NationStates Jolt Archive

The Israelis have said that the people behind the rockets attacks in Haifa are the Syrians, and that it was "definitely them".

Syria has threatened a response which will not be restrained in any manner.

It's also a good time to remember that Iran will get involved if Syria is attacked.

The proverbial shit may have just hit the proverbial fan.



(It's not on the BBC website so far, but it was on BBC News 24 about an hour ago, if you have access to it, then watch the events unfold there)

Israel has launched a full scale war againts Lebanon and the Lebanese. All words are only alibis.

Well... I suppose we all knew it was going to happen eventually. Stupid Israelis, Stupid Lebanese, Stupid Syrians, Stupid Palestinians, Stupid Americans, Stupid British...

Welcome to the fruits of Osama Bin Laden's labours, people.

Well... I suppose we all knew it was going to happen eventually. Stupid Israelis, Stupid Lebanese, Stupid Syrians, Stupid Palestinians, Stupid Americans, Stupid British...

Welcome to the fruits of Osama Bin Laden's labours, people.

WHAT?

Osama Bin Laden is not the reason for Israel being the butthole of the region ever since it was "created".

WHAT?

Osama Bin Laden is not the reason for Israel being the butthole of the region ever since it was "created".

No, but he has done a fair bit of stirring over the last few years and even if not directly his work then you can bet he's pretty pleased with the results.

No, but he has done a fair bit of stirring over the last few years and even if not directly his work then you can bet he's pretty pleased with the results.
Yeah, and who funded and trained him, and evacuated his family away after September 11th, as well as making him a hero in the Afghanistan war, I wonder?

The Israelis have said that the people behind the rockets attacks in Haifa are the Syrians, and that it was "definitely them".

Syria has threatened a response which will not be restrained in any manner.

It's also a good time to remember that Iran will get involved if Syria is attacked.

The proverbial shit may have just hit the proverbial fan.



(It's not on the BBC website so far, but it was on BBC News 24 about an hour ago, if you have access to it, then watch the events unfold there)

And if you think Israel will attack Syria first, you are sadly mistaken. The ball is in Syria's court.

And if you think Israel will attack Syria first, you are sadly mistaken. The ball is in Syria's court.

Didn't Israel bomb Syria some time ago claiming that it was a "terrorist" camp when the image loooked more like a gun store?

Syria sure as hell didn't do anything then that resembled an attack.

And if you think Israel will attack Syria first, you are sadly mistaken. The ball is in Syria's court.
Yes, well, we shall see.

WHAT?

Osama Bin Laden is not the reason for Israel being the butthole of the region ever since it was "created".
Israel was out of Lebanon and tensions had been resolved by the year 2000. Sharon in March 2001 was popular for his views on withdrawal from Palestine. Jordan and Egypt were both on friendly terms with it, and had the finalisation of the formation of the Palestinian state been allowed to continue, it would have been supported by Pakistan as well. Prior to 9/11, Israel could probably have quite peacefully coexisted with the other middle eastern nations quite well. It was post-9/11 radicalisation of the regional Islamists and the reactionary panic of the Americans and Israelis that has directly led to the tensions we see today.

And if you think Israel will attack Syria first, you are sadly mistaken.
Yeah, it isn't like they are bombing other countries and shit. This isn't their usual bs.

Yeah, and who funded and trained him, and evacuated his family away after September 11th, as well as making him a hero in the Afghanistan war, I wonder?

Dude, I dislike the USs' foreign policy as much as the next guy but if you think they are the first govt. to train and fund an organisation only to have it bite them on the arse then you are sadly mistaken.

Well... I suppose we all knew it was going to happen eventually. Stupid Israelis, Stupid Lebanese, Stupid Syrians, Stupid Palestinians, Stupid Americans, Stupid British...

Welcome to the fruits of Osama Bin Laden's labours, people.


Wow, if you honestly think that the current issues surrounding Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, etc are somehow resultant of anything to do with Osama.... you are in dire need of a trip to the library!!


Might I suggest the section marked "History" as a starting point.....

It was post-9/11 radicalisation of the regional Islamists and the reactionary panic of the Americans and Israelis that has directly led to the tensions we see today.

Hog shit.

Dude, I dislike the USs' foreign policy as much as the next guy but if you think they are the first govt. to train and fund an organisation only to have it bite them on the arse then you are sadly mistaken.
The US themselves are a good example of it. An English colonising experiment gone horribly wrong.

I have 3 words to say, Sh*t! Sh*t! Sh*t!

And if you think Israel will attack Syria first, you are sadly mistaken. The ball is in Syria's court.

By stepping up the Lebanese attacks to include bombing the Christain sections, then I think that all bets are off as to how far Israel is willing to go this time around. And Syria knows damn well that it is outmatched in military technology by what the US has handed to Israel over the years, and I don't see Damascus feeling suicidal these days.

But we might just see a repeat of the "attack on Gleiwitz" to kick things off....

Dude, I dislike the USs' foreign policy as much as the next guy but if you think they are the first govt. to train and fund an organisation only to have it bite them on the arse then you are sadly mistaken.
They're the ones who are most inclined to complain about it and try to deny any responsibility at the moment, though.

Wow, if you honestly think that the current issues surrounding Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, etc are somehow resultant of anything to do with Osama.... you are in dire need of a trip to the library!!

Might I suggest the section marked "History" as a starting point.....
One word. Radicalisation.

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things. Now we have polarisation and authoritive action is the global standard on all sides of the discussion.

History is merely an excuse or justification for actions based on emotion. And the emotional state at the minute is very much due to events within the past 5 years.

The Israelis have said that the people behind the rockets attacks in Haifa are the Syrians, and that it was "definitely them".

Syria has threatened a response which will not be restrained in any manner.

It's also a good time to remember that Iran will get involved if Syria is attacked.

The proverbial shit may have just hit the proverbial fan.
Uh ... shouldn't that be: The proverbial shit may have just hit the allegorical fan? :D

Syria has always been this way. They have consistently supported anyone who opposes Israel. What really troubles me is this greatly resembles the prelude to WWII. :(

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things.
Utter bullshit. Hamas and Hezbolla have never been willing to talk.

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things.

Sure, they would. Also, Iran would not have pursued nuclear weapons, and North Korea would have laid down their arms and joined the South. :rolleyes:

Do you really believe what you are saying?

What really troubles me is this greatly resembles the prelude to WWII. :(

I find that comment interesting, would you mind elaborating? Not so I can counter argue, merely because I'm interested to hear your view. Thanks...

