Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I agree to a point that it was blowback, but blowback comes in different shapes and sizes. Nobody forced those people to take civilian hostages, even if they do represent the interests of the United States. Just like nobody forced the killing of the Israeli athletes in Munich. Two wrongs don't make a right. We do plenty of self-critique in here and discuss what the Western world does wrong, yet critisizing anyone else seems almost a taboo in here.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 01:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At what point did anyone suggest that it was right?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 01:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Calling diplomats "civilians" is somewhat a stretch. They certianly are a political target.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 01:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Calling diplomats "civilians" is somewhat a stretch. They certianly are a political target.

With greater protections under international law than civilians.  

by MarekNYC on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 02:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Whenever anyone else is criticised, citizens or allies of that someone else call foul: "ET is anti-{American|British|Russian|Muslim|Semite}".

I personally feel entitled to justify those I can identify with in one way or another. To criticise "the other", especially when they are not a part of the conversation, doesn't seem very productive.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 03:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean "entitled to criticise"...

Damn typos.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 05:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would have been believable, had I not recently witnessed a barrage of posts aimed at critisizing the Israeli offensive in Lebanon without much presence of the "other" side to defend or argue on their behalf.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Thu Sep 14th, 2006 at 07:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did say in that barrage that the reason I found Israel's behaviour so disturbing is that they're "us".

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Beg your pardon? There were messy, you, wchurchill, Marek, kcurie and a few others to present various pro-Israeli-attack-on-Lebanon positions, and you did so. More fitting for the original argument, while messy is probably an Israeli and kcurie lives part-time there, we have not a single Lebanese (or Palestinian, or Arab) contributor.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, let's have a look at what you want equal time for.

  1. You made much of IDF allegations that the UN post was bombed because Hezbollah fighters hid nearby. I pointed out already back then that evidence doesn't support the claims -- and now the IDF changed its story, too: they shifted to claim errors on their map.

  2. As for the supposed careful targeting of Hezbollah fighters and the moral high ground, yet another thing Israeli PM Olmert said:

"The claim that we lost is unfounded. Half of Lebanon is destroyed; is that a loss?"


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 10:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series