Why did Hezbollah attack Israel?

[Accounting Troll]

Given how tense international relations are in the Midle East at the best of times, it isn't surprising that the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has attracted a lot of attention in the news, however there is one basic question that is really puzzling me:

 

Why did Hezbollah think that attacking Israel was a good idea?

 

I can understand the Palestinians might have been motivated by a desire to test the mettle of the Israeli government when they attacked that army checkpoint, killing two soldiers and kidnapping a third. As the Palestinians demanded the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in return for information on the Israeli soldier they are holding, it is also possible that they simply wanted to raise international awareness of all the Palestinian prisoners Israel is holding.

 

But then shortly after Israel launched an offensive in Gaza, Hezbollah escalated the crisis by attacking Israeli troops and firing rockets at Israeli. In view of the Gaza situation, the leaders of Hezbollah must have realised that there was only one way that Israel was going to respond to their provocation.

 

Even if they are working with the Palestinians, Hezbollah cannot win a war against Israel without foreign intervention, however this seems unlikely:

 

Egypt and Jordan have publicly critisized Israel for using excessive force, however both countries have pro-Western governments, and they certainaly don't want to do anything to endanger all that economic and military aid they get from the USA. I think Egypt is the second largest recipient of American foreign aid, mostly as a bribe to keep it from picking another fight with Israel.

 

The current government of Lebanon was elected on a wave of anti-Syrian feeling after Syria had a Lebanese politician assassinated. This forces the Lebanese government to adopt a pro-American, and therefore pro-Israel foreign policy as protection against Syria. Also, they have no real control over Hezbollah, so I suspect they are quietly cheering on Israeli attempts to take Hezbollah down a peg or two.

 

Syria and Iran are both happy to make trouble for America and its allies, but neither country wants an actual war, partly because wars are expensive and partly because they would lose.

 

The USA and Russia are hardly likely to oppose Israel for responding to a terrorist threat in view of the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Russian presence in Chechnya.

 

There is plenty of bad blood between Israel and Hezbollah, so I would expect Hezbollah to start a fight if they thought they could win, but what I don't understand is what they expect to gain from the current situation.

[FullAuto]

Probably because things looked like they might settle down (eventually) into peace.

 

Look at the Real IRA. Bunch of hardline tossers who won't settle down unless they get everything they want. Hezbollah was formed with the express purpose of driving the Israelis out of the southern Lebanon, if not getting rid of the state altogether. And to be honest, I think they can win this one. Israel's superior military can't wipe out guerrilla forces. They can't nuke them. They can't carpet bomb them.

 

All Hezbollah have to do is keep pissing them off, because the Israelis lose the plot big time and start blowing up runways and roads in other countries.

 

If the Palestinians get smart and work out what 'peaceful protest' means, they'll get a lot more of what they want. If the Israelis get smart, and stop retaliating wildly, they'll get a lot more sympathy and support from the West, which they need.

[Accounting Troll]

I cannot see the peacveful protest philosophy catching on with the Palestinians in the near future because they can see how successful violence has been for Israel. Israel gained independance from a war-weary Britain because it seemed easier than beating down the Jewish terrorists, who I might add didn't see anything wrong with launching terrorist attacks against the British occupation while Britain was fighting Nazi Germany, Israel then managed to survive and expand through winning a series of wars against its neighbours. The recent abandonment of the Jewish settlements in Gaza was because defending them was too costly, which suggests to the Palestinians that terrorism can work, so they made Hamas part of their government.

 

I'm wondering if Hezbollah were motivated by internal politics. A harsh Israeli response towards both the Palestinians and Hezbollah can be expected to generate a lot of anti-Israeli feeling in Lebanon. It might well discredit the moderate policies of the present Lebanese government and result in the hardliners (ie Hezbollah) forming the next Lebanese government and inviting Syria back into their country.