One word. Radicalisation.

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things. Now we have polarisation and authoritive action is the global standard on all sides of the discussion.

History is merely an excuse or justification for actions based on emotion. And the emotional state at the minute is very much due to events within the past 5 years.


One other word: Bullsh*t.

Israel used the American response to 9-11 as defacto carte-blanche to ratchet up their crackdowns on Palestinians which increased the regional tension. IT was NOT largely an Arab initiative.

In 2004 Hezbollah kidnapped a couple of Israelis in similar to secure a prisoner exchange with Israel. And it worked.

9-11 is a looooooooooooooooong way removed from the difference in response to the 2004 kidnapping and this over-reaction of bombing all of Lebanon's infrastructure to dust for a similar event.

They're the ones who are most inclined to complain about it and try to deny any responsibility at the moment, though.

The way I look at the US is this;

They are a young country, I've lived in houses older than them. They are like a child blundering around, trying to understand the world and making alot of mistakes in the process, just as other nations did in their past. The difference is that now we have the technology for the whole world to watch and criticise them for their mistakes instantly.

This doesn't mean that I think the way they behave as a nation is right, I just think they are growing up and we should cut hem a little slack from time to time.

The way I look at the US is this;

They are a young country, I've lived in houses older than them. They are like a child blundering around, trying to understand the world and making alot of mistakes in the process, just as other nations did in their past. The difference is that now we have the technology for the whole world to watch and criticise them for their mistakes instantly.

This doesn't mean that I think the way they behave as a nation is right, I just think they are growing up and we should cut hem a little slack from time to time.


Interesting analogy. Exculpatory AND condescending all at the same time!

Poor little America.... too young and stupid to understand the big bad world.....



Similarly, teen rapists should be patted on the head and excused their actions because they don't yet understand that it is a "mistake" in their understanding of sexual relationships....

The way I look at the US is this;

They are a young country, I've lived in houses older than them. They are like a child blundering around, trying to understand the world and making alot of mistakes in the process, just as other nations did in their past. The difference is that now we have the technology for the whole world to watch and criticise them for their mistakes instantly.

This doesn't mean that I think the way they behave as a nation is right, I just think they are growing up and we should cut hem a little slack from time to time.

What a crock! Name a country that acts its age?

Like a child blundering around? How is it that such an blubbering excuse for a country manages to steer itself into sole super-power status?

Good child care maybe?

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.

<snip>


Fair AND balanced! Just like FOX!!!

The fact that Israel has worked it's ass off to destabilize and cut off Palestinians from any source of income just becuse they didn't like the government they elected has no bearing..... right?

Israels abduction of palestinian elected officals has no bearing.... right?

Isreals settlement of occupied lands in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions never happened either.... right?

Israel NEVER has assassinated or abducted people inside Lebanon or Gaza... right?

Israel treats Arabs exactly as equals within their own borders.... right?

I could go on. And on. And on.


Fact is, the asshats on BOTH sides have caused this to happen. But the asshats in skull caps are the ones who have escalated a simple abduction such as has happened frequently on both sides into all-out war.

Not to excuse the abduction.

But sure as hell not to excuse the reaction either.

Utter bullshit. Hamas and Hezbolla have never been willing to talk.
Hamas wasn't in charge of Palestine until last year; Arafat was very definitely willing to talk and was talking. Lebanon was by and large content with the withdrawal of troops, and was engaged in talks to secure the release of the various prisoners each side had taken during the war.

I very much doubt that the two extremist movements would have as much authority today were it not for the tensions caused by the anti-western sentiment generated by Al-Qaeda and the western response to it.

Hamas wasn't in charge of Palestine until last year; Arafat was very definitely willing to talk and was talking.

And ordered terrorist attacks and turned down the best deal ever and started the intifada. Seems like he didn't want to talk at all nor agree to any peace proposal.

Lebanon was by and large content with the withdrawal of troops, and was engaged in talks to secure the release of the various prisoners each side had taken during the war.

That's fine but then explain Hezbollah! Why are they still around when the occupation is over?

I very much doubt that the two extremist movements would have as much authority today were it not for the tensions caused by the anti-western sentiment generated by Al-Qaeda and the western response to it.

You have no idea what you are saying do you?

Fair AND balanced! Just like FOX!!!

The fact that Israel has worked it's ass off to destabilize and cut off Palestinians from any source of income just becuse they didn't like the government they elected has no bearing..... right?

Israels abduction of palestinian elected officals has no bearing.... right?

Isreals settlement of occupied lands in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions never happened either.... right?

Israel NEVER has assassinated or abducted people inside Lebanon or Gaza... right?

Israel treats Arabs exactly as equals within their own borders.... right?

I could go on. And on. And on.


Fact is, the asshats on BOTH sides have caused this to happen. But the asshats in skull caps are the ones who have escalated a simple abduction such as has happened frequently on both sides into all-out war.

Not to excuse the abduction.

But sure as hell not to excuse the reaction either.

The government that the Palestinians elected has stated several times that they do not accept the existence of Israel and will do anything they can to destroy it. Despite repeated peace efforts by Israelis, Hamas has refused to negotiate.
If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.

The government that the Palestinians elected has stated several times that they do not accept the existence of Israel and will do anything they can to destroy it. Despite repeated peace efforts by Israelis, Hamas has refused to negotiate.
If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.

Well said :)

Well said :)
Thank you:)

The government that the Palestinians elected has stated several times that they do not accept the existence of Israel and will do anything they can to destroy it. Despite repeated peace efforts by Israelis, Hamas has refused to negotiate.
If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.



You'd be funny..... if you weren't for real.

The government that the Palestinians elected has stated several times that they do not accept the existence of Israel and will do anything they can to destroy it. Despite repeated peace efforts by Israelis, Hamas has refused to negotiate.
Complete bullshit.

The people who broke the ceasefire were the Israelis, not the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.
And as long as Israelis keep voting murderors into power, the same goes out to Palestine from me.

You'd be funny..... if you weren't for real.

So you are saying that Israel doesn't have the right to self defense?

Complete bullshit.

The people who broke the ceasefire were the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

Oh bullshit and you know it.

And as long as Israelis keep voting murderors into power, the same goes out to Palestine from me.

You can stop with the bigotry at anytime.

Complete bullshit.

The people who broke the ceasefire were the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

And as long as Israelis keep voting murderors into power, the same goes out to Palestine from me.
No, as I said, the killing of Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hamas are clear acts of war.
Murderers? How so?

