NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess you forgot that there was also a pipeline explosion in Nigeria that also had a hand in the rise in oil prices?

it almost seems like an OPEC committee member spits and the price changes

it almost seems like an OPEC committee member spits and the price changes

Pretty much.

Hi, what part of that quote which YOU provided do you not understand?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're qualified to argue legal matters when you can't even read simple, standard legal citation.

the phrase "UNDER this constitution", I don't find the word interpret in art. 3

it almost seems like an OPEC committee member spits and the price changes

Well, if you produce a 40% (and growing) share of the world's oil, any decisions or events that threaten your production will cause prices to rise. Oil is rising because demand is soaring and supply isn't keeping up; at the same time, the surplus capacity is falling because of mismanagement in Venezuela, the Gulf hurricanes, and rebel attacks in Nigeria .

Pretty much.

we,re hovering just under $3/gal. here, have been for more than a week

I guess you forgot that there was also a pipeline explosion in Nigeria that also had a hand in the rise in oil prices? Not to mention Iran being referred to the UNSC? You know? There is more going on with the rise in oil prices than Israel.
For once you're seeing sense as opposed to most people.

I don't like the state of Israel, but I know full-well that this has very little to do with them, if anything.

Well, if you produce a 40% (and growing) share of the world's oil, any decisions or events that threaten your production will cause prices to rise. Oil is rising because demand is soaring and supply isn't keeping up; at the same time, the surplus capacity is falling because of mismanagement in Venezuela, the Gulf hurricanes, and rebel attacks in Nigeria .

don't forget China and India using more oil than ever before

the phrase "UNDER this constitution", I don't find the word interpret in art. 3


"The judicial Power shall extend "

The judicial power is to interpret. That's what courts DO, you moron.

Let me make this pretty clear. you're wrong.

217 years of history have proven you wrong.

Numerous congressmen, presidents, and supreme court justices, including James Madison who WROTE THE BLOODY THING have proven you wrong.

It is the power of the federal courts to interpret the constitution. period.

End of story.

You are wrong to argue otherwise.

.......

Because interpreting the law (which, as the supreme law of the land, includes the constitition) is what courts DO, you moron.

Let me make this pretty clear. you're wrong.

217 years of history have proven you wrong.

Numerous congressmen, presidents, and supreme court justices, including James Madison who WROTE THE BLOODY THING have proven you wrong.

It is the power of the federal courts to interpret the constitution. period.

End of story.

You are wrong to argue otherwise.

the power of the courts is to APPLY the law

we,re hovering just under $3/gal. here, have been for more than a week

Be advised that it could top $3.00 a gallon this weekend.

don't forget China and India using more oil than ever before

And the US; 5.3% GDP growth has pushed oil demand up 1.7% and possibly higher if growth doesn't decelerate too much in the second half of the year.

Strong economies demand more oil and raw materials; the world economy is growing powerfully so we're using more than we were in the past. The only way oil will fall is if we reduce demand through improving efficiency, using alternatives, and simply driving less. That's the main reason why oil remained cheap in the 1980's and 1990's; it wasn't rising production but plunging demand that brought oil to $10 or $20 during the two decades.

the power of the courts is to APPLY the law

OK, we're getting there. You're starting on the right track, you're moving in the right direction. Let's see if we can keep up with it.

Last question, if you get this right, you win the cookie.

And how is the court supposed to apply the law to a situation other than by seeing if it is applicable via interpretation?

You are also ignoring two things.

1) James Madison, father of the constitution, in his papers states that it was the purpose of the judicial branch to interpret

2) You still haven't told me why I should consider your authority with any weight what so ever considering you can't read legal citations, and thus have no formal legal training what so ever.

Be advised that it could top $3.00 a gallon this weekend.

$76.85/42= $1.82/gallon of crude.

Add on another 51% for refining, marketing, and federal taxes and you're looking at a minimum of $2.72 per gallon. Most places will be even higher due to state taxes and RFG requirements; it'll be closer to $3.10-3.20 on the coasts and in major cities.

OK, we're getting there. You're starting on the right track, you're moving in the right direction. Let's see if we can keep up with it.

Last question, if you get this right, you win the cookie.

And how is the court supposed to apply the law to a situation other than by seeing if it is applicable via interpretation?

I searched the constitution, I couldn't find the word interpret in there, since you claim to know so mush more maybe you could find it for me

I searched the constitution, I couldn't find the word interpret in there, since you claim to know so mush more maybe you could find it for me

I will ask the question again. How is a court supposed to apply the law unless they first figure out what the law says?

I'm waiting for an answer that does not include the word "interpret" or similar words.

OK, we're getting there. You're starting on the right track, you're moving in the right direction. Let's see if we can keep up with it.

Last question, if you get this right, you win the cookie.

And how is the court supposed to apply the law to a situation other than by seeing if it is applicable via interpretation?

You are also ignoring two things.

1) James Madison, father of the constitution, in his papers states that it was the purpose of the judicial branch to interpret

2) You still haven't told me why I should consider your authority with any weight what so ever considering you can't read legal citations, and thus have no formal legal training what so ever.

1) Madison's papers, like the Jefferson papers are not law

2) I could ask the same of you, I'm just a guy who reads a lot of boring stuff

I will ask the question again. How is a court supposed to apply the law unless they first figure out what the law says?

I'm waiting for an answer that does not include the word "interpret" or similar words.

I may not be the smartest guy on the planet, but the words in the constitution seem pretty clear to me. would apply to the vast majority of cases without any changes

1) Madison's papers, like the Jefferson papers are not law

2) I could ask the same of you, I'm just a guy who reads a lot of boring stuff

1) Madison helped write the constitution, Jefferson did not.

2) I have not displayed ignorance of american jurisprudence, you have. The burden is on you to prove you're not ignorant on the subject, not me.

But if you wish to question my qualifications, I suggest you take it up with these guys:

http://www.massbar.org/

Be advised that it could top $3.00 a gallon this weekend.

if it hits $3 and stays, it might be the first time I pay $3 or over.
*longing for the old days of $0.99 gas*

1) Madison helped write the constitution, Jefferson did not.

2) I have not displayed ignorance of american jurisprudence, you have. The burden is on you to prove you're not ignorant on the subject, not me.

But if you wish to question my qualifications, I suggest you take it up with these guys:

http://www.massbar.org/

OK, your a lawyer, or say you are. what field?
also, are you one of the "living document types"?

I may not be the smartest guy on the planet, but the words in the constitution seem pretty clear to me. would apply to the vast majority of cases without any changes

I see. Please explain how the following terms have self evident definitions:

A well regulated Militia

secure in their persons

without just compensation

Excessive bail

privileges or immunities

right of citizens

Now...remember. These terms must, as you said, be "pretty clear". You can not refer to any outside sources such as historical text, dictionaries, case law, international standard, or ANY OTHER source to interpret the terms "secure", "just", "excessive" "priviledge" "immunities" or "rights".

Unless you can find, within the words of the constitution THEMSELVES, definitions for those terms, and can avoid turning to ANY OTHER SOURCE, you can not define without interpretation.

I'm waiting for you to show me where the constitution defines secure, just, excessive, privldes, immunities, and rights.

OK, your a lawyer, or say you are. what field?
also, are you one of the "living document types"?

I am one of those "the constitition does not always clearly define itself and we must look to what both society at the time of the framers would have defined these terms as, as well as how the framers would have seen current issues".

In other words, I'm a rational person.

I'm waiting for you to show me where the constitution defines secure, just, excessive, privldes, immunities, and rights.

Heh, and I COMPLETELY forgot militia. Have fun with that one.

I see. Please explain how the following terms have self evident definitions:

A well regulated Militia

secure in their persons

without just compensation

Excessive bail

privileges or immunities

right of citizens

Now...remember. These terms must, as you said, be "pretty clear". You can not refer to any outside sources such as historical text, dictionaries, case law, international standard, or ANY OTHER source to interpret the terms "secure", "just", "excessive" "priviledge" "immunities" or "rights".

Unless you can find, within the words of the constitution THEMSELVES, definitions for those terms, and can avoid turning to ANY OTHER SOURCE, you can not define without interpretation.

I'm waiting for you to show me where the constitution defines secure, just, excessive, privldes, immunities, and rights.

I think we have a misunderstanding, I'm not talking about defining particular words, I'm talking about finding words that aren't there, like seperation..., and the right to abortion.
I still want to know, are you a believer in the "living document" theory

I think we have a misunderstanding, I'm not talking about defining particular words, I'm talking about finding words that aren't there, like seperation..., and the right to abortion.
I still want to know, are you a believer in the "living document" theory

I will ask you again, how does the court apply the law without defining particular words?

Does the term 'secure in their persons" include the right to chose undergo medical procedures?

The constitution doesn't say it does. It doesn't say it does not. The court must decide whether it does, or whether it does not.

The job of the court is to figure out such things, such as whether "secure in their persons" means not being told whether they can, or can not, undergo a medical procedure. The court interpreted "secure in their persons" to mean it does.

The term "colt 45" does not appear in the constitution either, is it "changing the constitution" to say that a colt 45 is permissable under the concept of "militia"? Of course not, it is merely interpreting the constitution to infer that "militia" includes private hand gun ownership.

just as "secure in their persons" means the government can't tell people whether to engage in a medical procedure.

And by the way your ignorance of Roe is astounding.

I suppose next you'll quote Thomas, or Ginsberg, or Bryer, none of which I happen to agree with. I like Scalia, his speeches on origanalism seem to fit the bill

This situation in Lebanon confuses me. Lebenon (despite what people have been saying) is not run by Hizbollah. (Also it's Hamas, not Hizbollah, in Palestine). Remember last year when Rafiq Hariri was assinated by (supposedly Syrian) agents? That prompted a remarkably well organised and peaceful revolution -the Cedar Revolution- of a kind which has been seen recently in Georgia and Ukaraine (who were both incidentally Russian rather than American trading partners, much like Syria who at that time occupied Lebanon) The result of this revolution was the formation of an independent, strongly pro-west, anti-Syrian government in Lebanon, which was also naturally anti-Hizbollah by nature of political (and economic) alignment.

As such, it confuses me why Israel is taking such action against a nation who should logically be a regional ally. I don't find it credible that this attack is aimed entirely at Hizbollah militants, as Israel is attacking Lebanese government infrastructure (most notably the airport) and blockading the country by sea and land (incidentally, America specifically told Israel not to damage or undermine the Lebanese government coz it's A- pro western and B- very weak, hence the non-tackling of Hizbollah). The BBC suggested that it is an attempt to turn the Lebanese people against Hizbollah, but to me that seems stupid- surely it's just gonna make the Lebanese people anti-Israel? (which I gather they aren't particularly at the moment)

I'm not trying to fall out with anyone, if you disagree with me please don't take it personal. (And sorry for all the parentheses.) :)

I suppose next you'll quote Thomas, or Ginsberg, or Bryer, none of which I happen to agree with. I like Scalia, his speeches on origanalism seem to fit the bill

whether you agree with them or not, they are United States Supreme Court Justices.

You are not.

I will ask you again, how does the court apply the law without defining particular words?

Does the term 'secure in their persons" include the right to chose undergo medical procedures?

The constitution doesn't say it does. It doesn't say it does not. The court must decide whether it does, or whether it does not.

The job of the court is to figure out such things, such as whether "secure in their persons" means not being told whether they can, or can not, undergo a medical procedure. The court interpreted "secure in their persons" to mean it does.

The term "colt 45" does not appear in the constitution either, is it "changing the constitution" to say that a colt 45 is permissable under the concept of "militia"? Of course not, it is merely interpreting the constitution to infer that "militia" includes private hand gun ownership.

just as "secure in their persons" means the government can't tell people whether to engage in a medical procedure.

And by the way your ignorance of Roe is astounding.

how many laws are there concerning murder? that is what I believe abortion is

how do you define arms?

hmmm.... just realised how sidetracked this thread seems to have become. Guess that's me paying the price for not wanting to read through 18 pages.

guys could you make a new thread for this stuff? doing that's kind of antisocial.

EDIT: looks like an interesting conversation tho. I'll attempt to contribute with my limited knowledge of American Law

how many laws are there concerning murder? that is what I believe abortion is

how do you define arms?

it's not relevant how I define arms. According to you, the only definition that matters is what the constitution says the definition of arms is.

Oh wait, it doesn't have one.

Well then, it must be defined as the framers at the time wanted it to be defined as.

Except handguns didn't exist at the time.

So unless you define arms as "ball and musket" then your definition of arms is, according to you, wrong. And handguns are outlawed.

Right?

hmmm.... just realised how sidetracked this thread seems to have become. Guess that's me paying the price for not wanting to read through 18 pages.

sorry about that, didn't realize how long we've been going at this

it's not relevant how I define arms. According to you, the only definition that matters is what the constitution says the definition of arms is.

Oh wait, it doesn't have one.

Well then, it must be defined as the framers at the time wanted it to be defined as.

Except handguns didn't exist at the time.

So unless you define arms as "ball and musket" then your definition of arms is, according to you, wrong. And handguns are outlawed.

Right?

don't try talking to me about guns, from 2 words it looks like your knowledge of guns is far worse than mine is of law

don't try talking to me about guns, from 2 words it looks like your knowledge of guns is far worse than mine is of law

I'll ask again. Did modern handguns exist in 1791? No. Of course not, stupid idea.

Therefore, if the constitution means what it says it means, and what the framers meant when the wrote, no modification, no modern interpretation, no deviation, then you must admit that handguns were not in existance at the time, and therefore could not have been part of the definition of "arms".

Therefore, handguns, or for that matter any type of arms that didn't come into existance after 1791, are not protected, right?

But you don't want to talk guns? Fine. First amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The internet didn't exist, right? Moreover it says "speech", not typing, not sending data through the magical tubes of the internet. Thus typing (not talking) on the internet (something that didn't exist) is not protected. Right?

Or, hell, 15th amendment. Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

People who are...lets say...mexican decent. That's not a race, nor is it a specific color. It's an ethnicity. So we can exclude people of mexican decent? It doesn't say ethnicity after all, so we can, right?

Here's the thing. You, like most right wing pundits, look at Roe and Casey and scream "the horror, the supreme court can't do this!"

But they can. Now you may not like it. You may disagree with it. You may try to fight it.

But to say that it was beyond the power of the court to do it is stupid and wrong. It is within the power of the court to decide casey and roe just as it was within their power to define handguns as part of the 2nd amendment, those of mexican decent protected under the 15th amendment, and internet activities to be considered speech.

I've been sitting here thinking I'm forgetting something abour Roe. wasn't Roe addressed in state law prior to the SCOTUS decision, and if so, shouldn't that have been off limits to any fed. court unless congress passed a law addressing abortion?

