"Beirut/Tel Aviv (dpa) - Israel rocketed Beirut International Airport and Hezbollah targets in the Lebanese capital's southern suburbs Thursday as part of a ferocious air offensive on its northern neighbour that killed at least 31 civilians and wounded 56, police said.

The dead in the airstrikes - launched Wednesday morning in response to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others by the Shiite Hezbollah movement - included at least 10 children, Lebanese police said."

Well, Mark, the source here is the Lebanese police. The only reason you were left to assume is because you didn't bother to look. I don't blame you, since what you would have found doesn't fit your asinine theory.

I suppose we can't trust the Lebanese police either. When it comes to news that doesn't forward your agenda, i suppose you wouldn't trust the pope himself.

This whole media bias thing is just a crutch for you. When the truth isn't what you want it to be, you just yell "Media bias!"

"Beirut/Tel Aviv (dpa) - Israel rocketed Beirut International Airport and Hezbollah targets in the Lebanese capital's southern suburbs Thursday as part of a ferocious air offensive on its northern neighbour that killed at least 31 civilians and wounded 56, police said.

The dead in the airstrikes - launched Wednesday morning in response to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others by the Shiite Hezbollah movement - included at least 10 children, Lebanese police said."

Well, Mark, the source here is the Lebanese police. The only reason you were left to assume is because you didn't bother to look. I don't blame you, since what you would have found doesn't fit your asinine theory.

I suppose we can't trust the Lebanese police either. When it comes to news that doesn't forward your agenda, i suppose you wouldn't trust the pope himself.

This whole media bias thing is just a crutch for you. When the truth isn't what you want it to be, you just yell "Media bias!"

Would you trust the Lebanese police? Me? No more than I would trust the Mexican police.

Mark -

How is that Beirut International Airport and major highways - the focus of the Israeli Bombings - are "Hizbollah territory", where the only possible source of information is Hizbollah itself?

You are aware that many international press organizations have bureaus in Beirut aren't you? You are also aware that reporters are also stationed in Tyre and Sidon, the site of other Israeli attacks?

I was at Beirut airport a few years back, and I'm not a member of Hizbollah. Imagine that!

And remember all you guys who will be feighing tears for the 'innocents', these are the same innocents who danced in the streets when the North and South Towers collapsed and a wedge of the Pentagon collapsed.

Their will mustbe broken, just like the Germans and Japanese during World War Two, or like a cancer, they just keep coming back until they kill you!

Media bias as a crutch? I like it Tom. Mark leans on it.

Aarontime,

Beirut Airport, the road to Damascus, the port cities of Lebanon can all be used to resupply Hezbullah. That is why they were taken out. You make it sound as if the Israelis were carpet bombing downtown Beirut.

If Lebanon, after 6 years, is not going to enforce UN resolution 1559 the Israel has a right to do so.

Grow up

BTW: How is that you, Ash and your leftist buddies always seem to be on the side of the muslim terrorists?

Tom,

The report says the Lebanese police state that - do you have an official communique from the Lebanese police? I looked for an official report stating that civilians have been killed...haven't found any.

What you've got is just another MSM report - it is precisely worthless in determing whether or not anyone has been killed, let alone whether they were civil or military...you don't know; you just want it to be civil deaths because you want to hate.

Aarontime,

I'm well aware that MSM outlets have people in Lebanon - I'm also aware that most of them are staffed by locals who have to live near men with guns who will kill them if they say the wrong thing...

phnxbmed-

"If Lebanon, after 6 years, is not going to enforce UN resolution 1559 the Israel has a right to do so."

So you want to talk UN resolutions? You do know that Israel has thumbed its nose at UN security council resolution 242 now for nearly 40 years - don 't you? That resolution called for Israel to immediately withdraw from the west bank, Golan, and Gaza to its pre-1967 borders.

Gee, Israel has been disobeying UN resolutions now for 4 decades. Should we invade them?