Oh yes.... and by the way (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2123471)


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip Jun 27, 2006 (AP)— The rival Hamas and Fatah movements agreed on a plan implicitly recognizing Israel, a top Palestinian official said Tuesday after weeks of acrimonious negotiations aiming to lift crippling international aid sanctions.

Moderate President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah has been trying to coax his Hamas rivals into endorsing the document, which calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in effect recognizing the Jewish state. He has endorsed the plan as a way to end sanctions against the Hamas-led Palestinian government and pave the way to reopening peace talks with Israel.

"We have an agreement over the document," said Ibrahim Abu Najah, coordinator of the "national dialogue" over the proposal.

The plan also calls on militants to limit attacks to areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and calls for formation of a coalition Palestinian government.

The United States, Israel and European Union list Hamas as a terrorist group because it rejects the existence of Israel and has sent dozens of suicide bombers into the Jewish state, killing hundreds.

The West demands that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace accords, but Hamas refuses. As a result, the West has cut off much-needed aid to the Palestinian government.

Salah Zeidan, another negotiator, said preparations were being made for a formal signing ceremony.

"All political groups are prepared for a mutual cease-fire with Israel," he said.




You DID have a softening of position from the political side of Hamas along with other factions to pave the way towards peace.

Too bad that's all pissed away now....

Oh yes.... and by the way (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2123471)




You DID have a softening of position from the political side of Hamas along with other factions to pave the way towards peace.

Too bad that's all pissed away now....

Yea too bad hamas decided to break off a cease-fire and go on a rampage against Israel which precipated Israel's re-entrance into Gaza.

So you are saying that Israel doesn't have the right to self defense?


No. I'm saying that a country who implements that "self defense" by regularly tossing missiles into civilian areas in targetted assassinations has no business crying foul and calling it an unprovoked act of war when a couple of their soldiers get taken.

Like I said before - asshats on BOTH sides that cripple the chances for peace..

Yea too bad hamas decided to break off a cease-fire and go on a rampage against Israel which precipated Israel's re-entrance into Gaza.


Errr............... it's HAMAS rapaging?




Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Sure, they would. Also, Iran would not have pursued nuclear weapons, and North Korea would have laid down their arms and joined the South. :rolleyes:

Do you really believe what you are saying?
North Korea has nothing to do with the arabic world. Iran, on the other hand, might be more willing to play ball were it not for what they perceive as a distinct effort by the West to impose their own ideals in the middle east.

Yes, I do believe what I'm saying, and I'm genuinely quite surprised that everyone seems to think that the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, the 9/11 bombings and the anti-western and anti-arabic sentiments generated by these events has not had a noticable impact.

Maybe it's just due to the contact with the British muslim community I have. You guys in the 'states don't really have that, so I guess it would make sense that what we see differs.

No. I'm saying that a country who implements that "self defense" by regularly tossing missiles into civilian areas in targetted assassinations has no business crying foul and calling it an unprovoked act of war when a couple of their soldiers get taken.

Could you please send me a source?

Well... I suppose we all knew it was going to happen eventually. Stupid Israelis, Stupid Lebanese, Stupid Syrians, Stupid Palestinians, Stupid Americans, Stupid British...

Welcome to the fruits of Osama Bin Laden's labours, people.


Arabs have been killing Jews long before bin Laden ever came into the equation.

How can anyone condemn Israel. How would any of you feel if you had a sleu of unfriendly neighbors that constantly lobbed missiles across your border, sent suicide bombers into public places, and kidnapped your military personel.

Stupid Israel? Please. This is an inevitable fight that Israel will finally finish and put an end to this time around by rooting out not only the terrorist training camps, but also their leaders and financers...i.e. Syria and Iran.

How can anyone condemn Israel. How would any of you feel if you had a sleu of unfriendly neighbors that constantly lobbed missiles across your border, sent suicide bombers into public places, and kidnapped your military personel.
I'd... move house?

Could you please send me a source?

Like this? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1194472,00.html)

Or this? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100579,00.html)

Or this? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-08-26-mideast-raid_x.htm)

Or this? (http://www.rense.com/general37/miss.htm)

OR this? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493065/posts)


Sorry, but "Israel missile gaza" returns over 5 million hits on google. I hope you don't mind if I don't link them all.....

I'd... move house?


Or kill them before they kill you. Israel isn't going anywhere.

Oh bullshit and you know it.
Not true in the slightest.

HAMAS was condemning attacks right up to the beach shellings.

When those were inexplicably blamed on the PA, they stopped condemning attacks, unsurprisingly.
You can stop with the bigotry at anytime.
So when you support Israel it's OK, when I support Palestine, it's bigotry.

Classic Cornlieu double standards there.

Full scale war is over the horizon. Two British navy ships have been sent to Lebanon to help evacuate British citizens trapped in the conflict zone.

Royal Navy sails to crisis area (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=662080)

How can anyone condemn Israel. How would any of you feel if you had a sleu of unfriendly neighbors that constantly lobbed missiles across your border, sent suicide bombers into public places, and kidnapped your military personel.
How can you condemn the Arab world in this one, then?

Their land was removed and given to someone they've been at war against for the last however many years, by someone who they've never been the best of friends with.

When the world then lends support to this group regardless of what they've done, you'd have a right to be pissed off, no? (thankfully this unthinking support is coming to an end, only Bush like Israel overmuch anymore, so it's rather unfortunate that the US have veto power imho)

Full scale war is over the horizon. Two British navy ships have been sent to Lebanon to help evacuate British citizens trapped in the conflict zone.

Royal Navy sails to crisis area (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=662080)
I have a feeling that they're either going to have to fight their way through a blockade, or they'll be landing the Royal Marines in a coastal town with an airstrip (Beirut would be rather too ambitious) and then the Engineers'll go in and fix it up, and we'll Hercules our people out.

Because ten thousand people aren't going to fit on two ships...

If theres a blockade Israel won't be too happy, likely outcome = war.
If Israel some how see this as aiding Lebanon, likely outcome = war.

This situation really needs to be met with care otherwise theres no knowing what will happen.

If theres a blockade Israel won't be too happy, likely outcome = war.
If Israel some how see this as aiding Lebanon, likely outcome = war.

This situation really needs to be met with care otherwise theres no knowing what will happen.
Indeed. Israel is pretty irresponsible at the moment (and it can be - their mates in the White House can veto away any kind of sanctions or condemnation) and I'm rather worried about the fact that they have nukes.