Here's the thing. You, like most right wing pundits, look at Roe and Casey and scream "the horror, the supreme court can't do this!"

But they can. Now you may not like it. You may disagree with it. You may try to fight it.

But to say that it was beyond the power of the court to do it is stupid and wrong. It is within the power of the court to decide casey and roe just as it was within their power to define handguns as part of the 2nd amendment, those of mexican decent protected under the 15th amendment, and internet activities to be considered speech.

so you're saying the court has any power, so long as the court says so

so you're saying the court has any power, so long as the court says so

I'm saying the court has the power to interpret the constitution based on their wisdom and understanding of law, history, and standards.

Whether you like it or not, the supreme court has the final authority to interpret the constitution. That is what they do. If the majority of the court believe the constitution to say something, then by law, it does. And if they change their mind, then by law, it does not.

That is, after all, why THEY are on the supreme court, and you and I are not. They are the final arbiters over what the constitution does, and does not say.

In other words, under law, yes if the court says the constitution says so, then the constitution says so. Until such decision is repealed.

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.

3 of their soldiers were kidnapped! If someone took your soldiers and you were the leader what would you do?! Just sit back and say that is okay?!

I've been sitting here thinking I'm forgetting something abour Roe. wasn't Roe addressed in state law prior to the SCOTUS decision, and if so, shouldn't that have been off limits to any fed. court unless congress passed a law addressing abortion?

Wow, you really are ignorant of the constitution aren't you?

Supreme court has final appellate authority on issues of constitutional authority. No law, be it federal OR state can go against the constitution. The court found the state law in question ran against the constitution. It is within the authority of the court to review ANY LAW for constitutional validity, regardless of where it originated.

The supreme court is not just "a federal court" it is the SUPREME court.

Make A New Thread Please

I'm saying the court has the power to interpret the constitution based on their wisdom and understanding of law, history, and standards.

Whether you like it or not, the supreme court has the final authority to interpret the constitution. That is what they do. If the majority of the court believe the constitution to say something, then by law, it does. And if they change their mind, then by law, it does not.

That is, after all, why THEY are on the supreme court, and you and I are not. They are the final arbiters over what the constitution does, and does not say.

In other words, under law, yes if the court says the constitution says so, then the constitution says so. Until such decision is repealed.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree, I doubt you could convince me that Roe was good law or the recent immanent domain decision didn't trample on the fifth amendment. smarter they may be, but always right, I don't believe so.

http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2003_Conference_Papers/OSN_Israel_Havlova.pdf

I didn't see a specific reference or link to "pamphlets" in that rather disgusting but all too familiar rant.
. I would of course like to know what the other material is constituted of as well, but we'll take it one at a time


All I'm trying to say is that there are injustices on both sides, one cannot claim one side is "more right" than the other

When its a first world military occupying a bunch of badly armed and led people for 40 years, I think I can safely point at the former and cry "foul".

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree, I doubt you could convince me that Roe was good law or the recent immanent domain decision didn't trample on the fifth amendment. smarter they may be, but always right, I don't believe so.

At the end of the day, good law or not, proper interpretation or not, it is within their power to make it. Now whether or not abortion is in fact a right is....beyond the capacity for this forum. I am only saying that in making it they did not exceede their authority.

Which is all that matters in the end really. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, under the constitution it was their choice to make. And they made it.

Now you have the right not to like it, I'm not going to argue with you there, no good can come from that discussion. But SCOTUS is the final authority on the constitution, and it was permissable, maybe right maybe wrong, but permissable, for them to make it. They did not overstep their authority nor go beyond the powers that the constitution afforded them. They made the decision they were empowered to make.

At the end of the day, good law or not, proper interpretation or not, it is within their power to make it. Now whether or not abortion is in fact a right is....beyond the capacity for this forum. I am only saying that in making it they did not exceede their authority.

Which is all that matters in the end really. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, under the constitution it was their choice to make. And they made it.

Now you have the right not to like it, I'm not going to argue with you there, no good can come from that discussion. But SCOTUS is the final authority on the constitution, and it was permissable, maybe right maybe wrong, but permissable, for them to make it. They did not overstep their authority nor go beyond the powers that the constitution afforded them. They made the decision they were empowered to make.

Another thread on this topic please, if you must continue...

Another thread on this topic please, if you must continue...

I agree with Nodinia. take it elsewhere you 2.

Another thread on this topic please, if you must continue...

Think I'm done. But to bring it around on topic, the same argument can apply here.

As I said before, the people of Lebanon made their choices, and risked an attack by Israel. Right or wrong, good or bad. The decision was made. Now we deal with the concequences.

I didn't see a specific reference or link to "pamphlets" in that rather disgusting but all too familiar rant.
. I would of course like to know what the other material is constituted of as well, but we'll take it one at a time



When its a first world military occupying a bunch of badly armed and led people for 40 years, I think I can safely point at the former and cry "foul".

Especially if the occupying power has committed dozens of breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

When its a first world military occupying a bunch of badly armed and led people for 40 years, I think I can safely point at the former and cry "foul".

Well then it was a pretty stupid thing to keep attacking them after the occupation ended then, wasn't it?

This isn't collective punishment, this is Lebanon ALLOWING terrorists to use their airports, travel on their roads, dock in their ports, work in their office buildings.

Hezbollah has said destroy us or we destroy you, so Israel must destroy them, and EVERYTHING they've touched. And it's Lebanon's fault for letting them touch their infrastructure.

You seem suggest there are no innocent people being caught in the crossfire, that everyone in Lebanon tacitly agrees with and supports these terrorists, because they insist on using the same roads, docks, airports and buildings as the terrorists--as if they had a choice. But then, don't terrorists use a similar rationale? The suicide bomber on a passenger bus isn't killing innocent people, but the supporters of air strikes in residential neighborhood, or ones that leave people without water and electricity.

Israel is the stronger player in these event. It should act the part and proceed with greater restraint. What good comes of beating up on a people who've already been bullied without much success? They can only become more obstinate, or more desperate.

Well then it was a pretty stupid thing to keep attacking them after the occupation ended then, wasn't it?

Let's see how you react to decades of occupation by religious fundamentalists, shall we?

Well then it was a pretty stupid thing to keep attacking them after the occupation ended then, wasn't it?

Very stupid.

Let's see how you react to decades of occupation by religious fundamentalists, shall we?

How I would react is irrelevant. Would I do the same thing? Maybe. But I wouldn't be blind to the concequences of those actions. Sometimes life sucks, but just because your life sucked doesn't mean that you can pick a fight you can't win and not expect to get stomped on.

Let's see how you react to decades of occupation by religious fundamentalists, shall we?

Funny. I thought it was the religious fundamentalists blowing themselves up to kill as many civilians as possible.

Lets try to look at the facts.

Under protocol I, Article 57 of the Geneva Conventions quite a lot of Israeli policy is utterly illegal. Attacks on non-military targets such as civilian ports and airports, which have become commonplace, are considered severe breaches (WAR CRIMES) under civilian immunity clauses.

Well then it was a pretty stupid thing to keep attacking them after the occupation ended then, wasn't it?

Israel withdrew from Gaza, not the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem or any other occupied areas. Therefore the occupation did not end, nor were the settlements disbanded in those areas.

You seem suggest there are no innocent people being caught in the crossfire, that everyone in Lebanon tacitly agrees with and supports these terrorists, because they insist on using the same roads, docks, airports and buildings as the terrorists--as if they had a choice. But then, don't terrorists use a similar rationale? The suicide bomber on a passenger bus isn't killing innocent people, but the supporters of air strikes in residential neighborhood, or ones that leave people without water and electricity.

Israel is the stronger player in these event. It should act the part and proceed with greater restraint. What good comes of beating up on a people who've already been bullied without much success? They can only become more obstinate, or more desperate.

Of COURSE there are innocent people caught in the crossfire. That's tragic, that's horrible.

But Hezbollah set the terms. Us against you, to the death. So Israel is just following it, to the death. And if innocent people get caught in the way, that's a tragedy. But maybe Lebanon should have thought of its own people when they allowed Hezbollah to stay in Lebanon, remain armed, and join their government.

Funny. I thought it was the religious fundamentalists blowing themselves up to kill as many civilians as possible.

Lets try to look at the facts.

The facts are the Fundamentalists he refers to are the "settlers" - a notoriously violent racist group.

Under protocol I, Article 57 of the Geneva Conventions quite a lot of Israeli policy is utterly illegal. Attacks on non-military targets such as civilian ports and airports, which have become commonplace, are considered severe breaches (WAR CRIMES) under civilian immunity clauses.

Is Israel a signatory to Protocol I, Article 57?

Israel withdrew from Gaza, not the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem or any other occupied areas. Therefore the occupation did not end, nor were the settlements disbanded in those areas.

Which may be relevant to a discussion of Haman, but not Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

All Israel is doing is playing into the hands of the Palestinian nationalists and various militias across the middle East. Every time Israel kills a child whilst attacking villages with helicopter gunships, they get a boost. Every time the IDF lowers itself to the level of inhuman butchers, the militants get a boost. This is helping their cause more than it is hurting it.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, not the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem or any other occupied areas. Therefore the occupation did not end, nor were the settlements disbanded in those areas.

And where did Hamas attack from? Not east Jerusalem or the West Bank but from Gaza. Up. They attacked from Gaza AFTER they pulled out and was willing to pull out of the West Bank.

Of course if Arafat had taken the deal that was offered to him about 95% of the land being returned, Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem would've been theirs and Palestine would be a state.

The facts are the Fundamentalists he refers to are the "settlers" - a notoriously violent racist group.

And yet, it appears only Palestinians are blowing themselves up to kill Israelis. not the other way around.

Is Israel a signatory to Protocol I, Article 57?

Is that not one of the sections considered binding on all, regardless of whether or not they've signed?


They attacked from Gaza AFTER they pulled out and was willing to pull out of the West Bank.?

Pull out of the parts they didnt want to keep, you mean.

And yet, it appears only Palestinians are blowing themselves up to kill Israelis. not the other way around.

Why would they when they have the IDF backing them?

Is that not one of the sections considered binding on all, regardless of whether or not they've signed?



Pull out of the parts they didnt want to keep, you mean.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

Israel has been signatory to the Geneva Conventions since 1951. Legally, much of what they do count as war crimes.

Think I'm done. But to bring it around on topic, the same argument can apply here.

As I said before, the people of Lebanon made their choices, and risked an attack by Israel. Right or wrong, good or bad. The decision was made. Now we deal with the concequences.
Wrong.

less than 1 in 5 people in lebanon made a choice, and now you're punishing everyone, including those who voted against Hezbollah (and hence did all they legally could). So what's your justification for punishing them, that is the ones who voted against Hezbollah?

Wrong.

less than 1 in 5 people in lebanon made a choice, and now you're punishing everyone, including those who voted against Hezbollah (and hence did all they legally could). So what's your justification for punishing them, that is the ones who voted against Hezbollah?

The government of Lebanon had the obligation to protect its people. In refusing to force Hezbollah to disarm and by allowing them to occupy space in the city, they failed that obligation.

The government of Lebanon had the obligation to protect its people. In refusing to force Hezbollah to disarm and by allowing them to occupy space in the city, they failed that obligation.
And what makes you think that the government of Lebanon actually has the ability to forcibly disarm Hezbollah?

And what makes you think that the government of Lebanon actually has the ability to forcibly disarm Hezbollah?

If they did that then there would be another civil war.

And what makes you think that the government of Lebanon actually has the ability to forcibly disarm Hezbollah?

Well I guess they're damned if they do damned if they don't then huh?

How's that Israel's problem?

I would have thought Israel would be more careful than any other country not to commit horrendous war crimes. Go figure.

I would have thought Israel would be more careful than any other country not to commit horrendous war crimes. Go figure.

Hezbollah put their offices in downtown beirut. They were the ones who put civilians at risk, not Israel.

Israel merely has to deal with the reality of that.

As for "horrendous war crimes" nonsense, in war targets get hit. Military targets sure, but strategic ones as well. We bombed the HELL out of Berlin in WW2, civilians died. Was that a war crime? If so how come nobody has been tried on it?

I have seen no indication that Israel has tortured anyone, brutalized anyone, or targetted civilians just for the hell of targettng civilians. But in times of war, infrastructure gets hit, civilians die.

Don't want that to happen? Don't engage in warfare. Especially not one with far superior capabilities.

And what makes you think that the government of Lebanon actually has the ability to forcibly disarm Hezbollah?

If it's men with guns that they need, there's an awful lot of them suprisingly close by who'd only be too happy to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. The I.D.F. Of course instead of co-operating and helping civilzation capture and remove these f**king nutso terrorists they get stroppy.

Well I guess they're damned if they do damned if they don't then huh?

How's that Israel's problem?
So basically you're saying that the reason that lebanese civilians deaths are acceptable is because they're lebanese?.


Quote:
Originally Posted by United Time Lords
I would have thought Israel would be more careful than any other country not to commit horrendous war crimes. Go figure.

Hezbollah put their offices in downtown beirut. They were the ones who put civilians at risk, not Israel.

Israel merely has to deal with the reality of that.
Ah, so if Hezbollah moved it's offices to Washington (in a secret place, just openly declared they were in Washington) then any country would be within its rights to bomb Washington?

Hezbollah put their offices in downtown beirut. They were the ones who put civilians at risk, not Israel.

Israel merely has to deal with the reality of that.

As for "horrendous war crimes" nonsense, in war targets get hit. Military targets sure, but strategic ones as well. We bombed the HELL out of Berlin in WW2, civilians died. Was that a war crime? If so how come nobody has been tried on it?

I have seen no indication that Israel has tortured anyone, brutalized anyone, or targetted civilians just for the hell of targettng civilians. But in times of war, infrastructure gets hit, civilians die.

Don't want that to happen? Don't engage in warfare. Especially not one with far superior capabilities.

Bombing of cities became a war crime in 1949. Kindly get your facts right before spouting utter bullshit.

So basically you're saying that the reason that lebanese civilians deaths are acceptable is because they're lebanese?.

Nope, I'm saying it's acceptable because their government put them at that risk, so the fault lies squarly with the government. Not Israel


Ah, so if Hezbollah moved it's offices to Washington (in a secret place, just openly declared they were in Washington) then any country would be within its rights to bomb Washington?

Would washington invite them with open arms, allow them to use the space freely, and allow them to participate in the political process?

No wait, that's stupid.

Nope, I'm saying it's acceptable because their government put them at that risk, so the fault lies squarly with the government. Not Israel

Hezbollah =/= Lebanese government. Some members have been elected there, but they are not the government. Not to mention Israel is the one actually bombing TV stations and the like.