The libs are just upset because Israel did not ask france for permission to defend itself.

Dude, your nuts. Your living in a bubble to keep you from dealing with reality in it's fullest. Do you even know what war is? Do you retard? Do you know what happens in war you nut-job?

"What you've got is just another MSM report - it is precisely worthless in determing whether or not anyone has been killed, let alone whether they were civil or military...you don't know; you just want it to be civil deaths because you want to hate."

Mark, have you gone completely insane? I want there to be civilian deaths because I want to hate? How anyone takes you seriously any more is beyond me.

Yeah, having reporters on the ground (in a very dangerous situation) getting statements from police sources and reporting them is completely worthless. I suppose they'd be very valuable if they reported no civilians had died and that the Lebanese were demonstrating for a joint US/Israeli "liberation" invasion.

You wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it wasn't for this media bias crutch. The truth is pretty crappy sometimes.

Aarontime my original response to your Palestinian talking points seems to have been lost in the ether. So this is a longer reply:

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.

The Arab states also objected to the call for "secure and recognized boundaries" because they feared this implied negotiations with Israel. The Arab League explicitly ruled this out at Khartoum in August 1967, when it proclaimed the three "noes." Amb. Goldberg explained that this phrase was specifically included because the parties were expected to make "territorial adjustments in their peace settlement encompassing less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."

The question, then, is whether Israel has to give up any additional territory. Now that peace agreements have been signed with Egypt and Jordan, the only remaining territorial disputes are with Lebanon and Syria. Israel's conflict with Lebanon is a result of fighting after 1967 and is therefore irrelevant to 242 (Israel has said it would withdraw to the international border if a treaty is signed and the central government takes control of northern border areas currently in the hands of terrorist groups).

The dispute with Syria is over the Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin expressed a willingness to negotiate a compromise in exchange for peace; however, President Hafez Assad refused to consider even a limited peace treaty unless Israel first agreed to a complete withdrawal. Under 242, Israel has no obligation to withdraw from any part of the Golan in the absence of a peace accord with Syria.

It is also important to realize that other Arab states that continue to maintain a state of war with Israel, or have refused to grant Israel diplomatic recognition, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Libya have no territorial disputes with Israel. They have nevertheless conditioned their relations (at least rhetorically) on an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders.

Although ignored by most analysts, Resolution 242 does have other provisions. One requirement in that section is that freedom of navigation be guaranteed. It is important to remind people this clause was included because a principal cause of the 1967 war was Egypt's blockade of the Strait of Tiran.

Israel's Obligations to the Palestinians
The Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does it require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory. In fact, the use of the generic term "refugee" was a deliberate acknowledgment that two refugee problems were products of the conflict-one Arab and another Jewish. In the case of the latter, almost as many Jews fled Arab countries as Palestinians left Israel. The Jews, however, were never compensated by the Arab states, nor were any UN organizations ever established to help them.

In a statement to the General Assembly October 15, 1968, the PLO, rejecting Resolution 242, said "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."

By contrast, Amb. Abba Eban expressed Israel's position to the Security Council on May 1, 1968: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution."

It took nearly a quarter century, but the PLO finally agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles in September 1993

You still haven't responded to my question as to why you leftist always take the side of Muslim terrorists.

I want there to be civilian deaths because I want to hate?

No, I think Mark was saying that you want there to be civilian deaths to justify your hate. You're likely just a hateful person who needs the sight of flying blood and guts to keep it stoked. If that's not the case, then why the hate? Or are you saying you don't hate? John Lennon, you in there?

"Or are you saying you don't hate?"

No, Mark's the one who claims he does not hate.

Myself, I was just again exposing how weak Mark's Media bias claims are.

"You're likely just a hateful person"

Exactly why am I "likely" a hateful person?

And yes, I do have a little John Lennon in me. All I want is the truth.

Exactly why am I "likely" a hateful person?