[Accounting Troll]

It now looks as if Hezbollah have been trying to provoke Israel into over-reacting in order to discredit the pro-Western elements in the Lebanese government. The present Lebanese government was elected on a wave of anti-Syrian feeling after Syria had a Lebanese politician assassinated - I remind you that Hezbollah has been tooled up by the alliance of Iran and Syria in recent years.

 

Also, has anyone else noticed anything odd about the puddles of blood we see in images of Lebanese towns after Israeli attacks? They look more like the fake theatrical blood to me - real pools of blood would require only a minute or two to dry out and turn brown in the heat of a Lebanese summer.

 

I have no doubt that Lebanese civilians have died in this conflict, but I also have no doubt that Hezbollah and its sponsors (Iran and Syria) are exaggerating civilian casualties in order to make Israel look bad. Remember that this conflict started with two well-planned and unprovoked attacks against Israeli forces on the frontiers of Gaza and Lebanon.

[Snakeman]

I think those parties that once claimed they wanted to drive Israel out to sea they know they can't accomplish it (because that means going head to head militarily which they can't do), much in the same way its difficult to fight a guerrilla war from Israel's perspective. So part of me wonders if some groups aren't fomenting chaos for chaos sake.

 

Granted, its probably a good recruitment thing to say to the naive wannabe freedom fighter, but the best recruit is probably one who has been directly affected by the actions of the side they hope to fight. And there's a lot of Lebanese who fill that bill. The only thing in my view that can possibly stem the tide of the disenfranchised in the region over this is correlative to how soon aid can reach them from the international community.

 

This is going to be no small task. Not too long after all this stuff began, I heard in the news (not sure as to the whole truth of it) that a quarter of the Lebenon population had fled the country or were in the process of heading out. Someone please correct my math, but their population was estimated to be 4 million people before all this. Think how this disrupts your economy, infastructure and industry to lose one million. Sorry, I'm digressing a bit.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that if you have enough people feeling disenfranchised, you can come up with anything you can think of to persuade them to help you sow further discontent or instill confidence in them in whatever aims your heading them towards. I'm not necessarily always interested in why these particular groups fight simply because it seems they always seem to. Its never felt to me that any diplomatic solution over there would work. Probably nothing short of what happened to post WWII Germany being divided up.

 

As much as I hate to think of it, we're either looking at things becoming much worse militarily or we'll be seeing a kind of Mediterranean Cold War scenario once everyone has the bomb. However, unlike the Cold War the US had with Russia where the idea of self assured mutual destruction with nukes kept us in check throughout it, now more of us have the bomb - it may not be so easy. I fear someone is bound to use nukes in my lifetime.

[FullAuto]

Regardless of exaggeration, Israel's reaction is not proportionate. Hezbollah do not have the military might to push the Israelis anywhere, never mind into the sea. So there's no need to go overboard and blow up civilians.

 

Score so far is about 400 Lebanese vs 50 Israelis, isn't it? Israel's goals are obviously no more noble than Hezbollah's. As it's leader, Hassan Nasrallah said "As long as the enemy pursues its aggression without limits and red lines, we will pursue the confrontation without limits and red lines."

 

And I very much doubt the Lebanese are using fake blood. A little goes a long way, and someone with only a minor wound may bleed like a stuck pig.

[Crazy Gringo]

Give me 5 hydrogen bombs and the means to deliver them and I'd say problem solved.

[DeepOne]

Snakeman:

I'm not necessarily always interested in why these particular groups fight simply because it seems they always seem to.

 

Islam is the reason, and you should be interested. You can learn about the problem at www.faithfreedom.org and www.prophetofdoom.net

 

Its never felt to me that any diplomatic solution over there would work. Probably nothing short of what happened to post WWII Germany being divided up.

 

I think you're right that no diplomatic solution would work, but it's not about land. Islam demands that all non-Muslims worldwide be forcibly eliminated (or enslaved, at least).

 

However, unlike the Cold War the US had with Russia where the idea of self assured mutual destruction with nukes kept us in check throughout it, now more of us have the bomb - it may not be so easy. I fear someone is bound to use nukes in my lifetime.