How can you condemn the Arab world in this one, then?

Their land was removed and given to someone they've been at war against for the last however many years, by someone who they've never been the best of friends with.

When the world then lends support to this group regardless of what they've done, you'd have a right to be pissed off, no? (thankfully this unthinking support is coming to an end, only Bush like Israel overmuch anymore, so it's rather unfortunate that the US have veto power imho)

The old Ottoman empire was dissolved and the land that was part of it was given to the British for a Mandate to make a state. They saw Jews and Arabs, and made three states on that land. Jordan for 80% of it(no Jews allowed to live there), and the rest was split for Israel and Palestine. The Arabs rejected the plan and declared war on Israel with the objective of pushing the Jews into the sea.

Or kill them before they kill you. Israel isn't going anywhere.
Fair enough, but you did ask how we would feel, and I'd be getting the heck out of there. Land is a stupid thing to fight over; particularly when we have a whole continent going completely unoccupied..

Indeed. Israel is pretty irresponsible at the moment (and it can be - their mates in the White House can veto away any kind of sanctions or condemnation) and I'm rather worried about the fact that they have nukes.
If nukes are used, Israel can kiss its soverignty goodbye. The same, however, is similarly true of Iran, who would be just as likely in this situation to put any knowledge of its weaponry to use as the Israelis. Anyone who uses nuclear force will be leapt upon by the entire global community; of that, you can be certain.

The old Ottoman empire was dissolved and the land that was part of it was given to the British for a Mandate to make a state. They saw Jews and Arabs, and made three states on that land. Jordan for 80% of it(no Jews allowed to live there), and the rest was split for Israel and Palestine. The Arabs rejected the plan and declared war on Israel with the objective of pushing the Jews into the sea.
Yes, I know, but the point is that the Palestinians got a fairly raw deal out of it.

If nukes are used, Israel can kiss its soverignty goodbye. The same, however, is similarly true of Iran, who would be just as likely in this situation to put any knowledge of its weaponry to use as the Israelis. Anyone who uses nuclear force will be leapt upon by the entire global community; of that, you can be certain.
Just keep in mind that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, as opposed to Israel, which does for some reason.

Yes, I know, but the point is that the Palestinians got a fairly raw deal out of it.

Firstly, most "Palestinians" live in Jordan, because Jordan was part of the original Mandate of Palestine. So there's that.

But yes, the Palestinians of today are getting a raw deal, but we must ask why. Why, if they were given a state in 1947, did all the Arabs around invade Israel with hopes of destroying it.

Why did their Arab brothers stick them in refugee camps when the Jews of Israel took all their refugees that were expelled from Arab nations and integrated them into society.

Why do the leaders of the Palestinians spend their international aid on weapons instead of food and building infrastructure.

But here is the kicker. Why was there ABSOLUTELY NO CALL for an independant Palestinian state when Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and when Egypt annexed Gaza up until 1967. Why weren't the Paletinians screaming for a state and bombing Jordanians? I guess they can only behave like any good citizens when they are living with fellow Arabs, but when you bring Jews into the equation, theres no way in hell they can live with us.

Israel pursues a policy of assassination against anyone they consider a terrorist or anyone that supports said terrorists.

One of the targets in the Lebanese bombings was the house of a professor that was outspoken in his support of Hezbollah. Apparently making speeches in support of a group and their ideals is deserving of a 500 pound bomb to be dropped on your house – killing the professor, his wife, and his children (but of course Israel doesn’t target civilians).

Just prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza, the IDF raided Gaza to arrest a couple of ‘terrorist suspects’. The kidnapping of the soldiers was the response to the kidnapping of the members of Hamas. Israel likes to say that they have not been in Gaza for a year, but that is patently false – they have not occupied the Gaza strip for a year, but they regularly make trips into the strip to arrest suspects. Just because the IDF calls it exercising an arrest warrant instead of a kidnapping does not mean a kidnapping is not a direct and proportional response on behalf of Hamas.

As far as the rockets being sent into Israel, that too is a proportional response on behalf of Hammas and Hezbollah. Israel has consistently, even during supposed cease-fire agreements, conducted ‘assassination’ missions where by they fire rockets from helicopters at cars carrying people – even though innocent people may also be in the car, and the car is in the middle of a crowd in a market. Then there have been a couple of instances where, after firing a rocket into a car, they waited until the surrounding mass of people came in close to attempt to help anyone hurt in the attack, and fired a spread of rockets into the crowd to make sure there was no possibility of the target being rescued if still alive. Israel calls this a reasonable measure – and of course they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.

This sort of attitude pervades the IDF – I have seen a lot of footage from cameramen accompanying a patrol through the west bank at night. When one of them sees movement, they start firing at it (even when they have no idea what could have been moving) and when one starts, the entire patrol turns and starts firing in the same general direction (even though they haven’t the slightest clue what is going on – supposedly for suppressing fire). This is going on as they walk through a crowded residential district. Bullets do go through walls – so when you have a patrol of soldiers with automatic rifles spraying fire through the neighborhood I can see why the residents might be a little upset with the Israelis and their occupation. But of course they do their utmost to make sure civilians are not harmed.

I in no way mean to imply that Hamas or Hezbollah are in the least bit without blame – they are quite appalling. What I object to is the idea that Israel is in any way better than they are. Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah are all equally to blame for this – they are all equally responsible for the violence.

The difference here is that the IDF gets around 2.6 billion in military aid every year from the US (used to be more). Additionally they have a tacit agreement that the US will veto anything in the UN so that there is no possible means of redress for the victims of Israeli violence. This forced only one possible means of responding to oppression by the Israelis – and that is guerilla action a.k.a. terrorism. When you are desperate, when your very livelihood is at the whim of the Israelis, when they arbitrarily cut off even medical supplies in a blockade, when they ensure you have no possible redress to the international community (and when those that do send food and medical supplies – the supplies stack up on the other side of an Israeli blockade) – it is not unreasonable for such desperation to turn into attacks at the very people destroying the lives of your families and your people.

Why did their Arab brothers stick them in refugee camps when the Jews of Israel took all their refugees that were expelled from Arab nations and integrated them into society.


This is incorrect and one of the major obstacles in the peace negotiations.

The Palestinians call it the ‘right of return’. People cite that Arafat was offered a peace deal allowing them 97% of the West bank and the Gaza strip – but when they say that they miss one of the biggest complaints the Palestinians have. A major point is that a lot of the refugees want to go back to the towns they grew up in before being forced out by the Israelis. Israel would not allow any refugees to return to where they were expelled from, and thus the deal was rejected.