Its sorta like when you see a really fat person, you say "that dude's really fat." Its just so obvious. I am sure the fat guy doesn't think he's all that fat either.

and there's this:

"Or are you saying you don't hate?"

To which you said...

No, Mark's the one who claims he does not hate.

That sorta proves it, doncha think?

"That sorta proves it, doncha think?"

No, Mark has actually said on many occassions that he is incapable of hate (while at the same time calling liberals inherently hateful and liberalism rooted in evil). It's kind of his "thing." Just pointing out the obvious.

Also, Rev, Mark claims that I want there to be civilian deaths at the hands of the Israelis so I could 'hate'-- presumably the Israelis, or at least their actions.

But if you look at a prior post I had, I think you'd find it hard to say that I was the least bit hateful toward Israeli:

"I find it hard to blame Israel in their reaction. The only thing I question is going after the Lebanese government in the north. If the Lebanese government and people don't like Hezballah (and honestly I don't know how much that is true), this could be an opportunity for Israel to take them out or really weaken then, or at least isolate them from the rest of the country.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 14, 2006 09:02 AM"

No, this whole 'hate' accusation is just a straw man that Mark used to divert attention that I exposed his bogus media bias claim.

Let me get this straight. I said:

Or are you saying you don't hate?

To which you said...

No, Mark's the one who claims he does not hate.

Are you now telling me that by saying 'No' to my question that it doesn't mean that you are NOT saying you don't hate? Where'd you take your English clsses?

"Are you now telling me that by saying 'No' to my question that it doesn't mean that you are NOT saying you don't hate? Where'd you take your English clsses?"

So saying I don't claim not to hate, makes me a hateful person?

I'm not comfortable saying I am incapable of hate. Hate is a hard word to define anyone. If something angers you, does that mean you hate it? I don't know. I can say for certain that I hate brussel sprouts, so I can't honestly claim not to hate.

But, I think my last post proves pretty well that Mark is incorrect in saying I want civilian deaths so I can hate.

You also said it's likely that I'm a "hateful" person. Again, I ask you why it is so obvious?

You also said it's likely that I'm a "hateful" person. Again, I ask you why it is so obvious?

I have had more enlightened conversations with a voice mail message recording. And, come on, you might not pray for dead civilians, but admit it - you're glad when they happen, right? You do need something with which to attack the war, right? What better than dead civilians.

Seems to be a common defect in liberals. They thing that appealing to emotion will work with non-libs. YOU dudes and dudettes are the emotional ones. YOU are the ones who worry about how it "feels" more than what it accomplishes.

"I have had more enlightened conversations with a voice mail message recording."

I'm sure you've had many. People tend to gravitate toward objects of the same intellect.

Let's see. I've A) PROVEN you and Mark wrong in thinking that I'm looking for a reason to hate Israel and the war by re-posting my very even-handing take on what's happening from last week.

I've asked why you think I'm hateful, and all you can say is this:

"And, come on, you might not pray for dead civilians, but admit it - you're glad when they happen, right? You do need something with which to attack the war, right? What better than dead civilians."

How can you not see how much of a moron you are? Is it because you're a moron that you can't see it? Must be.

The only reason you think I'm hateful is because you WANT me to be hateful. It fits you little liberal stereotype. (see the last comments you posted -- typical play of a man who doesn't know when he's beat. When defeated on specific points, he start talking in generalizations and sterotypes. It's funny how predictable this move is among the less bright.) People like you and Mark live far from reality and take way too much out of the equation every time you try and enlighten the populace. My only hope is that others here and elsewhere see how moronic you are.

Oh, come ON, Tom---no one has claimed that "liberalism is rooted in evil". This silly dependence on exaggerating conservative claims so there is some kind of rebuttal possible is getting very tiresome.

Liberalism, small l, is a decent though naive approach to the realities of life. It is cozy, feel-good, group-hug, "why can't we all get along" naivete. But it is far from evil. It is just not realistic as a model for government, though it is a noble aspiration in many ways.