 

That seems likely. With Islam, the idea of "self-assured mutual destruction" is not necessarily a deterrent. For the jihadists, death in battle is better than life.

 

FullAuto:

Regardless of exaggeration, Israel's reaction is not proportionate. Hezbollah do not have the military might to push the Israelis anywhere, never mind into the sea. So there's no need to go overboard and blow up civilians.

 

Over 80% of Lebanon's population are reportedly supporting Hezbollah (they voted Hezbollah into their government, you know). Hezbollah is a bunch of "civilians". They don't wear uniforms, and they launch their attacks from civilian areas. Their tactics are calculated to force Israel to kill "civilians" in order to aid Hezbollah in spreading their propaganda. But how is Israel supposed to respond without hurting "civilians"? Should they just sit there and smile while thousands of missiles are launched into their country from Lebanon?

 

Score so far is about 400 Lebanese vs 50 Israelis, isn't it? Israel's goals are obviously no more noble than Hezbollah's.

 

Defending yourself against people who are determined to kill you (because you are not "one of them") is no more noble than trying to kill people because they don't worship Allah? That's pretty twisted. And counting the number of reported casualties on each side in order to judge nobility is utterly nonsensical.

 

You may have heard this before, but if the jihadists were completely disarmed, there would be peace (they would still have the desire to kill, but they would not have much ability to do so). If Israel were completely disarmed, the Israelis would be slaughtered immediately. Think about that.

 

BTW, the BB code for quoting doesn't seem to be working properly anymore.

[Bomb Bloke]

For some reason, if you use too many quote tags in a post, none of them work. Dunno why.

 

There's been talk around the internet that Israel isn't too concerned about whether they're bombing civilians or terrorists, and even some rumours that bio-weapons have been used. Some have even gone as far as to say that Israel staged the initial attack against themselves.

 

Of course, the internet is fabled for being full of unbased rumours, and I won't pretend I can back any of these assertions. There are, however, some videos around the place which apparently do not show Israel's actions in a good light.

 

The casualty list is getting longer, and it's unlikely that the terrorists can be made to disarm. America is still suffering from their attempt to do so in Iraq (a place which, as it turned out, did not in fact contain any WMDs).

 

So the question I have, as someone who hasn't been paying much attention to the news recently, is this - What does Israel hope to achieve with their counter attacks? Are they just going to keep going until all possible opposition is wiped out? Or do they just want to break some heads for a while to remind the Islamists not to mess with them?

[FullAuto]

Hezbollah is a bunch of "civilians". They don't wear uniforms, and they launch their attacks from civilian areas.

 

No, they're not civilians. They are, under the Geneva Convention, unlawful combatants. I suggest you look it up, seeing as you don't know about it, because their status is quite different from civilians.

 

Their tactics are calculated to force Israel to kill "civilians" in order to aid Hezbollah in spreading their propaganda

 

Hezbollah can't force the Israelis to do anything. The Israelis are being stupid by responding disproportionately. The Shi'ite militia attack a border post, kill three Israelis and capture two. Israel send a tank into Lebanon, which runs over a mine and blows up, killing the four inside. Another soldier dies trying to retrieve those bodies.

 

So rather than open diplomatic channels, and not only be sensible but also garner a lot more Western support, the Israelis decided to hit airport, roads, power stations and bridges (something that, according to the US media, Israel has been building up to for almost a year).

 

Hezbolla hung back from serious retaliation, only hitting Haifa with a small volley of rockets, which killed no-one.

 

Three days of Israeli bombardment later, killing countless civilians (notice the lack of quotation marks) before Hezbollah hit a railway depot, killing eight.

 

So the Israelis kill 400 or so civilians (notice the lack of quotation marks again), around a third of which are children, in response to a small border incident which could have been easily solved through diplomatic channels, preventing further loss of life and reaping Israel a whole bunch of gold stars from Western countries, who will then gladly help Israel out in any number ofways, which it needs desperately.