Israel pursues a policy of assassination against anyone they consider a terrorist or anyone that supports said terrorists.

One of the targets in the Lebanese bombings was the house of a professor that was outspoken in his support of Hezbollah. Apparently making speeches in support of a group and their ideals is deserving of a 500 pound bomb to be dropped on your house – killing the professor, his wife, and his children (but of course Israel doesn’t target civilians).

Just prior to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza, the IDF raided Gaza to arrest a couple of ‘terrorist suspects’. The kidnapping of the soldiers was the response to the kidnapping of the members of Hamas. Israel likes to say that they have not been in Gaza for a year, but that is patently false – they have not occupied the Gaza strip for a year, but they regularly make trips into the strip to arrest suspects. Just because the IDF calls it exercising an arrest warrant instead of a kidnapping does not mean a kidnapping is not a direct and proportional response on behalf of Hamas.

As far as the rockets being sent into Israel, that too is a proportional response on behalf of Hammas and Hezbollah. Israel has consistently, even during supposed cease-fire agreements, conducted ‘assassination’ missions where by they fire rockets from helicopters at cars carrying people – even though innocent people may also be in the car, and the car is in the middle of a crowd in a market. Then there have been a couple of instances where, after firing a rocket into a car, they waited until the surrounding mass of people came in close to attempt to help anyone hurt in the attack, and fired a spread of rockets into the crowd to make sure there was no possibility of the target being rescued if still alive. Israel calls this a reasonable measure – and of course they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.

This sort of attitude pervades the IDF – I have seen a lot of footage from cameramen accompanying a patrol through the west bank at night. When one of them sees movement, they start firing at it (even when they have no idea what could have been moving) and when one starts, the entire patrol turns and starts firing in the same general direction (even though they haven’t the slightest clue what is going on – supposedly for suppressing fire). This is going on as they walk through a crowded residential district. Bullets do go through walls – so when you have a patrol of soldiers with automatic rifles spraying fire through the neighborhood I can see why the residents might be a little upset with the Israelis and their occupation. But of course they do their utmost to make sure civilians are not harmed.

I in no way mean to imply that Hamas or Hezbollah are in the least bit without blame – they are quite appalling. What I object to is the idea that Israel is in any way better than they are. Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah are all equally to blame for this – they are all equally responsible for the violence.

The difference here is that the IDF gets around 2.6 billion in military aid every year from the US (used to be more). Additionally they have a tacit agreement that the US will veto anything in the UN so that there is no possible means of redress for the victims of Israeli violence. This forced only one possible means of responding to oppression by the Israelis – and that is guerilla action a.k.a. terrorism. When you are desperate, when your very livelihood is at the whim of the Israelis, when they arbitrarily cut off even medical supplies in a blockade, when they ensure you have no possible redress to the international community (and when those that do send food and medical supplies – the supplies stack up on the other side of an Israeli blockade) – it is not unreasonable for such desperation to turn into attacks at the very people destroying the lives of your families and your people.

With all due respect, you're full of shit. If Hamas and Hezbollah would get off their Jew killing spree thats been on going since Israel's inception (granted before Hamas and Hezbollah there were other terror groups), there would be NO violence. But Israel will not sit back while its citizens are blown up in suicide bombings and rocket attacks coming from the Palestinian territories and southern Lebanon.

This is incorrect and one of the major obstacles in the peace negotiations.

The Palestinians call it the ‘right of return’. People cite that Arafat was offered a peace deal allowing them 97% of the West bank and the Gaza strip – but when they say that they miss one of the biggest complaints the Palestinians have. A major point is that a lot of the refugees want to go back to the towns they grew up in before being forced out by the Israelis. Israel would not allow any refugees to return to where they were expelled from, and thus the deal was rejected.

The right of return is just another term for "breed out the Jews." The whole ploy of right of return is just a way to eventually outbreed the Jews in Israel so that the state will sooner rather than later become an Islamic state and the Jews will relive their long history of being forced out of the places they live and probably killed.

Return to their homes? How many of the Arabs that left Palestine (most left willingly, only a very small portion left by force, and if they did, it was because of direly important strategic points along the Tel-Aviv Jerusalem highway) in 1948 are even still alive? The original number of Arabs that left Palestine in '48 was roughly 700,000. how many of the actual Arabs that left are even still alive today and can even return to their homes? It's ridiculous. These homes most likely don't even exist anymore and how would someone prove that they used to live there. The Palestinians of today have no connection to Israel or the homes in it, and should stay where they are in their territories and make a state for them there. Period.

This is incorrect and one of the major obstacles in the peace negotiations.

The Palestinians call it the ‘right of return’. People cite that Arafat was offered a peace deal allowing them 97% of the West bank and the Gaza strip – but when they say that they miss one of the biggest complaints the Palestinians have. A major point is that a lot of the refugees want to go back to the towns they grew up in before being forced out by the Israelis. Israel would not allow any refugees to return to where they were expelled from, and thus the deal was rejected.
Why should that be a problem as long as they get their posessions back and enough of a reimbursement for the loss of property? It's not like land actually means anything.

Why should that be a problem as long as they get their posessions back and enough of a reimbursement for the loss of property? It's not like land actually means anything.

What possessions could still possibly be around 58 years after the fact? Reimbursments??? What about reimbursements for the more than ONE MILLION Jewish refugees that were forced out of all the Arab countries following the establishment of Israel. They recieved nothing from the countries that forced them out. Good thing that Jews value human life and the Jewish refugees were integrated into Israeli society. It's too bad the Arabs didn't do the same for their brothers, because they just put them in camps and have kept them there for years.

Why should that be a problem as long as they get their posessions back and enough of a reimbursement for the loss of property? It's not like land actually means anything.
And yet people complain when people say "why not just move Israel away?" and presume that we mean "let's force all Israelis into the sea", which is clearly not at all a good thing.

And yet people complain when people say "why not just move Israel away?" and presume that we mean "let's force all Israelis into the sea", which is clearly not at all a good thing.

So what do you mean when you say "why not just move Israel away."