Would washington invite them with open arms, allow them to use the space freely, and allow them to participate in the political process?

No wait, that's stupid.
Well, they don't seem hugely bothered about Sinn Fein. And if they did not have the strength to get rid of them they well might. Plus I'd like a tad of evidence for this "open arms" bit.

Bombing of cities became a war crime in 1949. Kindly get your facts right before spouting utter bullshit.

Again, at Nuremberg, the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity which included killings of the civilian population and the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages and devastation not justified by military necessity.

They put the central officers of Hezbollah in the city. They made it a target of necessity.

Now, do try to get YOUR facts straight.

Hezbollah =/= Lebanese government. Some members have been elected there, but they are not the government. Not to mention Israel is the one actually bombing TV stations and the like.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But when Hezbollah lives side by side with the rest of Lebanon, seperating them becomes a matter of impossibility.



Plus I'd like a tad of evidence for this "open arms" bit.

Well if Israel knew EXACTLY where the office was, I suspect so did the Lebanese government.

Again, at Nuremberg, the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity which included killings of the civilian population and the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages and devastation not justified by military necessity.

They put the central officers of Hezbollah in the city. They made it a target of necessity.

Now, do try to get YOUR facts straight.

The nazis lost. Their problem. I know these laws, I've got them right in front of me.

Why hasn't the UN stepped in? That's a crapload of condemnations.


Omg this is like the League of nations when Italy tried to invade Abbysinia *gets popcorn* :sniper: :eek:

Well, they don't seem hugely bothered about Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein has its central offices in Washington? They conduct terrorist activites out of washington? Really?

news to me, here I thought they were Irish.

The nazis lost. Their problem. I know these laws, I've got them right in front of me.

Yes, yes they did. And if you had the laws you would know that it is NOT a war crime to bomb cities.

It is a war crime to bomb cities without military justification.

Now...where were the headquarters of Hezbollah again? Downtown Beirut maybe?

Again, at Nuremberg, the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity which included killings of the civilian population and the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages and devastation not justified by military necessity.

They put the central officers of Hezbollah in the city. They made it a target of necessity.

Now, do try to get YOUR facts straight.

Psst....

He don't know international law as well as he thinks he does.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But when Hezbollah lives side by side with the rest of Lebanon, seperating them becomes a matter of impossibility.
Why not just kill every lebanese, it's the only way to make sure you've got them all.



Well if Israel knew EXACTLY where the office was, I suspect so did the Lebanese government.
Quite possibly yes, the point being that they couldn't do anything about it, partially because Hezbollah were too strong, and partly because it could quite easily kick off a civil war.


Sinn Fein has its central offices in Washington? They conduct terrorist activites out of washington? Really?

news to me, here I thought they were Irish.
They are, but they were funded for many years from America, did the US government even try and do anything about the people funding them? I'll give you three guesses...

Psst....

He don't know international law as well as he thinks he does.

Rich coming from someone who thinks international law is a mysterious being that justifies random attacks.

Yes, yes they did. And if you had the laws you would know that it is NOT a war crime to bomb cities.

It is a war crime to bomb cities without military justification.

Now...where were the headquarters of Hezbollah again? Downtown Beirut maybe?
So why did they bomb a lot of places that weren't downtown beirut, and weren't hezbollah's headquarters?

Why not just kill every lebanese, it's the only way to make sure you've got them all.

Well that's stupid. But then again, having a group that claims to 'care about the people of Lebanon" but then instead of taking on their enemy head on, but instead hides in heavily populated areas thus ENSURING civilian casualities seems pretty stupid too.

The death of civilians is tragic, and can be blamed fully on one group. Hezbollah.

Quite possibly yes, the point being that they couldn't do anything about it, partially because Hezbollah were too strong, and partly because it could quite easily kick off a civil war.


Sucks to be them then doesn't it? Does any of that change the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? No? Didn't think so.

So why did they bomb a lot of places that weren't downtown beirut, and weren't hezbollah's headquarters?

Well those would be non city targets and thus beyond the discussion of "wanton destruction of cities being a war crime" now isn't it?

Hitting non city targets isn't a war crime, nor is hitting cities out of military necessity.

Hitting the headquarters of a civilian adminsitrative group is very illegal.

Well that's stupid. But then again, having a group that claims to 'care about the people of Lebanon" but then instead of taking on their enemy head on, but instead hides in heavily populated areas thus ENSURING civilian casualities seems pretty stupid too.

The death of civilians is tragic, and can be blamed fully on one group. Hezbollah.
No. Israel chose not to use special forces and be fully accurate, they chose to bomb a lot of areas they knew were not Hezbollah's base, they should take full blame for that action.


Sucks to be them then doesn't it? Does any of that change the fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization? No? Didn't think so.
In other words, "if you're lebanese then your death is acceptable to me because of how less than 1 in 5 of you think". You're seriously advocating that?

Hitting the headquarters of a civilian adminsitrative group is very illegal.

Not if its the HQ of a terror organization that has declared open war against Israel.

Not if its the HQ of a terror organization that has declared open war against Israel.

Would Britain have been justified in launching missiles into Dublin if it meant killing off a bunch of Sinn Feinners?

Well those would be non city targets and thus beyond the discussion of "wanton destruction of cities being a war crime" now isn't it?

Hitting non city targets isn't a war crime, nor is hitting cities out of military necessity.
you can't say "there is one legitimate target in this city, therefore we're allowed to bomb any bit of it we like". TV stations/civillian airports/etc are not legitimate targets.

Would Britain have been justified in launching missiles into Dublin if it meant killing off a bunch of Sinn Feinners?

So the trick is to setup up your works next to the civilians so your enemy can never attack you?

No. Israel chose not to use special forces and be fully accurate, they chose to bomb a lot of areas they knew were not Hezbollah's base, they should take full blame for that action.



Why would Israel willingly chose to put their troops at greater risk? Seems kinda stupid. And show me where a civilian target not connected in some way to Hezbollah activities has been blown up, please?

In other words, "if you're lebanese then your death is acceptable to me because of how less than 1 in 5 of you think". You're seriously advocating that?

Absolutly not. I am saying that regardless of the situation of Lebanon, regarldess of what good Hezbollah has done, Hezbollah is still a terrorist organization. They still conducted attacks on Israel, and thus as terrorists, they deserve to die.

The fact that innocent Lebanese get caught in the crossfire is the fault of Hezbollah for waging a war against Israel and hiding in civilian areas.

So the trick is to setup up your works next to the civilians so your enemy can never attack you?

Israel could have used methods other than firing explosives into iareas full of innocents. A lost innocent life is never justified.

you can't say "there is one legitimate target in this city, therefore we're allowed to bomb any bit of it we like". TV stations/civillian airports/etc are not legitimate targets.

Radio stations actually, which were used by Hezbollah.

Airports...used by Hezbollah.

Bridges...well...you get the idea.

Israel could have used methods other than firing explosives into iareas full of innocents. A lost innocent life is never justified.

Loss of innocent life is tragic, and the fault for that lies with those who put them in the lines of fire.

hezbollah.

Radio stations actually, which were used by Hezbollah.

Airports...used by Hezbollah.

Bridges...well...you get the idea.

That's reckless destruction of infrastructure vital to the livelihoods of more than just Hezbollah. Israel is applying indiscriminate punishment.

The loss of innocent life is the fault of the bastard who aims the weapon and pulls the fucking trigger. To say otherwise is complete bullcrap.

Israel could have used methods other than firing explosives into iareas full of innocents. A lost innocent life is never justified.

Not in Beirut, they're all guilty for being commited to a terrorist party, therefore must die. Their motto is even "Death to America". I think we should just genocide them all and let israel have the middle east. I don't really care anymore if innocent people die, I just want this fucking war to be over. It's hard to strike fear into people who think they are fear. They will fight til they die and they will die. Women, men, and children, die because they commit themselves to a terrorist society, there death is of their own fault.

That's reckless destruction of infrastructure vital to the livelihoods of more than just Hezbollah. Israel is applying indiscriminate punishment.

The loss of innocent life is the fault of the bastard who aims the weapon and pulls the fucking trigger. To say otherwise is complete bullcrap.

Hush down, your logic has no place here.

London heathrow airport has been used by terrorists to travel before. I'm travelling from there soon. So if someone drops a bomb on it and gets me it was all justified because some terrorist might be using it at the same time. That'll go down well with my parents I'm sure...

That's reckless destruction of infrastructure vital to the livelihoods of more than just Hezbollah. Israel is applying indiscriminate punishment.

The loss of innocent life is the fault of the bastard who aims the weapon and pulls the fucking trigger. To say otherwise is complete bullcrap.

Why care about an "innocent life" when this "innocent life" doesn't care about yours. You pussy fool, stop trying to fuck, when you don't even have a dick.

Hush down, your logic has no place here.

London heathrow airport has been used by terrorists to travel before. I'm travelling from there soon. So if someone drops a bomb on it and gets me it was all justified because some terrorist might be using it at the same time. That'll go down well with my parents I'm sure...

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person, but that made no sense when applied to what I said.

EDIT: I'm just going to go ahead and ignore Bul-Katho, hmkay?

That's reckless destruction of infrastructure vital to the livelihoods of more than just Hezbollah. Israel is applying indiscriminate punishment.

The loss of innocent life is the fault of the bastard who aims the weapon and pulls the fucking trigger. To say otherwise is complete bullcrap.

Who's more the coward? Who's more at fault? the bastard who fires the weapon, or the bastard that attacked him then hid among civilians?

Hezbollah waged a war against israel, launched rockets across the border into villiages, then ran to the city and cried foul when Israel did it back to them.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person, but that made no sense when applied to what I said.

I was being sarcastic referencing your post in the first sentence then started ranting on my own in the second.

That entire region is simply full of murderous bastards. Israelis are stupid, ignorant troglodytes that like to blow shit up. Hamas, Hezbollah, etcetera, are vengeful, hyperactive cowards that like to blow shit up.

Instead of breaking Hezbollah, Israel is only strengthening their enemies by feeding them propaganda material. Thus far the people that where bombed in Lebanon where not affiliated with Hezbollah yet they pay the price. I'm especially angry with the cruel taunting from Israel. They spread flyers telling Beirutians to flee their city. Then they proceed to blockade the coast, destroy the airfield and bomb the highways. Now I ask you: where are these people expected to go now? Worse yet, the people affected usually can't afford to move. They might not have cars, or might as well be dead if they left their houses.

I would have felt bad for Israel if they hadn't done anything to warrant the kidnapping of their soldiers and attacks on their towns. Sadly these soldiers are employed to raze Palestinian villages and there are plenty of Israeli towns that where build illegitimately. The thing that makes the Israelis no better than their arab enemies is that I'd expected better from them after twelve years of similar horror under Hitler.

London heathrow airport has been used by terrorists to travel before. I'm travelling from there soon. So if someone drops a bomb on it and gets me it was all justified because some terrorist might be using it at the same time. That'll go down well with my parents I'm sure...

Has London been harboring terrorists? Has london been permitting those terrorists to operate in that airport without restriction? Did London parade those terrorists down the street hailing them as heroes?

No? Then your analogy is bullshit.

Who's more the coward? Who's more at fault? the bastard who fires the weapon, or the bastard that attacked him then hid among civilians?

Hezbollah waged a war against israel, launched rockets across the border into villiages, then ran to the city and cried foul when Israel did it back to them.

The only reason Israel doesn't use such tactics is because they're in a position to just screw over the entire middle-east.

Who's more the coward? Who's more at fault? the bastard who fires the weapon, or the bastard that attacked him then hid among civilians?

Hezbollah waged a war against israel, launched rockets across the border into villiages, then ran to the city and cried foul when Israel did it back to them.

Hezbollas rockets kill less people than car crashes. Israel has nailed at least 50 civilians in the last DAY and that's just the ones I know about. I've not been paying close attention either...

Hezbollas rockets kill less people than car crashes. Israel has nailed at least 50 civilians in the last DAY and that's just the ones I know about. I've not been paying close attention either...

So your justification for allowing Hezbollah to attack civilian targets but not Israel is that Hezbollah is not as good at it?

Here I thought people were saying even one death was deplorable. Funny, guess not. We'll just have to tell Hezbollah to keep their killings under 50 people a day and they can lob all the rockets they want.

Has London been harboring terrorists? Has london been permitting those terrorists to operate in that airport without restriction? Did London parade those terrorists down the street hailing them as heroes?

No? Then your analogy is bullshit.
Ok, Dublin airport then.

Has London been harboring terrorists? Has london been permitting those terrorists to operate in that airport without restriction? Did London parade those terrorists down the street hailing them as heroes?

No? Then your analogy is bullshit.

London was home to terrorists. The only reason terrorists are ristricted to any extent is because we have the power to try and stop them (Which Lebanon does not). I also didn't notice the Lebanese government hailing Hezbollah as heroes. Maybe the 23 Hezbolla MPs do but the rest almost certainly don't.

London was home to terrorists. The only reason terrorists are ristricted to any extent is because we have the power to try and stop them (Which Lebanon does not). I also didn't notice the Lebanese government hailing Hezbollah as heroes. Maybe the 23 Hezbolla MPs do but the rest almost certainly don't.


Hezbollah's role in the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon gained the organization much respect in Lebanon and the wider Arab and Islamic world, particularly among the country's large Shi'a community. The Shi'a are the single largest religious group in Lebanon, probably comprising at least 48% of the three million citizens (see Demographics of Lebanon). The President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud, said: "For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550000.shtml

And if Lebanon cared at all about gettng rid of Hezbollah, I'm quite sure the IDF would have been more than happy to do it for them, had Lebanon allowed it.

Would Britain have been justified in launching missiles into Dublin if it meant killing off a bunch of Sinn Feinners?

If they target Sinn Fein's HQ then they can knock themselves out. If they indiscrimently bombed them then no.

Israel isn't doing indiscriminate bombing but attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure. All perfectly legal. You cannot prevent collateral damage.

If they target Sinn Fein's HQ then they can knock themselves out. If they indiscrimently bombed them then no.

Israel isn't doing indiscriminate bombing but attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure. All perfectly legal. You cannot prevent collateral damage.

They're blowing up infrastructure that's vital to thenormal runnig of the city. That's just not on.

you can't say "there is one legitimate target in this city, therefore we're allowed to bomb any bit of it we like". TV stations/civillian airports/etc are not legitimate targets.

If those targets are used to gain a military advantage by the enemy then they most assuredly become a military target.

They're blowing up infrastructure that's vital to thenormal runnig of the city. That's just not on.