 

And counting the number of reported casualties on each side in order to judge nobility is utterly nonsensical.

 

The numerical score does not represent nobility, but merely the proportionality of the responses within conflict. The proportionality of those responses reveal a lot about the motives and methods, which in turn are effected by the nobility of the sides.

 

You may have heard this before, but as far as I can see, DeepOne, you have a deep and abiding prejudice towards Muslims. That, more than any rational reasoning, motivates you.

[Kernel]

Just like to pick up two points you made.

 

Islam demands that all non-Muslims worldwide be forcibly eliminated (or enslaved, at least).

 

This is partialy incorrect. It depends upon how the Qur'an is interpreted, a bit like the bible.

The Qur'an was originaly written in a very early form of the Arabic language know strangly enough the "Quranic" Arabic. After the Qur'an was written Islam took off in a big way which which meant millions of people began communicating in Arabic in a very short space of time and because of this the Arabic language changed rapidly and lost some of it's complexities and some of the more obscure vocabulary was changed completly. This means some words and phrases in the Qur'an had their meaning changed slightly because of the changes in the language.

 

It's a bit like me saying "orange tree". I could mean "the tree is an orange colour" or I could mean "it's an orange friut tree". (Ok I know a tree that's orange is rather bizzar but it's all I could think of right now)

 

All this means is that the Qur'an may mean one thing to a person who doesn't understand "Quranic" Arabic, and something different to someone who does. This is why there are different groups of muslims, ie: the Sheite muslims and Sunni muslims to name two.

 

Over 80% of Lebanon's population are reportedly supporting Hezbollah (they voted Hezbollah into their government, you know). Hezbollah is a bunch of "civilians". They don't wear uniforms, and they launch their attacks from civilian areas. Their tactics are calculated to force Israel to kill "civilians" in order to aid Hezbollah in spreading their propaganda. But how is Israel supposed to respond without hurting "civilians"? Should they just sit there and smile while thousands of missiles are launched into their country from Lebanon?

 

From what I've heard on various news channels and other sources, before this current mess started most Lebanese people were pretty much indiferent to Hezbollah, a large portion were against it and very few were actualy for it. Lebanon's government was actualy trying to slowly remove Hezbollah's millitary and political power in the country and they were starting to succeed. Then once the war started and Lebanon began to take civilian casualties, more and more of those people who were originaly indifferent to Hezbollah started to support them.

This was probably what Hezbollah wanted all along and Isreal seems to have played right into their hands for that part.

 

Of course Isreal has a right to defend itself and the the civilian casualties in Lebanon are in part down to Hezbollah but an equal share of the blame should go to Isreal. What is the point of bombing all the roads and bridges and THEN dropping leaflets telling people to leave? How exactly are the civilians supposed to leave when the roads and bidges are unusable and every vehicle that moves in the south of Lebanon get's a missile fired at it.

Some of Isreal's military intelegence over it's choice of some targets leaves a lot to be desired too.

[Matri]

Oxymoron of the century: "Military Intelligence".

[Bomb Bloke]

Islam demands that all non-Muslims worldwide be forcibly eliminated (or enslaved, at least).

This is partialy incorrect. It depends upon how the Qur'an is interpreted, a bit like the bible.

The Qur'an was originaly written in a very early form of the Arabic language know strangly enough the "Quranic" Arabic. After the Qur'an was written Islam took off in a big way which which meant millions of people began communicating in Arabic in a very short space of time and because of this the Arabic language changed rapidly and lost some of it's complexities and some of the more obscure vocabulary was changed completly. This means some words and phrases in the Qur'an had their meaning changed slightly because of the changes in the language.

So, what are the other interpretations of the passages in concern? I've only heard one version of the bits DeepOne refers to, and they seem straight forward enough. If they're not Muslim, they're a target.

