks) on Lebanese will not bring the Lebanon army to displace Hezbollah, now it is intended to force the world to install an International Peace Force. Israel is not really attacking Hezbollah as much as they are attacking Lebanon. If isolating Hezbollah was the agenda, then bombing would isolate Hezbollah at the Litani river. There is no reason to bomb Sidon, Tyre, Beirut and its suburbs, the highway to Syria, or even Red Cross ambulances and convoys if only Hezbollah was the target.

Is it terror? Why not? Not, of course, from Israel's perspective. Israel is seeking others to solve their Hezbollah problem without solving the Sheeba Farms problem or meeting the Arab world's seven points. IOW without using negotiations to solve this problem.

Now none of this makes sense from our perspective. But our perspective is not relevant. Appreciate, for example the perspective of Israelis who appear to have this fear of what would be a seventh Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Israel who now routinely resorts to military aggression rather than negotiated settlement; since an honest broker to make negotiations work does not exist. And since Christian Zionists in America are so rabidly promoting war as if Christ would then return.

Initially the purpose of Israeli attacks was to get the Lebanon army involved in disarming and displacing Hezbollah. Unilateral attacks on innocent Lebanese was not terrorism? Not from Israel's perspective. But really? Those attacks on innocent Lebanese was to emotionally move Lebanon into action. If a unilateral attack on innocents to cause emotion was not terrorism, then what is it?

[Hippikos]

I believe Olmert and Peretz wanted to picture themselves as strong leaders and totally underestimated the Hizbollah power, whilst believing the Airforce Generals that they could bomb Hizbollah into oblivion.

Sharon had nothing to prove and he was the one instigating the prisoners swap in 2004. Something the Hizbollah counted on when they took the 2 Israeli soldiers as prisoners (on Lebanese soil, killing 6 other soldiers during the fight which followed the intrusion). But they, at their side, completely underestimated the new Israeli governments reaction.

[Undertoad]

Some of the statements in the two posts appearing above this one are sadly wrong, yet I have no remaining will to offer corrections.