It is infrastructure vital to the operation of Hezbollah. And if hezbollah gave a damn about the people of Lebanon then they'd stand up and finish the war they started and not fire a few rockets then flee to civilian areas when Israel comes gunning for them.

If they target Sinn Fein's HQ then they can knock themselves out. If they indiscrimently bombed them then no.

Israel isn't doing indiscriminate bombing but attacking Hezbollah's infrastructure. All perfectly legal. You cannot prevent collateral damage.
Roads are Hezbollah's infrastructure? A civillian airport is Hezbollah's infrastructure? Basically you're saying that because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, any infrastructure at all in Lebanon is legitimate?

If those targets are used to gain a military advantage by the enemy then they most assuredly become a military target.
Right. And how did they gain military advantage from said airport, TV stations etc?

It is infrastructure vital to the operation of Hezbollah. And if hezbollah gave a damn about the people of Lebanon then they'd stand up and finish the war they started and not fire a few rockets then flee to civilian areas when Israel comes gunning for them.

Hezbollah is being smart. They know an all-out infantry charge is hardly going to do them any good, so they fight how they can. It'd be retarded to fight on the Israeli's terms.

That's reckless destruction of infrastructure vital to the livelihoods of more than just Hezbollah. Israel is applying indiscriminate punishment.

Sorry but when you are in a war, you take out logical military targets that have been used by your enemies. In this case, bridges become a target as does the airport for that is where their rockets are unloaded at.

Tthe loss of innocent life is the fault of the bastard who aims the weapon and pulls the fucking trigger. To say otherwise is complete bullcrap.

In that case then, who do you blame for the loss of Israeli civilians throughout Israel during the suicide bombing campaign?

Sorry but when you are in a war, you take out logical military targets that have been used by your enemies. In this case, bridges become a target as does the airport for that is where their rockets are unloaded at.

T

In that case then, who do you blame for the loss of Israeli civilians throughout Israel during the suicide bombing campaign?

I blame the bombers, sherlock.

Who's more the coward? Who's more at fault? the bastard who fires the weapon, or the bastard that attacked him then hid among civilians?

The cowards that hide behind civilians. The cowards who don't have the decency for a real stand up fight. The cowards that kill innocent civilians because of religion. Those are the ones who are the bigger cowards and who are more at fault.

Hezbollah waged a war against israel, launched rockets across the border into villiages, then ran to the city and cried foul when Israel did it back to them.

Exactly.

They're blowing up infrastructure that's vital to thenormal runnig of the city. That's just not on.

Well then...maybe they should have thought of that before allowing Hezbollah free reign in Southern Lebanon. ironiclly that is where the airport is located. Sorry but you sir really need to learn more about International Law before engaging in a debate about international law.

Roads are Hezbollah's infrastructure?

yes.

A civillian airport is Hezbollah's infrastructure?

Yep.

Basically you're saying that because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, any infrastructure at all in Lebanon is legitimate?

Nope. Just those used by Hezbollah.

Well then...maybe they should have thought of that before allowing Hezbollah free reign in Southern Lebanon. ironiclly that is where the airport is located. Sorry but you sir really need to learn more about International Law before engaging in a debate about international law.
+1

it's a good idea to plan ahead if ur going to give anyone free reign especially if they are and extreamist group w/guns

Well then...maybe they should have thought of that before allowing Hezbollah free reign in Southern Lebanon. ironiclly that is where the airport is located. Sorry but you sir really need to learn more about International Law before engaging in a debate about international law.

No, no its not. The airport is in Beirut, which is North.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41889000/gif/_41889502_leb_is_gaz_map629b.gif

Right. And how did they gain military advantage from said airport, TV stations etc?

Airports can be used to launch unmanned drones, they have navigation and radar equipment for monitoring the movement of Israeli aircraft, they have huge stockpiles of fuel, tools, parts and supplies, have plenty of open space for launching rockets and often have utilities independent of the city infrastructure. That means an airport can remain fairly self sufficient even if the power is out or the water is cut in the city proper.

TV stations are communications hubs with Internet access, computers, radio, cellphones, and land phones. They might even have a system that works even in a communications blackout making them invaluable if the phone lines are cut or the power goes down.

Well then...maybe they should have thought of that before allowing Hezbollah free reign in Southern Lebanon. ironiclly that is where the airport is located. Sorry but you sir really need to learn more about International Law before engaging in a debate about international law.

They didn't 'allow' it, they just can't stop it! Lebanon is only newly free, and has an army consisting of six peasants with muskets.

Airports can be used to launch unmanned drones, they have navigation and radar equipment for monitoring the movement of Israeli aircraft, they have huge stockpiles of fuel, tools, parts and supplies, have plenty of open space for launching rockets and often have utilities independent of the city infrastructure. That means an airport can remain fairly self sufficient even if the power is out or the water is cut in the city proper.

TV stations are communications hubs with Internet access, computers, radio, cellphones, and land phones. They might even have a system that works even in a communications blackout making them invaluable if the phone lines are cut or the power goes down.

Lord knows hezbollah is just rife with UAV's.

They didn't 'allow' it, they just can't stop it! Lebanon is only newly free, and has an army consisting of six peasants with muskets.
all they had to do is ask their neighbors isreal to do and they would have been more than happy to help. besides that doesnt syria still have pull in lebanon

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.



hell man it seems that if someone in the middle east snizzes the wrong way gas goes up by 3-5 dollars.

Lord knows hezbollah is just rife with UAV's.
me thinks that they have a more suffisticated/well funded military supplying them with goodies


btw gas ended up closing at like 78.xx

Lord knows hezbollah is just rife with UAV's.
Wellllll, they did disable an IDF naval ship with a drone ladened with explosives.....

Its limping back to Haifa tonight. Apparently 4 IDF sailors are MIA.

Lord knows hezbollah is just rife with UAV's.

Actually, they just hit an Israeli warship with a Hezballah-designed UAV and it caused at least 3 casualties along with a serious fire on the ship. It's pretty likely that they have more of them and will launch them if they can.

Hezbollah is being smart. They know an all-out infantry charge is hardly going to do them any good, so they fight how they can. It'd be retarded to fight on the Israeli's terms.

Yup, smart move by hiding among civilians. One would think if Hezbollah really cared about the Lebanese people they wouldn't instigate attacks against a nation that could destroy them, and if they did, they wouldn't hide among civilians.

hell man it seems that if someone in the middle east snizzes the wrong way gas goes up by 3-5 dollars.

Well, that's what happens when the Middle East produces some 28% of the world's oil; a slight disruption there can wreak havoc on the world market. For example, the sudden 4% dip in world oil production following the Iranian revolution caused oil prices to soar by 167% in 1979; that's like oil spiking from $76.80 today to $205.06 by December.

At the pump, that would be about $7.37/gallon.

Right. And how did they gain military advantage from said airport, TV stations etc?

What warped version of warfare do you believe in where supply and communication lines are NOT strategic assets?

They didn't 'allow' it, they just can't stop it! Lebanon is only newly free, and has an army consisting of six peasants with muskets.

Finally someone who get's more than the whole picture here. Lebanon is helpless to stop Hezbollah; a well funded terrorist organization with large amounts of money and weapons. These people want Hezbollah out of their nation, however now with the Isreali strikes that attitude is changed ever so slightly. On top of that the rest of the world is now stuck watching to see how this turns out. Western democracies want Lebanon's fragile democracy to be stable, yet some support Israel's right to defend itself.

My question is how long will everyone sit on the sidelines for? This was a situation that was just waiting to explode and it finally has. Unfortunately it now seems less and less likely that a quick end is in sight. Peace is no longer an option, because the guns have been lifted. Years of hard work in the middle east have now gone down the drain.

I don't support either Israel or Hezbollah, in my opinion both are in the wrong here.

Finally someone who get's more than the whole picture here. Lebanon is helpless to stop Hezbollah; a well funded terrorist organization with large amounts of money and weapons. These people want Hezbollah out of their nation, however now with the Isreali strikes that attitude is changed ever so slightly. On top of that the rest of the world is now stuck watching to see how this turns out. Western democracies want Lebanon's fragile democracy to be stable, yet some support Israel's right to defend itself.



"the Nation of Lebanon formally renounces the militant actions of Hezbollah, and hereby authorizes and allows the IDF to conduct anti-Hezbollah military actions within our borders."

They didn't have to do a thing. As I said, IDF would have been MORE than happy to go into Lebanon and take out Hezbollah with their permission.

if they TRULY wanted Hezbollah "out of their nation" they could have done it long ago. They liked them there. They supported them. Now they suffer the concequences of that.

Radio stations actually, which were used by Hezbollah.

Airports...used by Hezbollah.

Bridges...well...
The bridges are to prevent the almost expected Syrian Counterattack.

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.
80$ A BARREL OIL? THANKS, HAMAS! :p

Roads are Hezbollah's infrastructure? A civillian airport is Hezbollah's infrastructure? Basically you're saying that because Hezbollah is in Lebanon, any infrastructure at all in Lebanon is legitimate?

Roads are often used by the miltary to transport supplies, if there was a war in the US would Interstate chokepoints be valid targets? would LAX be a valid target for an invading army? If it was Europe Would the 'Chunnel' be a valid target? All signs point to yes.

Anything that prevent an enemy from
A) Retreating the area
B) Gaining Supplies
c) Gaining Reinforcements
d) Redeploying Troops
or
D) Mantaining Communications (The power plants fuel tanks have been blown up by Israel, the Radio stations and TV stations also.)

all they had to do is ask their neighbors isreal to do and they would have been more than happy to help. besides that doesnt syria still have pull in lebanon

Syria still owns Lebanon as far as I'm concerned, I suspect its nothing more than a Syrian Puppet Government, you saw how long they stalled moving the Syrian troops out of Lebanon.

The israelis chose to elect warmongers, suicide bombings and other terrorism is the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

The americans chose to elect warmongers, 9/11 was the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

Your line of reasoning doesnt seem to apply very well.


Haha! Thats funny. That makes the person Osama blamed for 911 a warmonger, I have never heard anyone ever say President Clinton was a warmonger that is funny.

Oh and last I check we get more oil from the gulf of Mexico and Russia than OPEC. The Gulf and Russia produce almost double that of all of OPEC.

Hezbollah put their offices in downtown beirut. They were the ones who put civilians at risk, not Israel.

Israel merely has to deal with the reality of that..

...by saying 'fuck them' and bombing anyway.

As for "horrendous war crimes" nonsense, in war targets get hit. Military targets sure, but strategic ones as well. We bombed the HELL out of Berlin in WW2, civilians died. Was that a war crime? If so how come nobody has been tried on it?..

Two soldiers vs the Nazis= not comparable.

I have seen no indication that Israel has tortured anyone, brutalized anyone, or targetted civilians just for the hell of targettng civilians. But in times of war, infrastructure gets hit, civilians die..

Then I suggest that you haven't been looking. They torture, target civillians and have brutalised the Palestinians for nearly 4 decades.

They put the central officers of Hezbollah in the city. They made it a target of necessity...

They have killed over 50 civillians in strikes unrelated to that office.


Airports...used by Hezbollah.

Bridges...well...you get the idea....

Yes - if Israel blows it up, it was right to do so. I want you obeying my commands in my holllowed out volcano. Do me up a CV when you get a chance.

The cowards that hide behind civilians. The cowards who don't have the decency for a real stand up fight. The cowards that kill innocent civilians because of religion. Those are the ones who are the bigger cowards and who are more at fault.....

Hezbollah and the Palestinians attack military targets. Israel attacks infrastructure and roads, bridges etc, killing over 70 civillians in Lebanon in a "look how tough I am" act of TERRORISM in order to make them hand over the prisoners. "Bigger cowards" indeed.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians attack military targets. Israel attacks infrastructure and roads, bridges etc, killing over 70 civillians in Lebanon in a "look how tough I am" act of TERRORISM in order to make them hand over the prisoners. "Bigger cowards" indeed.
Then how come those rockets seem to hit civilians???

Care to explain?
Wait you can't, they attack anything and everything in Israel, so why should Israel do any different. (Though this is going way too far.)

Hezbollah and the Palestinians attack military targets. Israel attacks infrastructure and roads, bridges etc, killing over 70 civillians in Lebanon in a "look how tough I am" act of TERRORISM in order to make them hand over the prisoners. "Bigger cowards" indeed.

You really need to come out and see the sunshine once in a while. Why is that Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah blow themselves up in shopping malls, coffee shops, school buses whereas Israel has hit military bases and infrastructure that is used by the terrorists?

The oil price has been going up due to several reasons and not just Israel. Oil companies will raise the price of oil at a drop of hat.

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.
Thanks for that. A good long hearty laugh does everyone a world of good, and I found that particularly refreshing.

It's not harming stability. Its harming Lebanese terrorists and there's nothing wrong with that.

Apparently everyone who lives in Lebanon is a terrorist.

Pwned...

Then how come those rockets seem to hit civilians???

Care to explain?
Wait you can't, they attack anything and everything in Israel, so why should Israel do any different. (Though this is going way too far.)

I was referring to the two operations which led to the current rampage. They targeted military, Israel hit back and started killing civillians, as per usual.

You really need to come out and see the sunshine once in a while. Why is that Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah blow themselves up in shopping malls, coffee shops, school buses whereas Israel has hit military bases and infrastructure that is used by the terrorists?.)

Yet here they didn't, and the reprisals have lead to at least 70 civillian dead so far. And why is it Israel kills more civillians trying not to hit terrorists than indiscriminate public bombings?

And as I asked before, when did they actually target a school bus? As I'm not in denial I can imagine some would, but I don't recall it happening.

Yet here they didn't, and the reprisals have lead to at least 70 civillian dead so far. And why is it Israel kills more civillians trying not to hit terrorists than indiscriminate public bombings?

And yet it was an attack from one soveriegn nation (lebanon) across the border into Israel. They invaded Israel and captured those 2 soldiers. I do not know what rule book you are using but in most civilized nations, that is an act of war. Also, those "public bombings" targeted infrastructure used by the terrorists in their attacks against Israel.

As I told CH, welcome to war. Get over it.

And as I asked before, when did they actually target a school bus? As I'm not in denial I can imagine some would, but I don't recall it happening.

You don't recall bus bombings? You don't recall shopping mall attacks? You don't recall restraunt attacks?

Hezbollah and the Palestinians attack military targets.


....what?

During 2002, 2003 and 2004, the Israeli Security Forces thwarted numerous suicide bombing attacks, some of which Israel claims were planned and funded by Hezbollah

On June 16, 2004, two Palestinian girls — aged 14 and 15 — were arrested by the Israeli Defense Forces for plotting a suicide bombing. According to an IDF statement, the two minors were recruited by Tanzim activists. On June 23, 2004, another allegedly Hezbollah-funded suicide bombing attack was foiled by the Israeli security forces.