[DeepOne]

Bomb Bloke:

So the question I have, as someone who hasn't been paying much attention to the news recently, is this - What does Israel hope to achieve with their counter attacks? Are they just going to keep going until all possible opposition is wiped out? Or do they just want to break some heads for a while to remind the Islamists not to mess with them?

Imagine that you have a large nest of hornets near your home. They keep flying into your yard and house - occasionally attacking you and your family. What would you do about it? Would you try to negotiate with them? Would you try to kill the ones around your house when you see them while ignoring the rest? Or would you try to destroy the nest and drive them away? It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it fits the main points relatively well.

 

FullAuto:

You may have heard this before, but as far as I can see, DeepOne, you have a deep and abiding prejudice towards Muslims. That, more than any rational reasoning, motivates you.

 

If either of us is prejudging, it is you. My opinion is based on knowledge of Islamic scripture while yours seems to be based on some sort of politically-correct idealism. Your suggestion that diplomacy could easily solve this situation reveals that you don't understand the problem (Islam). Rather than trying to shoot the messenger, perhaps you should examine the message by educating yourself about Islamic scripture.

 

In another discussion (over a year ago), you said, "Fundamentalist Islam is easily taken care of with the right strategy.". I asked you what the right strategy was, and you did not respond. If you don't know, then what makes you think it can easily be taken care of? The closest thing to an easy solution was put forth by Crazy Gringo. But I don't think anyone really wants that.

 

Here is the website of an interesting man I heard about recently. He is a former jihadist.

 

Kernel:

It depends upon how the Qur'an is interpreted, a bit like the bible.

 

The Qur'an is largely nonsensical by itself, but there is much more to Islam than the Qur'an. To understand Islam and the Qur'an, you need to read the Hadith collections of the Sunnah as well. This is where you learn about the life of Muhammad, and this is where you get the context that the Qur'an lacks. With knowledge of the Sunnah, the Qur'an is not so ambiguous anymore.

[Bomb Bloke]

@FullAuto & DeepOne:

Debates aren't about whether poeple are "prejudiced" or not. They're about making a point and backing it up if someone disagrees. Anything else is a flame war, or at least an argument.

 

If I had a hornet nest by my house, I'd destroy it. But if my neighbors kids were behaving that way, I wouldn't consider that an option. I might be tempted to teach them a lesson, but I certainly wouldn't start killing them off.

 

Now, if they started trying to kill me, I'd be a bit more miffed. Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that instead of deciding to move I started trying to fight back. Catch is I don't know exactly where these kids live. Does that give me an excuse to throw grenades at all my neighbors?

 

Israel can't "move", nor is there any "police force" they can ring up to deal with the matter. So it is a tricky situation. I'd still go with negotiation, however. Threaten the "parents" (read: goverment) to make up for the initial attacks - At least give some sort of option to prevent additional slaughter!

 

Sure, in this case it'd be only a temporary fix at best, but during that time you can try to convince the terrorists that attacking you isn't a good thing to do. Send some missionaries over or something, and again force the "parents" to force the "kids" to attend their seminars.

[Snakeman]

I don't think there's a weapon in existance yet that can target what you want to target and leave everything else alone, not bombs at any rate, and certainly made much harder in urban environments. Nevertheless, I was wondering to myself the other day given our current abilities to spot things like rocket attacks from satellites or flyovers and trace that back to the source to attack it - whether or not they are fighting from fixed fortifications or among a group of civilians that subsequently puts them in danger...

 

Unless you think death is better than life in your own way of thinking, why volunteer to be the guy that fires rockets? From what I understand, Israel has been pretty good at taking out positions as soon as they're known. I can't imagine those types have very long lifespans. Israel also can't help the fact that the enemy is probably using civilians and civilian structures as sheilds - it has to assume everything in that localized spot where the rockets eminated from is hostile or they have to use the smartest weapons they have that minimize oollateral damage surrounding what they want to hit.