Liberalism, capital L, is a little different, having hit the skids into radical leftism, and this does have a more malignant aspect to it. One of the intriguing things about Liberalism is its total illiberalism---nothing could be less liberal, based on the dictionary definiton of the word, than the radicalism of what is still called Liberalism. Liberalism---capital L---is completely Orwellian, with different definitions for things. Free Speech, for example, is invoked incessantly by Liberals, yet stridently denied to those who are conservative, at least on what used to be bastions of liberalism and are now strongholds of Liberalism, college campuses. Freedom Of Religion has become, in the Liberal lexicon, Freedom FROM Relgion. And so on.

But even acknowledging the death spiral of old-fashioned liberalism, as it degenerates into radical (and hate-filled, hate-generated, hate-dependent) Liberalism, no one has said that even this new and ugly Liberalism is "rooted in evil". It just embraces evil when the evil in question will advance its agenda.

Which explains how and why the Lefties here will defend terrorists, whine about Israel, and ignore the long-term consequences of undermining our efforts abroad as long as the short term effect is to damage the administration of a man who will not even be running for reelection. They don't care how much aid and comfort they give to the enemy, now much their domestic political terrorism strengthens the resolve of the very people who would kill them in a heartbeat if they had a chance. They gleefully welcome and embrace positions and philosophies which ARE "rooted in evil" because those positions and philosophies happen to validate the hatred they have chosen as their guiding star.

So at some point, it is necessary to acknowledge the relationship of the darkest aspects of neoradical Liberalism with elements of real malice, but without claiming that the movement is "rooted in evil". And if you don't like it, quit denying facts and insisting on wallowing in muck.

Speak out against the looniest among you and decry the truly evil roots of the claims that Bush was behind 9/11, for example. Stop depending on emotion and far-left rhetoric like Ranty Rhodes and her spewing of outright lies. Get out of the habit of assigning only the worst motives to what are otherwise simple acts, or simple mistakes. I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was not typical knee-jerk Bush-bashing and conservative-hating.

It's so funny that you are upset at being called a hater, yet can't respond without calling people morons.

"no one has claimed that "liberalism is rooted in evil".

Actually he has. I tried to find the post in the archives, but could not. He wrote a big thing how today's left has it's roots in Stalinism. It was a good read.

"I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that was not typical knee-jerk Bush-bashing and conservative-hating."

Well, you're not looking close enough.

"It's so funny that you are upset at being called a hater, yet can't respond without calling people morons."

I'm not upset about being called a hater, per se. I'm more upset that there's no reason for me to be called hateful, yet Mark and Rev do so anyway because I shot down their arguments with fact.

The main point of this thread is that AP is biased because it can't possible know how many civilians have died. Mark backs this up by saying the only source for them MUST be Hezbollah. Well, it took two seconds for me to find that a source for 30 confirmed dead was Lebanese police. Right there, is extremely weak argument is shot down.

So what does he say in response? That I want civilians to die so I can hate. Seriously. Then Rev pops in and says it's likely I'm a hateful person. Basically, their point is that I want civilians to die to I can unleash all this hate I have toward Israel.

BUT THEN I repost from last week what I said about Irael's actions:

"I find it hard to blame Israel in their reaction. The only thing I question is going after the Lebanese government in the north. If the Lebanese government and people don't like Hezballah (and honestly I don't know how much that is true), this could be an opportunity for Israel to take them out or really weaken then, or at least isolate them from the rest of the country.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at July 14, 2006 09:02 AM"

That right there demolishes their theory that I want civilians to die (which in reality is a claim so outragious and with zero support that I shouldn't be forced to defend it in the first place) so I can hate on Israel.

So then Rev. starts in on my intellect comparing me to an answering machine and ranting about how all liberals hate and blah, blah, blah.

Honestly, Alminranta, what other conclusion can one but these guys are not very smart?

I'm not upset about being called a hater, per se.

Oh, really? Hahahaha!