Hamas' first use of suicide bombing occurred on April 16, 1993 when a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden van detonated between two buses parked at a restaurant. It was Hamas' 19th known attack since 1989 (the others being shootings, kidnappings and knife attacks).

Hamas has used female suicide bombers, including a mother of six and a mother of two children under the age of 10. Hamas claims that all suicide bombers volunteer for what they term "martyrdom operations" however an anonymous Israeli military source claims that one of the women was forced to commit these acts under threat of what is termed an "honor killing".

Hamas shelled the Gush Katif Israeli settlements in Gaza with homemade mortars. About 5500 mortar shells have landed in Gush Katif, killing 3.

Since 2002, Hamas has used homemade Qassam rockets to hit Israeli towns in the Negev, such as Sderot. The introduction of the Qassam-2 rocket has allowed Hamas to reach large Israeli cities such as Ashkelon

In May 2006 Israel arrested Hamas top official Ibrahim Hamed who was responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis

This prediction follows a period of relative calm, although many explosives and suspected suicide bombers are reported to have been caught at Israeli security checkpoints

And this isn't even getting into some of the things the PLO has done. Do you really mean to say that Hamas and Hezbollah restrict themselves to military targets? are you that dense?

Is it just me or does it take 5 seconds for Hezbollah to turn in Hamas? It's like a fucking terrorist transformer or something.

And yet it was an attack from one soveriegn nation (lebanon) across the border into Israel. They invaded Israel and captured those 2 soldiers. I do not know what rule book you are using but in most civilized nations, that is an act of war. Also, those "public bombings" targeted infrastructure used by the terrorists in their attacks against Israel.

As I told CH, welcome to war. Get over it.
?

Actually it was Hezbollah, not the state of Lebanon. And again, 70 civillians when you're trying not to hit them?

Heres a deal -In posts from you to me and vice versa you never mention palestinians targeting civillians again, and I wont mention Israel doing it.


You don't recall bus bombings? You don't recall shopping mall attacks? You don't recall restraunt attacks?

I recall them indeed. Which why I'm asking about the "school bus". That I don't remember. I don't say the Palestinians are saints and I never deny the more bloody deeds they've done, but I don't remember a school bus.

And yet it was an attack from one soveriegn nation (lebanon) across the border into Israel. They invaded Israel and captured those 2 soldiers. I do not know what rule book you are using but in most civilized nations, that is an act of war. Also, those "public bombings" targeted infrastructure used by the terrorists in their attacks against Israel. War is between mainly between states, and no official Lebanese forces were involved in that. Oh, Lebanon is indeed required to root out Hezbullah under the resolutions the Israelis are quoting, which would be the basis for this attack. That doesn't make the accusation that all of Lebanon is responsible for Hezbullah any less ludicrous though. And it certainly doesn't justify the blockade Israel has initiated. Cutting off all supplies are going to cause the terrorists to get no bullets at the price of the civilians getting no food.

Is it just me or does it take 5 seconds for Hezbollah to turn in Hamas? It's like a fucking terrorist transformer or something.

These brown people are apparently 'all the same' and equally uncivllised. Its no wonder they must be governed strictly. Perhaps if the Israelis worth pith helmets the natives might respond better....


....what?.

I was referring to the two attacks which unleashed the current Israeli hissy fit.

Yet here they didn't, and the reprisals have lead to at least 70 civillian dead so far. And why is it Israel kills more civillians trying not to hit terrorists than indiscriminate public bombings?

1) Israel is better at it

2) Your enemy starts a war, first thing you do is go after their infrastructure. Civilians die in that. That's to be expected. Don't want your own civilians to die? Don't fuck with a far more powerful military and it won't happen.

And as I asked before, when did they actually target a school bus? As I'm not in denial I can imagine some would, but I don't recall it happening.

http://www.harpers.org/SuicideBombing.html


Terrorists bombed a school bus filled with children of Israeli settlers; two adults were killed and several children were dismembered.

A Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a bus in Haifa, Israel, killing 15 people, including young children on their way home from school

A Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a bus in Jerusalem, killing 8 people, including two high school seniors (not a school bus, just a bus with school children on it)

There, that's 3 examples I found in about 30 seconds....

Actually it was Hezbollah, not the state of Lebanon. And again, 70 civillians when you're trying not to hit them?

Collateral damage. It doesn't matter wether it was Hezbollah or the state itself. Lebanon failed to follow through on their obligation to disarm Hezbollah when told to do so by the UNSC. Also, Hezbollah is part of the political structure of Lebanon. Any of this sound familiar? Hezbollah invaded Israel from Lebanon. That is an act of war.

Heres a deal -In posts from you to me and vice versa you never mention palestinians targeting civillians again, and I wont mention Israel doing it.

At least Israel doesn't do it intentionally whereas Hezbollah, Alqsa Martyers Brigade, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have.

I recall them indeed. Which why I'm asking about the "school bus". That I don't remember. I don't say the Palestinians are saints and I never deny the more bloody deeds they've done, but I don't remember a school bus.
You do know that many of their buses transport kids to school as well as adults to work and tourists around town right?

the current Israeli hissy fit.

You mean crossing the boarder and kidnapping two uniformed soldiers?

Yeah, seems like an act of war to me. And in war, infrastructure gets blown up, airports get bombed, and civilians die. Don't want that to happen? Don't fuck with a superior military.

There, that's 3 examples I found in about 30 seconds....

So there was a school bus then. At least thats clear.


1) Israel is better at it....

Killing civillians or children? Actually it tends to lead the field in both. Which is odd, because I keep getting told they don't. Or do, but don't meant to. Thats sweet - its ok because they didnt meant it really...

You mean crossing the boarder and kidnapping two uniformed soldiers?

Yeah, seems like an act of war to me. And in war, infrastructure gets blown up, airports get bombed, and civilians die. Don't want that to happen? Don't fuck with a superior military.

Bit hard not to be a "superior military" in the circumstances...a first world army occupying a bunch of what are essentially shopkeepers and farmers with aks.........

And yes, do fuck with a superior military. Resisting occupation is the right thing to do. Its legitamate armed resistance.

Collateral damage. It doesn't matter wether it was Hezbollah or the state itself. Lebanon failed to follow through on their obligation to disarm Hezbollah when told to do so by the UNSC. Also, Hezbollah is part of the political structure of Lebanon. Any of this sound familiar? Hezbollah invaded Israel from Lebanon. That is an act of war. Yes, under international law, Israel has the right to end any hopes of peace in the Middle East.

At least Israel doesn't do it intentionally whereas Hezbollah, Alqsa Martyers Brigade, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have.

Its Europeans vs unruly natives. Shoot a few of the blighters and teach them a lesson. They know full well they cause casualties.

Bit hard not to be a "superior military" in the circumstances...a first world army occupying a bunch of what are essentially shopkeepers and farmers with aks.........

And yes, do fuck with a superior military. Resisting occupation is the right thing to do. Its legitamate armed resistance.

I didn't know southern lebanon was occupied. I thought they pulled out years ago. I didn't know Gaza was still occupied. They pulled out and Hamas started in from Gaza after Israel pulled out. What is Hezbollah fighting Israel for when Israel was not in Lebanon/

Yes, under international law, Israel has the right to end any hopes of peace in the Middle East.

Funny. Israel wants peace. Its the terrorists that don't.

You mean crossing the boarder and kidnapping two uniformed soldiers?

Yeah, seems like an act of war to me. And in war, infrastructure gets blown up, airports get bombed, and civilians die. Don't want that to happen? Don't fuck with a superior military.

An attack by an non-governmental organisation merits attacking the government of the nation they operated out of on this occasion. Is that correct?

Right. So next time the IRA throw a hissy fit if I can trace some of their members or funding back to the US I'm allowed to blow up large slabs of New York?

Just checking here.

Because it's what you're saying.

I didn't know southern lebanon was occupied. I thought they pulled out years ago. I didn't know Gaza was still occupied. They pulled out and Hamas started in from Gaza after Israel pulled out. What is Hezbollah fighting Israel for when Israel was not in Lebanon/

They havent withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they're still in the Shaba farms area. Plus they still have prisoners from Hezbollah.

And if 51 states of the US were occupied, and the occupier withdrew from 10 of them, do you then stop trying to get them out of the other 40?

Bit hard not to be a "superior military" in the circumstances...a first world army occupying a bunch of what are essentially shopkeepers and farmers with aks.........

And yes, do fuck with a superior military. Resisting occupation is the right thing to do. Its legitamate armed resistance.

When Israel was in Lebanon, I will admit, I sort of saw the purpose of Hezbollah. Now don't get me wrong, I found their methods deplorable, and their motivation often thinly veiled (if not veiled at all) anti semitism and anti zionism, BUT, it is true lebanon was occupied, and in my mind armed militant resistance to an occupied force is acceptable.

I think some of their actions went to far, but their goals, in that they sought a free homeland, were permissable. I was willing to accept the goals of Hezbollah, if not necessarily all their actions, because they were fighting an occupation, and fighting an occupation by grassroots underground militia is an acceptable way to do it.

The occupation...is over. It has been for years. Hezbollah hasn't disarmed. They haven't gone away, they haven't stopped their attacks on Israel. they now lay claim to an Israeli occupied area, no bigger than the city of Boston, that is universally agreed to be original property...of Syria.

When Lebanon was occupied, Hezbollah could have been seen as a legitimate anti occupation force, seeking a legitimate goal of the return of their homeland. The occupation is over, they won. Why are they STILL attacking? Now they're no longer legitimate anti occupation forces. Now they're just terrorists. They legitimate means are over, been over for years. Now they're terrorists.

Funny. Israel wants peace. Its the terrorists that don't.Sure has a funny way of trying to get it. Destabilizing the Lebanese government before it has the power to disarm Hamas and giving the next generation a war to remember why Israel should be hated will not lead to peace. Just because Israel has the right to do this doesn't mean that this is the best thing to do.

They havent withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they're still in the Shaba farms area. Plus they still have prisoners from Hezbollah.

And if 51 states of the US were occupied, and the occupier withdrew from 10 of them, do you then stop trying to get them out of the other 40?

Shaba farms area, roughly 64 square kilometers (a whooping 16ish square miles, smaller than the city of boston.), has been declared, by the UN, and other nations, to have been original property of Syria, not Lebanon

An attack by an non-governmental organisation merits attacking the government of the nation they operated out of on this occasion. Is that correct?

Right. So next time the IRA throw a hissy fit if I can trace some of their members or funding back to the US I'm allowed to blow up large slabs of New York?

Just checking here.

Because it's what you're saying.

Better yet, many of the NYC plotters were based in Berlin, were they not?

listen all.i was 17 when israel invaded(in the eighties) libanon,heck even friends of mine went there under an international force,,,
So if you whant peace,forget the holocaust,forget sabra and shatila.
Go beyond your own tabou.
It can take few days to kill millions,but years to speak wisely.
If david wants to fight goliath so be it...
But please,innocent people are diying.
And the price of oil is rising.
Some people should learn.
For 20$ a month,you will have a life insurrance.your familly will get 1500$ when you die...
That is the price of life in Irak...

When Israel was in Lebanon, I will admit, I sort of saw the purpose of Hezbollah. Now don't get me wrong, I found their methods deplorable, and their motivation often thinly veiled (if not veiled at all) anti semitism and anti zionism, BUT, it is true lebanon was occupied, and in my mind armed militant resistance to an occupied force is acceptable.

I think some of their actions went to far, but their goals, in that they sought a free homeland, were permissable. I was willing to accept the goals of Hezbollah, if not necessarily all their actions, because they were fighting an occupation, and fighting an occupation by grassroots underground militia is an acceptable way to do it.

The occupation...is over. It has been for years. Hezbollah hasn't disarmed. They haven't gone away, they haven't stopped their attacks on Israel. they now lay claim to an Israeli occupied area, no bigger than the city of Boston, that is universally agreed to be original property...of Syria.

When Lebanon was occupied, Hezbollah could have been seen as a legitimate anti occupation force, seeking a legitimate goal of the return of their homeland. The occupation is over, they won. Why are they STILL attacking? Now they're no longer legitimate anti occupation forces. Now they're just terrorists. They legitimate means are over, been over for years. Now they're terrorists.

I was referring to Palestinians. And that occupation hasnt ended. If the aim of Hezbollah is to aid the Palestinian struggle then good for them.

And in war, infrastructure gets blown up, airports get bombed, and civilians die. Don't want that to happen? Don't fuck with a superior military.

Agreed. Anyone else here remember the Six-Day War? SIX DAYS?! Come on, people. We actually have Israel to thank for Iran NOT having nukes! Back in the '90s (or was it '89? I'm not sure...), Israel took the only working nuclear reactor that Iran had. If it had been OUR soldiers, who had been kidnapped and dragged across the border by (for EXAMPLE) Mexico, you'd be all for invading Mexico to bring them back! (For the purposes of this example, just think of it in terms of the balance of power between Israel and Lebanon)

Bit hard not to be a "superior military" in the circumstances...a first world army occupying a bunch of what are essentially shopkeepers and farmers with aks.........

And yes, do fuck with a superior military. Resisting occupation is the right thing to do. Its legitamate armed resistance.

OK, no. Israel isn't occupying Lebanon. It's a, as you put it, "legitamate armed" response to an act of war. And, yes, I understand that there will be resistance. Of course there will be! I'm just saying take a better look at what's going on. Israel didn't invade Lebanon to occupy. It invaded to get back 2 soldiers. And THAT, my friend, is legitamate!

I was referring to Palestinians. And that occupation hasnt ended. If the aim of Hezbollah is to aid the Palestinian struggle then good for them.

Why the hell were you refering to Palestinians when this is a question of Lebanon and Hezbollah? There is no "occupation" of palestine since there never was a palestine to occupy.

As the occupation not being over...it is. Shaba farms belong to Syria, not Lebanon. Israeli, Syrian, and Lebanese governmental survey maps show it to be such.

Better yet, many of the NYC plotters were based in Berlin, were they not?

If you want to bomb berlin in exchange, why not?

Global carnage for all!

They havent withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they're still in the Shaba farms area. Plus they still have prisoners from Hezbollah.

Doesn't give Hezbollah the right to violate soveriegn territory of another nation. They attacked from Lebanon and yet they cry foul when Israel responds? Give me a break. As for the prisoners, tough!

There is no "occupation" of palestine since there never was a palestine to occupy.That is incorrect, as even the Israelis referred to Gaza as an occupied territory before they pulled out.