What possessions could still possibly be around 58 years after the fact? Reimbursments??? What about reimbursements for the more than ONE MILLION Jewish refugees that were forced out of all the Arab countries following the establishment of Israel. They recieved nothing from the countries that forced them out. Good thing that Jews value human life and the Jewish refugees were integrated into Israeli society. It's too bad the Arabs didn't do the same for their brothers, because they just put them in camps and have kept them there for years.
58 years or not, both you and they once owned property and had that taken from them. The honourable thing for both sides to do would be to return the value of that which was stolen. You know, equivalent exchange and all that.

Complete bullshit.

The people who broke the ceasefire were the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

And as long as Israelis keep voting murderors into power, the same goes out to Palestine from me.
Wrong. Israel has yet to break a ceasefire. Qassam rockets or mortars or some other attack has always been launched before israel retaliated.

Oh yes.... and by the way (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2123471)




You DID have a softening of position from the political side of Hamas along with other factions to pave the way towards peace.

Too bad that's all pissed away now....
That was refuted by hamas less than 24 hours later.

58 years or not, both you and they once owned property and had that taken from them. The honourable thing for both sides to do would be to return the value of that which was stolen. You know, equivalent exchange and all that.


Right, go try and convince some of those peachy Arab leaders to give any of their money away...especially to Jews.

Right, go try and convince some of those peachy Arab leaders to give any of their money away...especially to Jews.
I reckon I can tell you what they'd say:

"Right, go try and convince some of those peachy Israeli leaders to give any of their money away... especially to Muslims."

Any intermediatory would only elongate the problem. One or other of you needs to take the initiative for it to happen.

*EDIT: Sorry if it came across as a little harsh*

If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.

Israel has a history of electing terrorists to power to, go look up Prime Minister Menachem Begin, founder and leader of the Irgun terrorist group. Look up the Irgun and their actions, look up Deir Yassin(especially what Begin said about it afterwards) and the countless attacks on British targets across Europe.

The right of return is just another term for "breed out the Jews." The whole ploy of right of return is just a way to eventually outbreed the Jews in Israel so that the state will sooner rather than later become an Islamic state and the Jews will relive their long history of being forced out of the places they live and probably killed.

Return to their homes? How many of the Arabs that left Palestine (most left willingly, only a very small portion left by force, and if they did, it was because of direly important strategic points along the Tel-Aviv Jerusalem highway) in 1948 are even still alive? The original number of Arabs that left Palestine in '48 was roughly 700,000. how many of the actual Arabs that left are even still alive today and can even return to their homes? It's ridiculous. These homes most likely don't even exist anymore and how would someone prove that they used to live there. The Palestinians of today have no connection to Israel or the homes in it, and should stay where they are in their territories and make a state for them there. Period.

You could say the same thing about the Jews before Israel was created, what call did they have to the land? Not any different then the Palestinians now.

The right of return is just another term for "breed out the Jews." The whole ploy of right of return is just a way to eventually outbreed the Jews in Israel so that the state will sooner rather than later become an Islamic state and the Jews will relive their long history of being forced out of the places they live and probably killed..

The Jews are going to be bred out anyway, look at the birth rates for Israeli Arabs and Jews, won't be long till there are just as many Arabs as Jews in Israel, and that will be interesting to see.

Not true in the slightest.

HAMAS was condemning attacks right up to the beach shellings.

The beach wasn't shelled fool. I really wish you stop reporting that debunked line because really...it is false and proven as false. Please come up with a different lie.

When those were inexplicably blamed on the PA, they stopped condemning attacks, unsurprisingly.

Considering it was done by palestinians and not by the Israelis, why shouldn't they get the blame?

So when you support Israel it's OK, when I support Palestine, it's bigotry.

When you constantly believe a lie that has been debunked because it shows those who oppose Israel in a bad light, is bigotry fool.

Full scale war is over the horizon. Two British navy ships have been sent to Lebanon to help evacuate British citizens trapped in the conflict zone.

Royal Navy sails to crisis area (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=662080)

And this means full scale war how? US has forces in the area to evac Americans. How does this prove that full scale war is over the horizon?

The beach wasn't shelled fool. I really wish you stop reporting that debunked line because really...it is false and proven as false. Please come up with a different lie..

Firstly I fail to see the need for name calling. Secondly, it is not 'false' nor is it proven as such.


When you constantly believe a lie that has been debunked because it shows those who oppose Israel in a bad light, is bigotry fool.

More abuse....Tut tut. It can be said to be unproven as to who is to blame, but to say that its been decisively proven that it was not in fact Israel is untrue.

Wrong. Israel has yet to break a ceasefire. Qassam rockets or mortars or some other attack has always been launched before israel retaliated.

I know that Yootopia has no idea about facts. Don't try to use it with him for he doesn't understand what we are saying.

Good work though :)

The beach wasn't shelled fool. I really wish you stop reporting that debunked line because really...it is false and proven as false. Please come up with a different lie.
Yeah, it's debunked as in "The Israeli Governments says that they're not to blame, and the US says 'fair enough'".

Human Rights Watch amongst other groups have said "what are you on about, it was an Israeli 155mm shell". And they're the closest we'll get to an independant enquiry.
When you constantly believe a lie that has been debunked because it shows those who oppose Israel in a bad light, is bigotry fool.
Yes, and when you constantly talk out of your arse about Palestine it's the very same.

Yeah, it's debunked as in "The Israeli Governments says that they're not to blame, and the US says 'fair enough'".

Human Rights Watch amongst other groups have said "what are you on about, it was an Israeli 155mm shell". And they're the closest we'll get to an independant enquiry.

In which they stated (and this is tiresome to repeat) that they cannot prove that it was the Israelis that did it. No proof that they did it so get off of the tired old line that they did. Unless you have proof that they actually did it since everyone knows that the Israeli navy does not have the type of weapon used on any of their ships.

No doubt we'll soon be told how the good book justifies it all....

In which they stated (and this is tiresome to repeat) that they cannot prove that it was the Israelis that did it. No proof that they did it so get off of the tired old line that they did. Unless you have proof that they actually did it since everyone knows that the Israeli navy does not have the type of weapon used on any of their ships.
The last thing I heard, HRW were saying that an Israeli 155mm shell was the cause... and how do you know about the Israeli Navy and its exact armaments?

Hear it in a vision?

The last thing I heard, HRW were saying that an Israeli 155mm shell was the cause... and how do you know about the Israeli Navy and its exact armaments?

Hear it in a vision?

From what I know, the Israeli navy does not mount 155mm guns on its ships(Though I could be mistaken) though the army does field many 155mm pieces.

The last thing I heard, HRW were saying that an Israeli 155mm shell was the cause... and how do you know about the Israeli Navy and its exact armaments?