 

To use your hornet's nest analogy here, if you had an apartment building largely populated by civilians but all you know for sure is that you've spotted four or five men firing shoulder mounted rockets from its balconies or rooftop, what assumption can you make about the target and how would you respond? Sure, if you could get close enough, snipers should do the deed, but for all you know as well, that could have just as easily been a compound with military hardware in its basements to keep firing on you with for several days.

 

So I don't think its so easy to make the distinction during combat. Commanders might want to take out the entire building for the simple fact that they don't want to risk that place coming back to haunt them later just in case it was in fact populated by the enemy. Because the next step would probably involve moving in armor and troops to occupy the town.

 

Anyway, I was also snickering to myself a bit when I heard more about Rice talking about working with the French I think that they're working on a proposal to take to the UN council. Even if its approved which I have my doubts about, they still have the problem of getting the two parties to agree. And that's if you can even get them to the tables to negotiate. Mostly its this last word that had me snickering. For the life of me I can't imagine negotiation being used together with entities such as Hezbolah or Hamas given their histories.

 

I often wondered as well through all of this stuff, Iraq, and Afganistan, when Syria or Iran get its comupance. Things here and there keep pointing to these two countries and I think its only a matter of time.

 

Incidentally, just heard another blurb on talk radio that Israel has dropped another bunch of leaflets warning civilans in Lebanon to STAY OFF THE ROADS. If Israel has been bombing them from day one of this crisis, chances are that this is the only type of leaflet of the sort used previously. It doesn't make sense that they would be inconsistant by saying first to use them then not to unless they intended to leave certain ones alone for evacuations.

[Zager]

My opinion is based on knowledge of Islamic scripture while yours seems to be based on some sort of politically-correct idealism. Your suggestion that diplomacy could easily solve this situation reveals that you don't understand the problem (Islam)

 

What you don't understand is that the whole middle-eastern situation is the result of an extremely complex interelation of political, economic and social factors, dating back to European colonialism. Trying to say that the problem is Islam is a surefire sign of someone with no education in political science, and no real understanding of the middle-eastern situation.

[Accounting Troll]

I think that the fighting in Lebanon is strongly connected to the fighting in Iraq. Syria and Iran are working together to prevent the creation of a democratic, pro-Western Iraq for fear that the idea might catch on with their own people.

 

We know that Hezbollah has fired several thousand Iranian made missiles at Israel since the start of the fighting in Lebanon. The only way these missiles could have got into Lebanon is via the Syrian border - the current government of Jordan cannot afford to anger the US, EU and Israel by helping to equip Hezbollah.

 

Hezbollah and Hamas are both supported by Iran, and it seems likely that Tehran had something to do with getting both groups to attack Israeli forces, kidnapping several soldiers, within a few days of each other. A supporter of the Iranian government could put forward the case that tooling up Hamas and Hezbollah and helping them to attack Israel is no different to the USA and its allies supporting Iraq during its long war with Iran in the 1980s - Iran would have won that war, which Iraq started, had it not been for Western intervention.

 

The Israeli response to this aggression is not as disproportionate as it appears in Europe. When two European countries have an argument, the diplomatic language used by the political leaders of each country is all about diplomatic negotiations to find a fair solution to the problem.

 

The current crop of political leaders in most Middle Eastern countries have a different solution to a trade dispute - threaten war in order to get a good deal. For instance, in the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government kept threatening war unless the Kuwaitis cut oil production so Iraq could get more revenue from higher global oil prices - the West didn't realise that Iraq was serious because these threats are almost a daily event in the Middle East.

 

The Israeli pullout from Gaza a few months ago was seen by its neighbours as a sign of weakness. The sight of Israeli soldiers forcibly disbanding Israeli settlements made it look as if Israel doesn't have the courage for a long struggle against terrorists. The result was that Iran persuaded Hamas and Hezbollah to launch the attacks that caused the current crisis.

 

Had Israel even considered negotiation, this would have been taken as a further sign of weakness. Far from improving the Middle East situation, Syria and Iran would have just increased the pressure on Israel - probably trying to get territorial concessions in the Golan Heights and the West Bank in return for peace, and even that would have only brought a few months respite.