Why the hell were you refering to Palestinians when this is a question of Lebanon and Hezbollah? There is no "occupation" of palestine since there never was a palestine to occupy.

Exactly! It's not an occupation when a country is contested for from within. No one invaded Palestine. In all technicality, it was granted as a Jewish state. Now, I'm NOT saying that that's the beat-all-end-all in this. I AM saying that the two sides need to put aside their guns and come back to the negotiation table. In my opinion, that's the only way this is going to end.

Agreed. Anyone else here remember the Six-Day War? SIX DAYS?! Come on, people. We actually have Israel to thank for Iran NOT having nukes! Back in the '90s (or was it '89? I'm not sure...), Israel took the only working nuclear reactor that Iran had.

1988 and it was in Iraq and not Iran :rolleyes:

Doesn't give Hezbollah the right to violate soveriegn territory of another nation. They attacked from Lebanon and yet they cry foul when Israel responds? Give me a break. As for the prisoners, tough!

It doesn't even matter. Statement from the UN general secretary:

However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Shaba farms district IS NOT LEBANESE

It is Syrian

Sure has a funny way of trying to get it. Destabilizing the Lebanese government before it has the power to disarm Hamas and giving the next generation a war to remember why Israel should be hated will not lead to peace. Just because Israel has the right to do this doesn't mean that this is the best thing to do.

Omart said they are willing to negotiate a cease-fire. Do you think Israel wanted to attack Lebanon? They didn't until Hezbollah crossed into soveriegn territory and attacked Israeli Defense Forces. What did ya think Israel was going to do? Stand by and let them?

Doesn't give Hezbollah the right to violate soveriegn territory of another nation. They attacked from Lebanon and yet they cry foul when Israel responds? Give me a break. As for the prisoners, tough!No tears for Hezbullah. The problem is that Israel is overreacting by dismantling infrastructure and cutting all of Lebanon off of the outside world.

If the aim of Hezbollah is to aid the Palestinian struggle then good for them.

It's.....not.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians/Hamas have NOTHING to do with each other. Hezbollah is a LEBANESE organization created to fight the Israeli occupation of LEBANON, which ended. The territories which Israel still controls and Hezbollah contends are part of Lebanon (the Shaba farms district) have been internationally recognized as originally SYRIAN, not Lebanese.

Hezbollah and Hamas have NOTHING to do with each other, and neither side "aids" the other, with the exception that they still both attack Israel. You don't even seem to have a clear idea of the issues right now but you claim to have opinions as to Israeli action? Get your sides straight before making claims.

No tears for Hezbullah. The problem is that Israel is overreacting by dismantling infrastructure and cutting all of Lebanon off of the outside world.

Well since most of Israel's attacks are against the infrastructure that has been used by Hezbollah.....I don't call it an overreaction. I call it self-defense.

Omart said they are willing to negotiate a cease-fire. Do you think Israel wanted to attack Lebanon? They didn't until Hezbollah crossed into soveriegn territory and attacked Israeli Defense Forces. What did ya think Israel was going to do? Stand by and let them?I didn't expect a complete blockade and scapegoating of the state of Lebanon for the actions of Hezbullah. It's uncalled for. Israel may have the international right to blame Lebanon for not disarming Hezbullah, but it smacks of a self-sure arrogance to accuse a state still most likely infested with Syrian intelligence personnel and only recently returned to sovreignity to be able to behave and act like a fully sovereign state. Lunacy like this caused World War I.

No tears for Hezbullah. The problem is that Israel is overreacting by dismantling infrastructure and cutting all of Lebanon off of the outside world.

How can you fight an enemy that has insinuated itself into Lebanese cities and towns without combatting the infrastructure of those cities and towns?

That's all I want to know. How do you stop an enemy from arming itslef through supplies into the airport without taking out the airport?

How do you stop an enemy that gives orders through radio stations without taking out those radiostations.

Unfortunatly Hezbollah isn't sitting outside the cities in the desert waiting for Israel to take them out, and Israel just decided for the hell of it to drop some bombs on Beirut. Hezbollah has infected Lebanese society and government, so that the two have become so inseperably linked that the only way to combat Hezbollah is to combat Lebanon as a whole.

And whose fault is that? Hezbollah's for so infecting the Lebanese society, and Lebanon for letting them.

I didn't expect a complete blockade and scapegoating of the state of Lebanon for the actions of Hezbullah. It's uncalled for. Israel may have the international right to blame Lebanon for not disarming Hezbullah, but it smacks of a self-sure arrogance to accuse a state still most likely infested with Syrian intelligence personnel and only recently returned to sovreignity to be able to behave and act like a fully sovereign state. Lunacy like this caused World War I.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

1988 and it was in Iraq and not Iran :rolleyes:
Thanks! My mistake!

Well since most of Israel's attacks are against the infrastructure that has been used by Hezbollah.....I don't call it an overreaction. I call it self-defense.Ah, yes of course. It's hard to claim that the international airport of Beirut has never been used by Hezbullah. To be honest, if Israel compensated Lebanon for the damages afterwards, with the excuse that in order to destroy Hezbullah, this was necessary, I'd be ok with that. I don't see it happening though. The blockade, however, isn't quite so necessary. Food will soon be running short in Beirut.

I didn't expect a complete blockade and scapegoating of the state of Lebanon for the actions of Hezbullah. It's uncalled for. Israel may have the international right to blame Lebanon for not disarming Hezbullah, but it smacks of a self-sure arrogance to accuse a state still most likely infested with Syrian intelligence personnel and only recently returned to sovreignity to be able to behave and act like a fully sovereign state. Lunacy like this caused World War I.

The Government of Lebanon hereby denounces the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah and seeks support from Israel and the IDF to help disarm and dismantle this militant group for purposes of national security.

That's all it would have taken to make sure Hezbollah was beatten and dead. Lebanon couldn't do it themselves? I'm quite sure the IDF would have been MORE than happy to do it for them.

Instead they sheltered them, invited them, and allowed them to participate in their government. Lebanon HAD options, it followed through on NONE of them.

Ah, yes of course. It's hard to claim that the international airport of Beirut has never been used by Hezbullah. To be honest, if Israel compensated Lebanon for the damages afterwards, with the excuse that in order to destroy Hezbullah, this was necessary, I'd be ok with that. I don't see it happening though. The blockade, however, isn't quite so necessary. Food will soon be running short in Beirut.

To be honest, the blockades are kinda worrying me too. However since Israel did allow the airport to be rebuilt to allow some flights to take off, before it was blown up again, I suspect that soon they will be allowing boats to dock after inspection to ensure no weapons are getting through.

Speculation of course, but Israelies aren't animals, and I think they'll start allowing supplies and aid into the country before a full on famine hits.

Civilians dying because they live close to vital infrastructure that gets destroyed in the normal course of war? Regrettable, but an unavoidable fact of war. Allowing people nationwide to starve because you've laid an unliftable seige on the country? No, that's too much for me, but again I suspect it won't come to that.

How can you fight an enemy that has insinuated itself into Lebanese cities and towns without combatting the infrastructure of those cities and towns?Total annihilation of the population is the only way an outside force would be able to. I disapprove of this method. It's up to the Lebanese to get this done. Giving them more reasons to hate Israel and destabilizing a slowly emerging democratic state is the best way to prevent any efforts by Lebanon to do this.

That's all I want to know. How do you stop an enemy from arming itslef through supplies into the airport without taking out the airport?Occupying the airport. Indeed, this would be more difficult and I don't see anything wrong with cutting off that form of logistics so long as compensation is paid afterwards to return the airport to a functioning state.

How do you stop an enemy that gives orders through radio stations without taking out those radiostations.No problems with taking out that radio station.

Unfortunatly Hezbollah isn't sitting outside the cities in the desert waiting for Israel to take them out, and Israel just decided for the hell of it to drop some bombs on Beirut. Hezbollah has infected Lebanese society and government, so that the two have become so inseperably linked that the only way to combat Hezbollah is to combat Lebanon as a whole.The only way to get Hezbullah out of Lebanon is for the Lebanese to do it. Israel is showing how to stop that from happening.

And whose fault is that? Hezbollah's for so infecting the Lebanese society, and Lebanon for letting them.Whatever. Hezbullah is most certainly to blame, but blaming the whole of a country that was anything but whole at the time is dumb, plain and simply.

The problem is that Israel is overreacting by dismantling infrastructure and cutting all of Lebanon off of the outside world.

Once again, no. If I may return to my previous example, if the balance of power between, say, us and Mexico were the same as between Israel and Palestine, and Mexico kidnapped two of our soldiers, what would you have our government do? I'm not sure what you think, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would be surprisingly similar to what Israel is doing right now. Another historical example is World War II, where the main targets of the greater majority of British bombing raids on Germany (who bombed many civilian targets) were buildings important to infrastructure and military production. That's what you do in war. It's no longer a game of "wipe your enemy off the face of the Earth". It's trying to knock them down, such that they can't get up without your country's assistance, thus rendering them available as an ally in a possibly later conflict.

Once again, no. If I may return to my previous example, if the balance of power between, say, us and Mexico were the same as between Israel and Palestine, and Mexico kidnapped two of our soldiers, what would you have our government do?

Please....please. Let's be accurate here. Not that I don't agree with you BUT, this is Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Not Palestine and Hamas. Entirely different people, entirely different areas.

This is a conflict between Israel and Lebanon, not Israel and the Palestinians.

The Government of Lebanon hereby denounces the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah and seeks support from Israel and the IDF to help disarm and dismantle this militant group for purposes of national security.Again, not the way to go about it. Israel is viewed as the enemy by the population. Getting that out of the minds of the people won't happen if you cooperate with the enemy. That will only lead to the radicals winning the next election and Hezbullah or other extremist and terrorist parties gaining control. Involving the IDF will furthermore be an accession to weakness and a lack of sovreignity, and will not lead to Lebanon becoming sovereign.

That's all it would have taken to make sure Hezbollah was beatten and dead. Lebanon couldn't do it themselves? I'm quite sure the IDF would have been MORE than happy to do it for them.The Lebanese government couldn't do it by themselves, because they lack the political power to denounce an organization that builds hospitals and schools.

Instead they sheltered them, invited them, and allowed them to participate in their government. Lebanon HAD options, it followed through on NONE of them.That may not have been the best answer either. But Hezbullah must be defeated politically if there is any hope to destroy them. Isreal will never be able to do that. That is something that has to happen from inside Lebanon.

Please....please. Let's be accurate here. Not that I don't agree with you BUT, this is Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Not Palestine and Hamas. Entirely different people, entirely different areas.

This is a conflict between Israel and Lebanon, not Israel and the Palestinians.


Sorry, you're right. I meant to write Lebanon, not Palestine. It is a conflict between Lebanon and Israel. However, I think we do need to take into account the fact that, after all of the Palestinian attacks on them, Israel might have some kind of predisposition to violence in the face of violence.

To be honest, the blockades are kinda worrying me too. However since Israel did allow the airport to be rebuilt to allow some flights to take off, before it was blown up again, I suspect that soon they will be allowing boats to dock after inspection to ensure no weapons are getting through.

Speculation of course, but Israelies aren't animals, and I think they'll start allowing supplies and aid into the country before a full on famine hits.

Civilians dying because they live close to vital infrastructure that gets destroyed in the normal course of war? Regrettable, but an unavoidable fact of war. Allowing people nationwide to starve because you've laid an unliftable seige on the country? No, that's too much for me, but again I suspect it won't come to that.I hope so. No, Israelis aren't animals, they're humans. Sadly, humans have the slight tendency to do all sorts of short sighted things when they feel they are justified, and I doubt thinking of the well-being of the Lebanese is at the top of the list of Olmert's agenda.

Total annihilation of the population is the only way an outside force would be able to. I disapprove of this method. It's up to the Lebanese to get this done. Giving them more reasons to hate Israel and destabilizing a slowly emerging democratic state is the best way to prevent any efforts by Lebanon to do this.

But the problem is they haven't done ANYTHING. Not one little thing. Now I understand they lack the power to fully disarm Hezbollah, but do SOMETHING, show a little good faith, get Israel's help. If they were serious about it, they could have made at least some good faith efforts.

Occupying the airport. Indeed, this would be more difficult and I don't see anything wrong with cutting off that form of logistics so long as compensation is paid afterwards to return the airport to a functioning state.


Whatever. Hezbullah is most certainly to blame, but blaming the whole of a country that was anything but whole at the time is dumb, plain and simply.

Well, not the entire people, more like "the government of". Yeah they're weak and lack the strength to confront Hezbollah head on. But you could arrest a few of em. You could request Israel's help in rooting out a few of the cells that exist around the border, allowing the IDF to cross over and take your problem out for you. You could...I dunno, not allow the main HQ of a terrorist organization to set up in your CAPITAL. That can't be that hard to do. Instead they did nothing. They consistantly did NOTHING. I am not asking Lebanon to have a miracle and disarm all of Hezbollah overnight. But start, SOMEWHERE. give Israel a showing of good faith. Make positive movements in that direction. Have a few disarmament TALKS, they don't take much. Invite Israel to the table and discuss how to best deal with a mutual problem.

But the government did none of that, showed no indication that they would do any of that, and demonstrated NO willingness to disarm Hezbollah, EVER. So it left Israel with only one option, do it themselves.

The oil price has been going up due to several reasons and not just Israel. Oil companies will raise the price of oil at a drop of hat.

Ironically, oil companies have no control over the price of oil...they're seeing their own margins fall as prices soar because of the demand of equipment and the increasing scarcity of cheap light crude. If you're wondering who does control the price of oil, look in the mirror or out on the road. The only way oil will fall is if we use less of it; that's what happened in the 1980's and 1990's and that's what will cause it to fall today.

My thoughts:

The Lebanese failure to disarm the likes of Hezbollah, prevent attacks on the state of Israel and stop Syria and Iran using their influence within Lebanon to wage a proxy war against them is, I hope, a failure that we all rue, and one which is (rightly) totally unacceptable to Israel.

The question then, is whether or not Israel should take effective counter–measures Israel should take to remedy these grievances and do what Lebanon have failled to do and what the international community did not care enough to do, or whether they should sit back, twiddle their thumbs and wait for the next attack.

However, I am concerned that there has not been sufficient discrimination between military and civilian targets (which in turn has increased support for the likes of Hezbollah, albeit perhaps only temporarily) and also that through their actions they are destabilising the government of Lebanon who appear to be among the most moderate in the region.

But the problem is they haven't done ANYTHING. Not one little thing. Now I understand they lack the power to fully disarm Hezbollah, but do SOMETHING, show a little good faith, get Israel's help. If they were serious about it, they could have made at least some good faith efforts.