Hear it in a vision?

Its called research. You should try it sometime. It'll make ya stop spouting off nonsense that have no basis in reality.

Its called research. You should try it sometime. It'll make ya stop spouting off nonsense that have no basis in reality.
Yes, because I'm absolutely sure that the Israeli Navy has all of its databases open to the public...

Yes, because I'm absolutely sure that the Israeli Navy has all of its databases open to the public...

Fine then. Don't believe the fact that their navy don't use 155mm shells. They don't but if you want to believe that they do and did what you are claiming they did (without proof I might add), that isn't my problem.

Whatever any of us may think about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East here are some things to remember.

War is the failure of diplomacy. (Churchhill)

This war will spread.

A full blow war in the Middle East will be the war that ends our dependence on fossil fuels.

If you don't own a bicycle now, you'd better get one.

How does 4.00 a gallon sound to you?

I don't sympathize with any of them anymore. The Israelis are always itching to lob a bomb at some beach in Gaza... maybe they can take out more children.
The Hamas is a group of people living in unreality land. Welcome to 2006. Live with what you got, and figure out how to make the best of it without blowing up your own people.

Hezbellah : see above.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to let these people clean each other's clock. I'm sick of seeing them in the news, I'm sick of hearing their excuses for why more children (on either side) have to die.:sniper:

Hello!

I actually think Israel should strike Syria, because it signed a deal with Iran knowing perfectly well what would be the reaction of the israelis! So, in my opinion to strike now or wait for them to strike is irrelevant because no matter what they do, Iran will be always part of the equasion! And by now, the hezzbollah leaders are already in Syria.By harbouring terrorists israel has even more right to go after them. Even with an UN resolution, which i don't think it would pass...

(i can be wrong.... or not... heheheheheh)

Yes, because I'm absolutely sure that the Israeli Navy has all of its databases open to the public...

Check out this website,

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/toc.html#Charts


Extremely detailed charts, exc on not just the Israeli but practically every Middle East and North African military. Very well broken down, lots of info.

EDIT: According to those charts exc the Israeli navy does not mount 155mm pieces.

I'm not sure what beach you are talking about, but if it was a beach it Gaza then it would be well within range of Israeli artillery, and the Israeli army fields over 600 155mm pieces.

Dude, I dislike the USs' foreign policy as much as the next guy but if you think they are the first govt. to train and fund an organisation only to have it bite them on the arse then you are sadly mistaken.

Interesting fact I found, according to Jason Burke's book on Al Qaeda, less than 25% of the funding of the Afghan resistance was provided by the US. Most of it came from Arab donors, the Saudi government, and other funds raised by Mosques and non-governmental organisations. Most of the major gulf based charities operating today were founded then as a means of channeling money to fund the Afghani resistance groups.

The idea that the US were solely responsible for "creating" Al-Qaeda is largely overstated.

The Jews are going to be bred out anyway, look at the birth rates for Israeli Arabs and Jews, won't be long till there are just as many Arabs as Jews in Israel, and that will be interesting to see.

Yes but unlike those living in the Gaza strip and the West Bank, those Arabs are, by in large, not hostile to the state of Israel.

The Jews are going to be bred out anyway, look at the birth rates for Israeli Arabs and Jews, won't be long till there are just as many Arabs as Jews in Israel, and that will be interesting to see.

Yeah, it's really interesting to watch the entire decimation of a people who've been persecuted since who knows when. Hey, and while we're at it, let's blame them for all the problems over there. Hey, and then we can blame 9/11 on the United States -- we had it coming, supporting Israel and all...

Interesting fact I found, according to Jason Burke's book on Al Qaeda, less than 25% of the funding of the Afghan resistance was provided by the US. Most of it came from Arab donors, the Saudi government, and other funds raised by Mosques and non-governmental organisations. Most of the major gulf based charities operating today were founded then as a means of channeling money to fund the Afghani resistance groups.

The idea that the US were solely responsible for "creating" Al-Qaeda is largely overstated.

That is true, but America was key for the Mujahideen. Things from equipment to training, things none of those other nations could provide. One example everyone knows about is the Stinger, read the book The Soviet-Afghan War, How a Superpower Fought and Lost. It is a translation of a book written by the Russian General Staff on the war(The Russians are notorious for making histories of the wars they fight, look at WW2 were dozens of brilliant officers were taken from combat positions and instead put into positions to analyze and write about the war) it'll show you how the Russians felt about just the Stinger.

Though you are right, the U.S. is far from being solely responsible.

Yes but unlike those living in the Gaza strip and the West Bank, those Arabs are, by in large, not hostile to the state of Israel.

True, many even fight for Israel, I believe they actually have an Arab unit in the IDF...maybe someone like IDF(The NS player) with more knowledge on the subject could fill us in more on that.


Yeah, it's really interesting to watch the entire decimation of a people who've been persecuted since who knows when. Hey, and while we're at it, let's blame them for all the problems over there. Hey, and then we can blame 9/11 on the United States -- we had it coming, supporting Israel and all...


Umm...ok? Don't know why your snapping but sure...

True, many even fight for Israel, I believe they actually have an Arab unit in the IDF...maybe someone like IDF(The NS player) with more knowledge on the subject could fill us in more on that.




Umm...ok? Don't know why your snapping but sure...
I may have the username IDF here, but I'm American. I can confirm though that many Arabs volunteer for the IDF. The Arabs don't have the obligatory service that the Jews do, but many choose to serve anyways.

No, as I said, the killing of Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hamas are clear acts of war.
Murderers? How so?

Acts of war requires nations.... Lebanon, as a nation, did not engage in acts of war.

Which, I guess, makes the Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets, to try to prompt change.... terrorism, no?

Acts of war requires nations.... Lebanon, as a nation, did not engage in acts of war.

Which, I guess, makes the Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets, to try to prompt change.... terrorism, no?

Since when is bombing Terrorist HQ bombing a civilian target? Since when is it terrorism to bomb targets that are used by terrorists to further their ends?

It isn't.

Uh ... shouldn't that be: The proverbial shit may have just hit the allegorical fan? :D

Syria has always been this way. They have consistently supported anyone who opposes Israel. What really troubles me is this greatly resembles the prelude to WWII. :(

More like WWI to me, I mean it was started by the actons of a small Terrorist group, and a single death of one important person.

Since when is bombing Terrorist HQ bombing a civilian target? Since when is it terrorism to bomb targets that are used by terrorists to further their ends?