 

The only option for Israel is a show of stregnth in order to convince Iran and Syria that picking a fight with Israel is a bad idea. This means that Israel has to be willing to take harsh measures against Hezbollah, even if it means international criticism for causing heavy casualties among Lebanese civilians. This is not an ideal solution because of the hatred it stirs up; even if Israel wins, it will have to go through the same thing again in 10-15 years to prove that it is still willing to defend itself.

 

Remember that Hezbollah, who started this war, are deliberatly targeting Israeli civilians with their rockets. They have forefited the right to complain about the Lebanese civilians who are dying in this war.

 

Also, does anybody know if the kidnapped Israeli soldiers are even still alive? Considering who their captors are, I wouldn't be surprised if they were tortured and murdered within hours of their capture.

[DeepOne]

What you don't understand is that the whole middle-eastern situation is the result of an extremely complex interelation of political, economic and social factors, dating back to European colonialism. Trying to say that the problem is Islam is a surefire sign of someone with no education in political science, and no real understanding of the middle-eastern situation.

Islam's Useful Idiots

 

Why They Fight

[Zager]

Neither of those articles goes into any of the economic or real social issues behind terrorism that any half-decent student of political studies would be able to tell you goes far beyond Islamic terrorism.

 

Oh, and if you wish to have any sort of credibility at all in the future, I strongly advise that you only post links to articles that have been written in a fair and neutral manner, rather than ones by authors with a political motiviation.

 

You know what your problem is? You want life to be simple. You just want to point to this, and say that this a direct result of that, while decrying those that point out the real issues. I bet you believe that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the primary cause of World War I.

[Blehm 98]

I think a useful point to make in this situation is the following:

Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately aim to attack and kill civilians. Thats why they use short range dumb missiles. They aim at a city and hope to kill as many people as possible

 

The Israelis aim for military or strategic targets of value. If civilians are killed, then that cannot be helped, as it is impossible to stop all civilian casualties. But the Israelis do their best not to kill israelis (on the part of the Lebanon forging stuff, they do make fake photos, like the ones involving the building that was destroyed after the israeli airstirke, it was largely staged, and apparently some guy from a british newspaper was faking pictures of an Israeli plane strafing a city street with rockets or something like that)

[Bomb Bloke]

Given that I'm not a student of political studies, I think I'd quite like to hear how economic or social issues could cause people to strap bombs on their backs and detonate them. I fail to see the personal benefit.

 

Though little as I know about political issues, I do consider it fair to say that Islam has quite a bit to do with them. Did Muhammad go into the conquest business because of Islam, or did Islam go into the conquest business because of Muhammad?

[Zager]

Given that I'm not a student of political studies, I think I'd quite like to hear how economic or social issues could cause people to strap bombs on their backs and detonate them. I fail to see the personal benefit.

 

https://www.safe-democracy.org/docs/CdM-Ser...orism-Vol-1.pdf

 

Here's a brief study on the topic, an attempt to understand the psychology and motivations of terrorists.

 

Also, you have a severe misunderstanding of the terrorist life cycle. Nobody joins a terror organization one day, and becomes a suicide bomber the next, the process of becoming a true believer in the cause is a long, and complicated one. You should note that suicide bombing is not the result of religion, but rather, the result of people willing to die for their cause.

 

Did Muhammad go into the conquest business because of Islam, or did Islam go into the conquest business because of Muhammad?

 

Oh please. You talk like Islam is the only religion in the world to practice conversions through warfare.

[Matri]

Oh please. You talk like Islam is the only religion in the world to practice conversions through warfare.

 

Well, it is the only religion currently doing it today.

[Blehm 98]

Islam is quite possibly the only religion in the world that does war specifically for conversions, most other cases, particularly spanish invasion of America against indians, were in the name of converting Indians to Christians, but were only for the gold and getting other riches

 

Islam however makes you convert or you will be oppressed and eventually killed.