Well, not the entire people, more like "the government of". Yeah they're weak and lack the strength to confront Hezbollah head on. But you could arrest a few of em. You could request Israel's help in rooting out a few of the cells that exist around the border, allowing the IDF to cross over and take your problem out for you. You could...I dunno, not allow the main HQ of a terrorist organization to set up in your CAPITAL. That can't be that hard to do. Instead they did nothing. They consistantly did NOTHING. I am not asking Lebanon to have a miracle and disarm all of Hezbollah overnight. But start, SOMEWHERE. give Israel a showing of good faith. Make positive movements in that direction. Have a few disarmament TALKS, they don't take much. Invite Israel to the table and discuss how to best deal with a mutual problem.

But the government did none of that, showed no indication that they would do any of that, and demonstrated NO willingness to disarm Hezbollah, EVER. So it left Israel with only one option, do it themselves.I'd like to ask you this, how easy do you think it would be to disarm the NRA?
Hezbullah enjoys massive public support from the shiites, and that public support needs to be eroded before any action can really be taken against them unless the government wants to risk another civil war. Lebanon is still an ethnic powderkeg.
The only thing that all of those groups have in common is that they distrust Israel, meaning that involving Israel in disarming Hamas can never be an option for a government that wants to remain in power.

At the end of the day it's this. Israel wants nothing more than another stable, mostly secular, liberal democracy in the Middle East, and if it borders them, all the better. One less border you have to worry rockets coming from.

All Lebanon had to do was go to israel and say "the occupation is over, our history is history. Right now we have armed militias in our southern territories, and we can't get them out. We don't have the military, we don't have the resources, we don't have the intelligence, we need help, we need help."

Israel would have done EVERYTHING for that. They would have thrown billions into that, and would have gotten the US and the EU to do it too. There would have been IDF in the southern region of Lebanon within HOURS cleaning up Hezbollah camps. There would have been intelligence sharing, information sharing, Israel would have been air lifting in supplies by the hour. There would have been UN peacekeeping forces supplimented by Israeli scout watches to ensure that the violence didn't spread to more peaceful areas.

Lebanon may not have had the capabilities to deal with Hezbollah, but they had a potential ally right across the border who does, and one with a lot of power, and a lot of resources, and a lot of connections to other nations who, like them, also want to see another stable democracy flurish in the middle east.

Instead...Lebanon did NOTHING, consistantly did NOTHING, and just seemed to not give a damn.

Hezbullah enjoys massive public support from the shiites, and that public support needs to be eroded before any action can really be taken against them unless the government wants to risk another civil war. Lebanon is still an ethnic powderkeg.

Where was that erosion? Where were those efforts? Was it when the President of Lebanon got on national TV and stated his, and Lebanon's, support for Hezbollah?

The efforts should have started the moment it became clear that Hezbollah wasn't going to disarm. It didn't. I'm not saying a solution could have occured overnight. But they did NOTHING. Lebanon didn't even denounce the kidnapping of the soldiers, they didn't say one negative thing about it. They haven't made any strides at dislodging Hezbollah, they have SUPPORTED them.

And thus they set themselves up.

At the end of the day it's this. Israel wants nothing more than another stable, mostly secular, liberal democracy in the Middle East, and if it borders them, all the better. One less border you have to worry rockets coming from.

All Lebanon had to do was go to israel and say "the occupation is over, our history is history. Right now we have armed militias in our southern territories, and we can't get them out. We don't have the military, we don't have the resources, we don't have the intelligence, we need help, we need help."

Israel would have done EVERYTHING for that. They would have thrown billions into that, and would have gotten the US and the EU to do it too. There would have been IDF in the southern region of Lebanon within HOURS cleaning up Hezbollah camps. There would have been intelligence sharing, information sharing, Israel would have been air lifting in supplies by the hour. There would have been UN peacekeeping forces supplimented by Israeli scout watches to ensure that the violence didn't spread to more peaceful areas.

Lebanon may not have had the capabilities to deal with Hezbollah, but they had a potential ally right across the border who does, and one with a lot of power, and a lot of resources, and a lot of connections to other nations who, like them, also want to see another stable democracy flurish in the middle east.

Instead...Lebanon did NOTHING, consistantly did NOTHING, and just seemed to not give a damn.
I'm trying to explain that involving Israel in rooting out Hezbullah will never destroy Hezbullah. Anyone that did that would currently be branded traitor by most of the population. Involving "the enemy" would only serve to strengthen the position of the radicals.

And thus they set themselves up.

That they did. And for one hell of a downfall, too. Israel's response, while it may seem like an overreaction, is actually not a bad plan. What they did, instead of striking back with equal force, they struck with crippling force. Not meaning to repeat myself here, but war these days is about knocking down your enemy to get what you want from them. That's the way WWII was fought, that's the way the Iraq War is being fought, and this is how this conflict is being fought, too.

I'm trying to explain that involving Israel in rooting out Hezbullah will never destroy Hezbullah. Anyone that did that would currently be branded traitor by most of the population. Involving "the enemy" would only serve to strengthen the position of the radicals.

You do realize that most of Lebanon is not happy with what Hezbollah did that precipitated this attack right?

Where was that erosion? Where were those efforts? Was it when the President of Lebanon got on national TV and stated his, and Lebanon's, support for Hezbollah?

The efforts should have started the moment it became clear that Hezbollah wasn't going to disarm. It didn't. I'm not saying a solution could have occured overnight. But they did NOTHING. Lebanon didn't even denounce the kidnapping of the soldiers, they didn't say one negative thing about it. They haven't made any strides at dislodging Hezbollah, they have SUPPORTED them.

And thus they set themselves up.
Erosion takes a lot of time and balance. In order to run Hezbullah out of Lebanon you have to manage to reduce public support for them. You can't necessarily do this by standing up to them and publicly denouncing them.

But Hezbullah must be defeated politically if there is any hope to destroy them. Isreal will never be able to do that. That is something that has to happen from inside Lebanon.

There are...two ways to destroy a group like Hezbollay.

You discredit them, defeat them politically, arrest them, strip them of their power, and effectivly neuter them.

OR

You kill them all.

Now, option A is OBVIOUSLY more preferable than option B. And as you said, Lebanon is not in the political state to be able to do it fully. HOWEVER, they haven't even tried really. I will change my entire stance on this war, do a full 180 if you can show me one time, just ONE, where Lebanon exercised what even little power they had to try to do something about Hezbollah. You wont, since it's not there.

Yes, Lebanon isn't capable of neutering Hezbollah, but they're capable of doing SOME things. And they haven't. And while they sit and do nothing, Israel gets attacked, over and over again.

Now I'm sure we can ALL agree that letting Lebanon deal with this with politics is FAR better then letting Israel deal with this with bombs. But we can also agree that Israel as a nation has the sovereign right to defend itself. It's been 6 years since the occupation ended, and nothing has happened. And meanwhile, Israel gets attacked.

The question, the ONLY question that matters is how much longer do we expect Israel to wait? How much longer do we ask them to endure suicide bombers, missles launched into villiages, the kidnapping of soliders? How much longer can we really expect them to just sit there and not go "ok, enough is enough, we're being attacked and Lebanon isn't doing anything about it, I guess we just have to go kill them all."

You do realize that most of Lebanon is not happy with what Hezbollah did that precipitated this attack right?Indeed. They have the choice between a terrorist organization that provokes Israel and a country that makes them responsible for that organization's actions and is fully willing to make them pay for it. Can you blame them for hating both? Hezbullah however still has support from Shia communities. Israel hasn't got very many people speaking for them in Lebanon, and the way things look, that won't likely change anytime soon.

There are...two ways to destroy a group like Hezbollay.

You discredit them, defeat them politically, arrest them, strip them of their power, and effectivly neuter them.

OR

You kill them all.

Now, option A is OBVIOUSLY more preferable than option B. And as you said, Lebanon is not in the political state to be able to do it fully. HOWEVER, they haven't even tried really. I will change my entire stance on this war, do a full 180 if you can show me one time, just ONE, where Lebanon exercised what even little power they had to try to do something about Hezbollah. You wont, since it's not there.

Yes, Lebanon isn't capable of neutering Hezbollah, but they're capable of doing SOME things. And they haven't. And while they sit and do nothing, Israel gets attacked, over and over again.

Now I'm sure we can ALL agree that letting Lebanon deal with this with bombs is FAR better then letting Israel deal with this with bombs. But we can also agree that Israel as a nation has the sovereign right to defend itself. It's been 6 years since the occupation ended, and nothing has happened. And meanwhile, Israel gets attacked.

The question, the ONLY question that matters is how much longer do we expect Israel to wait? How much longer do we ask them to endure suicide bombers, missles launched into villiages, the kidnapping of soliders? How much longer can we really expect them to just sit there and not go "ok, enough is enough, we're being attacked and Lebanon isn't doing anything about it, I guess we just have to go kill them all."
Name something you believe they were capable of, then.

Erosion takes a lot of time and balance. In order to run Hezbullah out of Lebanon you have to manage to reduce public support for them. You can't necessarily do this by standing up to them and publicly denouncing them.

This is a good point. In countries like Lebanon that have unstable governments, the will of the people weighs heavily on the actions taken by that country, be they actions by the government, paramilitary organizations, civilian organizations, or by the people themselves.

Name something you believe they were capable of, then.

1) Not allowing terrorists to set up their HQ in Beirut

2) The political branch of Hezbollah could have distanced themselves from the militant branch, and not used them as their namesake. After all if the promises and accomplishments of the political branch were as good and valuable as everyone here has been claiming, and had nothing to do with anti Israeli bias, surely they could have won an election without being called Hezbollah

3) The government could have had sit down negotiations with Hezbollah militants and asked what it would take for them to stop the aggression against Israel

4) They could have privately and covertly asked Israel for any intelligence information they had regarding Hezbollah troops and their movements and capabilities

5) They could have publically denounced the kidnapping of those soldiers

1) Not allowing terrorists to set up their HQ in Beirut

2) The political branch of Hezbollah could have distanced themselves from the militant branch, and not used them as their namesake. After all if the promises and accomplishments of the political branch were as good and valuable as everyone here has been claiming, and had nothing to do with anti Israeli bias, surely they could have won an election without being called Hezbollah

3) The government could have had sit down negotiations with Hezbollah militants and asked what it would take for them to stop the aggression against Israel

4) They could have privately and covertly asked Israel for any intelligence information they had regarding Hezbollah troops and their movements and capabilities

5) They could have publically denounced the kidnapping of those soldiers

I'd like to point out that, if any ONE of these things had been done, the response from Israel would probably have been lessened. Instead, they decided to ride it out, and now they're paying for their choice. Whining about it really isn't going to help matters (on both local and global levels), because, as has been shown, this was entirely preventable!

1) Not allowing terrorists to set up their HQ in BeirutI haven't found anything conclusive on this, but from what I've been reading, Hezbullah has been active in Beirut long before the Cedar Revolution.

2) The political branch of Hezbollah could have distanced themselves from the militant branch, and not used them as their namesake. After all if the promises and accomplishments of the political branch were as good and valuable as everyone here has been claiming, and had nothing to do with anti Israeli bias, surely they could have won an election without being called HezbollahThe political branch remains Hezbullah. The only way to separate the two is to drive a wedge between them with time. Israel providing them with a common enemy is not helping.

3) The government could have had sit down negotiations with Hezbollah militants and asked what it would take for them to stop the aggression against IsraelIt's unlikely that the militants will ever listen to reason. The support of the populace is what needs to be cut. It's unlikely that Israel would trust any that aggression would stop once demands made by an organization that frequently violates cease fires are fulfilled, even if they were sincere.

4) They could have privately and covertly asked Israel for any intelligence information they had regarding Hezbollah troops and their movements and capabilitiesWe'd have no way of knowing whether this has or hasn't happened.

5) They could have publically denounced the kidnapping of those soldiersGranted, that should have happened.

No, you can thank your Country for not using their oil reserves to lower prices.
We're running out of Oil? Give me a break.
The Oil Companies use whatever they can as an excuse to maximize their Monopoly earnings.
its not Isreal raising Oil prices, its the Oil Companies.

The killing of Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hamas are clear acts of war.

The Palestinian attack came after Israel turned over the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in a bold step for peace. The Palestinians are now using that same territory to launch rockets at Israeli civilians on a daily basis, causing widespread fear and havoc.

Hamas continues to deny Israel's right to exist - a position spelled out in the group's founding charter and repeatedly echoed by its spokesmen and leaders

The killing of Israeli soldiers and the seizing of two more soldiers as hostages by Hezbollah in Northern Israel were also unprovoked acts of war against Israel. This is not just another act of terror.

This strike took place after Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon as certified by the U.N. Security Council.

UN Security Council resolution 1559 and subsequent resolutions demand that the Lebanese government disarm the terrorist group Hezbollah, but no steps have been taken. To the contrary, the Lebanese government has included Hezbollah in their government and they are represented at the ministerial level. Hezbollah's actions are a direct threat to the authority of the Lebanese government, to the rule of law and order, and to the wellbeing of Lebanese citizens.

Hezbollah has launched dozens of unprovoked attacks since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, including the firing of hundreds of rockets and mortars at civilian areas and the kidnapping of a number of Israelis.

Syria and Iran are behind these attacks. They are the primary supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas, and they must be pressured as well by the international community.

Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel has the right and duty to defend itself from attacks that represent clear acts of war -such as the killing and kidnapping of its citizens and ongoing rocket attacks.

Israel's actions are being carefully implemented and are aimed at securing the release of its soldiers and destroying the abilities of Hamas and Hezbollah to threaten its citizens with ongoing barrages of rockets.

Israel does its utmost not to harm civilians, but in a war where Hamas and Hezbollah hide among the civilian population, civilians will inevitably be killed. Israel should not be held to a standard of perfection while the Arab countries and terror organizations are held to no standard at all.

I'm quoting camera.org.

ISrael fired rockets into itself and kidnapped two of its people?

ISrael fired rockets into itself and kidnapped two of its people?

:rolleyes:

If I didn't catch the sarcasm, I would've leapt down your throat.

Why the hell were you refering to Palestinians when this is a question of Lebanon and Hezbollah? There is no "occupation" of palestine since there never was a palestine to occupy.

As the occupation not being over...it is. Shaba farms belong to Syria, not Lebanon. Israeli, Syrian, and Lebanese governmental survey maps show it to be such.


The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalen and Gaza are Palestinian lands occupied by Israel.


It invaded to get back 2 soldiers. And THAT, my friend, is legitamate!.

As we're rapidly heading for 100 mostly lebanese civillians dead, you don't think the scale is out of proportion?


They attacked from Lebanon and yet they cry foul when Israel responds?!.

Should a hezbollah rocket fired in retaliation for Lebanese dead hit a large group of Israeli civillians, who will be crying foul then?


Now I understand they lack the power to fully disarm Hezbollah, but do SOMETHING, show a little good faith, get Israel's help. If they were serious about it, they could have made at least some good faith efforts.?!.

Help...to disarm Hezbollah, from the people who helped arm the christian militias, and occassionally took pot-shots at civillian traffic going into Beirut along the coast...responsible for thousands of deaths...That'd be great.


There would have been IDF in the southern region of Lebanon within HOURS cleaning up Hezbollah camps. .?!.

The last time the IDF were let near camps in Lebanon they opened the gates and let in a few death squads, and that after they promised the US they'd safeguard the civillians inside. Thats the kind of "cleaning" they do.



Israel wants nothing more than another stable, mostly secular, liberal democracy in the Middle East, and if it borders them, all the better. .!.

another pariah state protected by a super-power you mean? Sort of occupier barbie to go with occupier-ken.....


If I didn't catch the sarcasm, I would've leapt down your throat..?!.

Nothin' worse than a wet blanket attack....

The West Bank, Arab East Jerusalen and Gaza are Palestinian lands occupied by Israel.


Even if true, this has exactly what to do with a Lebanese liberation group? The occupation of LEBANON is over. The purpose that HEZBOLLAH was formed for is over.

Whatever is going on in the west bank, gaza strip, and anywhere else in the world is irrelevant in a conflict between Israel and a LEBANESE liberation group.

Especially if the occupying power has committed dozens of breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Look dumbass, go through the Geneva Convention. Read it for the love of G-d. You have no idea what it says do you? Anyway, since you claim to know so much about the Convention, list the articles in which Israel is in breach. Then maybe I can agree with you.

As we're rapidly heading for 100 mostly lebanese civillians dead, you don't think the scale is out of proportion?

Would you care to count the number of Israeli dead in Haifa? How about it's suburbs? Would you like to be the one to tell all those mothers and fathers that their spouse, son, or daughter was hit by a rocket and won't coming home today? Because whoever's on duty now would gladly switch with you.

Should a hezbollah rocket fired in retaliation for Lebanese dead hit a large group of Israeli civillians, who will be crying foul then?

Um, Israel would. Duh. However, you need to realize that your Hezbollah rocket is just that: a HEZBOLLAH rocket. It's not a Lebanese action, it's a Hezbollah action. They're not acting on the will of all Lebanese, you know.

Look dumbass, go through the Geneva Convention. Read it for the love of G-d. You have no idea what it says do you? Anyway, since you claim to know so much about the Convention, list the articles in which Israel is in breach. Then maybe I can agree with you.

Articles pertaining to collective punishment (Convention IV, Art. 33), ethnic cleansing (Convention IV, Art. 49), illegal establishment of settlements in occupied territory. Kindly take your flaming elsewhere.

Would you care to count the number of Israeli dead in Haifa? How about it's suburbs? Would you like to be the one to tell all those mothers and fathers that their spouse, son, or daughter was hit by a rocket and won't coming home today? Because whoever's on duty now would gladly switch with you.

Well in fairness, its the disproportionate response that has so many up in arms. Its not Hezb'allah that is paying- it is the ordinary Lebanese civilian.

Their lives are equal to the Israeli citizens too you know.

Well in fairness, its the disproportionate response that has so many up in arms. Its not Hezb'allah that is paying- it is the ordinary Lebanese civilian.

Their lives are equal to the Israeli citizens too you know.

Don't speak such heresy. For every Israeli killed 30 arabs must die!

Articles pertaining to collective punishment (Convention IV, Art. 33), ethnic cleansing (Convention IV, Art. 49), illegal establishment of settlements in occupied territory. Kindly take your flaming elsewhere.


Article 33 of the Geneva Convention states:

Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious inistration to, prisoners of war.

They shall continue to exercise their medical and spiritual functions for the benefit of prisoners of war, preferably those belonging to the armed forces upon which they depend, within the scope of the military laws and regulations of the Detaining Power and under the control of its competent services, in accordance with their professional etiquette. They shall also benefit by the following facilities in the exercise of their medical or spiritual functions:

(a) They shall be authorized to visit periodically prisoners of war situated in working detachments or in hospitals outside the camp. For this purpose, the Detaining Power shall place at their disposal the necessary means of transport.

(b) The senior medical officer in each camp shall be responsible to the camp military authorities for everything connected with the activities of retained medical personnel. For this purpose, Parties to the conflict shall agree at the outbreak of hostilities on the subject of the corresponding ranks of the medical personnel, including that of societies mentioned in Article 26 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949. This senior medical officer, as well as chaplains, shall have the right to deal with the competent authorities of the camp on all questions relating to their duties. Such authorities shall afford them all necessary facilities for correspondence relating to these questions.

(c) Although they shall be subject to the internal discipline of the camp in which they are retained, such personnel may not be compelled to carry out any work other than that concerned with their medical or religious duties.

During hostilities, the Parties to the conflict shall agree concerning the possible relief of retained personnel and shall settle the procedure to be followed.

None of the preceding provisions shall relieve the Detaining Power of its obligations with regard to prisoners of war from the medical or spiritual point of view.

Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states:

The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.

Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.

If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.

My information is taken from http://genevaconventions.org. Look under ethnic cleansing, and the references I provided are listed there.

Articles pertaining to collective punishment (Convention IV, Art. 33), ethnic cleansing (Convention IV, Art. 49), illegal establishment of settlements in occupied territory. Kindly take your flaming elsewhere.

Well you have a slight problem as Hezbollah is part of the political establishment of Lebanon and that no ethnic cleansing is going on.

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Okay, well lets see. If you refer to collateral damage done by Israel, than what of the pinpointed attacks against civilians. Collateral damage occurs in any war, or occupation to begin with. There are no collective punishments. For example, Arabs in Israel have the best civil rights, and freedoms of any Middle Eastener.

What is collective punishment? It is relative. Destroying an electric plant could be considered collective punishment, but on the other hand it could be attacking a semi-military target. (ie without electricity the enemy cannot perform to its best ability).


Article 49 (direct quotation from your site)

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

If you refer to the deportation of known terrorists and supporters than the articles allow for such a move. Above proves it. Gaza and the West Bank are certainly not safe locations. Fatah and Hamas have fought, as have Israel and Hamas, hence hostilities have yet to cease. That would allow Israel to relocate anyone they see as a threat to the eventual hand over of power.

Again, illegal settlements is a relative concept. What one considers illegal, another might consider to be perfectly lawful. Not to mention, all of the Israeli settlements have been closed (to the best of Israel's ability).

Would you care to count the number of Israeli dead in Haifa? How about it's suburbs? Would you like to be the one to tell all those mothers and fathers that their spouse, son, or daughter was hit by a rocket and won't coming home today? Because whoever's on duty now would gladly switch with you..

As I said in post 474 on this thread when told that it was a cheek to cry foul over the Israeli attacks - when a rocket hits a bunch of people in haifa in retaliation, who'll be crying foul then?


What one considers illegal, another might consider to be perfectly lawful. Not to mention, all of the Israeli settlements have been closed (to the best of Israel's ability)...

The settlements are illegal, hence the US use of the veto. And there has been no closure of large settlements in the West Bank, where the vast majority of them are located.

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.


I have no problems with that.

When you make the charming fellows of Hamas look good by comparison, you are truly being a global menace, and a downright douche.
I personally find it hippocracy of the highest calibre that they refuse to acknowledge the Palestinians right to Statehood, when thier own was simply recognized by a few other nations.
By this logic, who are they to tell anyone they dont have the same rights?

The tactics used by Hamas in the past, and even present, are unforgivable, but Isreal has the ability, if they so desired to end decades of senseless bloodshed, at thier disposal, and they do the exact opposite.

I dont claim to be an expert in Mideast politics, but I pay enough attention as I can spare, and Im nobody's fool.
Be that as it may, I just dont fucking get the Isrealis.
I hate seeing a stereotype perpetuated, and these guys in Isreal are giving decent Jewish folks bad names just by association.
These warmongering swine are becoming no better than the cowards who resort to bombing cafe's at lunchtime, they are fighting.

Its time for the U.N to get its nose out of its own collective ass, and declare a state of emergency, and force the Isrealis to back down, and also declare the right to Palestinian Statehood, and settle this bloody arguement right here and now.
The United States should ONLY become involved in any such military actions as per the STRICT permission of such a UN security council.

Think of the new potential light many muslims would see the U.S if they saw them enforce the disarm, and withdrawal from the Gaza strip?
Perhaps this wouldnt instantly make us any long term fans, but it couldnt hurt our popularity with much of the Muslim world.

/and rant.

Israel has used the same style of tactics it is using now for decades. I would judge that the current crisis is evidence that those tactics don't, and have never, worked.

A lot of those who are criticising Israel's current actions (and those of the organisations who they are in conflict with) are doing so because they see it as simply another step alone a worsening cycle rather than a route to a solution which would improve the lives of everyone in the region.

Even if every member of Hamas and Hezbollah were to be arrested/ fall over dead then Israel's actions have ensured that there would be new recruits ready to take their place. I would suggest that the Israeli government needs to attack the ideas that lie beneath the hatred, rather than the symptoms.

On another note, I see that some posters are directly and fully defending the IDF's current actions (and the direct results on a civillian, non-combatant population) under the following idea

Like the United States and other sovereign nations, Israel has the right and duty to defend itself from attacks that represent clear acts of war -such as the killing and kidnapping of its citizens and ongoing rocket attacks.

I would ask that those who hold this view apply it to the situation that saw a young British journalist murdered by a member of the IDF in 2003. His murder has been proven in a civillian court of law and a military court of law. The Israeli government, despite requests, have taken no action against the perpetrator of this crime.
I can only imagine that Britain did not respond to this 'act of war' by 'refusing to stand idly by' and then 'setting them [Israel] back 20 years' by strategic bombing/ use of Trident because they realised that it would solve nothing and only inflame the problem.

Personally, I am very glad that Britain took no military action. I would hope that Israel could learn from the example of Britain (and the other countries who have lost citizens to criminal activity in another country) and exercise a measure of restraint and, in doing so, take one more step along the road to a final peace.

I have no problems with that.

When you make the charming fellows of Hamas look good by comparison, you are truly being a global menace, and a downright douche.
I personally find it hippocracy of the highest calibre that they refuse to acknowledge the Palestinians right to Statehood, when thier own was simply recognized by a few other nations.
By this logic, who are they to tell anyone they dont have the same rights?

The tactics used by Hamas in the past, and even present, are unforgivable, but Isreal has the ability, if they so desired to end decades of senseless bloodshed, at thier disposal, and they do the exact opposite.

I dont claim to be an expert in Mideast politics, but I pay enough attention as I can spare, and Im nobody's fool.
Be that as it may, I just dont fucking get the Isrealis.
I hate seeing a stereotype perpetuated, and these guys in Isreal are giving decent Jewish folks bad names just by association.
These warmongering swine are becoming no better than the cowards who resort to bombing cafe's at lunchtime, they are fighting.

Its time for the U.N to get its nose out of its own collective ass, and declare a state of emergency, and force the Isrealis to back down, and also declare the right to Palestinian Statehood, and settle this bloody arguement right here and now.
The United States should ONLY become involved in any such military actions as per the STRICT permission of such a UN security council.

Think of the new potential light many muslims would see the U.S if they saw them enforce the disarm, and withdrawal from the Gaza strip?
Perhaps this wouldnt instantly make us any long term fans, but it couldnt hurt our popularity with much of the Muslim world.

/and rant.
Yeah, well the veto-ing of the resolution to tell Israel to back down by the US just showed exactly what happens when you try and do anything in the UN Security Council against Israel.

What the US needs is for its veto power to be removed, because it uses it for its own favour and the favour of its allies whenever it does veto anything.

And you could remove it on the grounds of the human rights abuses at Abu Grhaib and Guantanimo, as well as the illegal war in Iraq.

Or maybe give a different use to a "veto" in that instead of blocking a vote, it adds 20 points against the resolution.

Yeah, well the veto-ing of the resolution to tell Israel to back down by the US just showed exactly what happens when you try and do anything in the UN Security Council against Israel.

Israel has the right to defend itself from its enemies. Why condemn them for that?

What the US needs is for its veto power to be removed, because it uses it for its own favour and the favour of its allies whenever it does veto anything.

Not only the US but Russia and France as well for their failure to follow through on their obligations with Iraq. Of course, they were in Saddam's pockets so that had something to do with it.

And you could remove it on the grounds of the human rights abuses at Abu Grhaib and Guantanimo, as well as the illegal war in Iraq.

:rolleyes: No human right abuses at Gitmo and those responsible for Abu Grhaib have been or are being punished and the Iraq war was never illegal to begin with.

Israel has the right to defend itself from its enemies. Why condemn them for that?.

Because the days of the noble settler stringing up a few hundred natives for stepping out of line should be buried for all time. And the occupation could have been ended before there ever was such problems years ago if the veto had not been abused.


Not only the US but Russia and France as well for their failure to follow through on their obligations with Iraq. Of course, they were in Saddam's pockets so that had something to do with it..

After numerous humiliations on this subject, I would have thought you'd have sense enough to not trot out the old tried misinformation.


:rolleyes: No human right abuses at Gitmo and those responsible for Abu Grhaib have been or are being punished and the Iraq war was never illegal to begin with.

And again....

What the US needs is for its veto power to be removed, because it uses it for its own favour and the favour of its allies whenever it does veto anything.

And Franch,Russa,China and all the rest don't do exactly the same thing????? If you think that the US is the only member of the counsel miss-uses it's veto power your nuts, and blind

The settlements are illegal, hence the US use of the veto. And there has been no closure of large settlements in the West Bank, where the vast majority of them are located.

That is your personal opinion on this matter. There is nothing illegal about the settlements. Atleast, there are no current UN resolutions regarding them as being such. And until that occurs, they are legal. And even after that occurs, it would be ex post facto and Israel would not need to leave said settlements.

The tactics used by Hamas in the past, and even present, are unforgivable, but Isreal has the ability, if they so desired to end decades of senseless bloodshed, at thier disposal, and they do the exact opposite
Yeah, I guess we should kiss Israel's ass for not committing genocide.:rolleyes:

That is your personal opinion on this matter. There is nothing illegal about the settlements. Atleast, there are no current UN resolutions regarding them as being such. And until that occurs, they are legal. And even after that occurs, it would be ex post facto and Israel would not need to leave said settlements.

Ahem. They are illegal. The reason there are no UN resolutions condemning them and thus enabling sanctions to be brought is due to the US veto.