It isn't.

Have you been ignoring the ENTIRE news, or just the parts you don't like?

Maybe it's just due to the contact with the British muslim community I have. You guys in the 'states don't really have that, so I guess it would make sense that what we see differs.

Right! No Muslims in the US...OK...if you say so...Oh,...sorry...we have no contact with Muslims in our country...right...if you say so...:(

Have you been ignoring the ENTIRE news, or just the parts you don't like?

Bridges=used by Hezbollah (legal target)

Airport=used by Hezbollah to smuggle rockets into the nation (legal target)

Ports=used to smuggle weapons (legal target)

Roads=used by hezbollah to get from point a to point b (legal target)

Hezbollah HQ (legal target)

I haven't been ignoring the news. Have you?

Bridges=used by Hezbollah (legal target)

Airport=used by Hezbollah to smuggle rockets into the nation (legal target)

Ports=used to smuggle weapons (legal target)

Roads=used by hezbollah to get from point a to point b (legal target)

Hezbollah HQ (legal target)

I haven't been ignoring the news. Have you?

If we were talking about Hezbollah targets, there'd be no problem...

But, Israel are targetting infrastructure.... that means some of the targets are entirely 'non-partisan'.

Bombing the Hezbollah TV station is reasonable... bombing Beirut powerstations is unacceptable.

The Hezbollah threat is in the South... why is Israel bombing Tripoli? Tyre?

Why are they firing missiles at civilian cars?

Bombing Hezbollah HQ - legitimate... bombing civilian fuel stations is unacceptable.

I don't accept your assertion that, just because Hezbollah MIGHT use a facility, it is a legitimate target. If the West wants to take humanitarian aid into Beirut, Israel has attacked ports and airfields.... how is aid going to get in?

*snip*

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue Gni on what constitutes a civilian target in a war and not a civilian target in a war.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue Gni on what constitutes a civilian target in a war and not a civilian target in a war.

There is no 'war' with Lebanon.

Israel is fighting Hezbollah. No formal war with Lebanon exists... thus, the incursion by Israeli soldiers on the 12th, and the constant attacks of infrastructure are attacks on a sovereign nation... and attacks on civilian targets are thus terrorism.

Acts of war requires nations.... Lebanon, as a nation, did not engage in acts of war.

Which, I guess, makes the Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets, to try to prompt change.... terrorism, no?
Let's use a different example, maybe you might understand it then.

Assume (and some of you have wished for this) that the Minute Man Project developed an armed wing named the Boston Tea Brigade.

Now the BTB starts off innocently enough just "protecting" the regular MM people. But they start to branch off doing things that were never what the MM wanted to do.

The BTB starts shooting immigrants. Next they start targeting legal immigrants in cities in the US. Then they start making rocket and morder attacks into Mexican cities.

Now let's assume that Mexico shows restraint and decides to, instead of retaliate against the US as a whole, goes to the US Government and asks that we stop the attacks on it's citizens.

Again, let's assume that the governments response is "sorry, they really are just an independant group, therefor it's not our responsibility."

Work that scenario out why don't you and then tell me you don't think the Lebonese government is not responsible for what a part of that government has done.

There is no 'war' with Lebanon.

Right now, there is an air war going on with Israel bombing legitament targets in Lebanon.

Israel is fighting Hezbollah. No formal war with Lebanon exists... thus, the incursion by Israeli soldiers on the 12th, and the constant attacks of infrastructure are attacks on a sovereign nation... and attacks on civilian targets are thus terrorism.

WTH are you talking about? No Israeli soldiers have crossed into Lebanon. Not even on the 12th of July. Israel is hitting legit military targets.

As I said. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what is and is not a civilian target in a middle of war.

this is gonna be fun.
:sniper: :mp5: :fluffle: :gundge: :mad: :eek:

massive religious war the escalates into an Apocalyptic World War 3

Right now, there is an air war going on with Israel bombing legitament targets in Lebanon.


Really, when was this 'war' announced?


WTH are you talking about? No Israeli soldiers have crossed into Lebanon. Not even on the 12th of July. Israel is hitting legit military targets.

As I said. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what is and is not a civilian target in a middle of war.

WEDNESDAY 12 JULY

"...In response Israeli planes bomb Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and troops cross into southern Lebanon for the first time since the military withdrawal of 2000.

However, the troops encounter heavy resistance - eight are killed and two others are injured during fighting with Hezbollah. Israel calls up reserve troops as it pledges a swift and large-scale response to the Hezbollah attack..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179434.stm

Like I said... you are only apparently watching half the news...

Hence the half-arsed approach.

Acts of war requires nations.... Lebanon, as a nation, did not engage in acts of war.

No, acts of war do not require a nation. Remember 9/11? Also, Lebanon was harboring terrorists that committed acts of war, just like Afghanistan was harboring terrorists that committed acts of war.

Which, I guess, makes the Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets, to try to prompt change.... terrorism, no?

Israel has not bombarded any civilian targets.

Let's use a different example, maybe you might understand it then.

Assume (and some of you have wished for this) that the Minute Man Project developed an armed wing named the Boston Tea Brigade.

Now the BTB starts off innocently enough just "protecting" the regular MM people. But they start to branch off doing things that were never what the MM wanted to do.

The BTB starts shooting immigrants. Next they start targeting legal immigrants in cities in the US. Then they start making rocket and morder attacks into Mexican cities.

Now let's assume that Mexico shows restraint and decides to, instead of retaliate against the US as a whole, goes to the US Government and asks that we stop the attacks on it's citizens.

Again, let's assume that the governments response is "sorry, they really are just an independant group, therefor it's not our responsibility."

Work that scenario out why don't you and then tell me you don't think the Lebonese government is not responsible for what a part of that government has done.

Umm...well, your example is wrong for starters.

Hezbollah started during the Lebanese civil war and it's goal(a goal that still exists today because the Shebba farms remain occupied by Israel) was to kick out the Israeli forcing occupying much of the country. It was founded by Syria and Iran and is primarily funded, armed and trained by those nations.


Lebanon can not do anything about it. Hell, up untill about 9 months there were 15,000 armed Syrian troops in Lebanon. Lebanon is under Syrian control, and untill Lebanon is freed from Syrian control Lebanon cannot do much.

Hezbollah is not lebanon, though it does control apart of the government with heavy Syrian support(The President, Lahoud is a Syrian puppet, Syria illegally changed teh constitution not once but twice, first to have him put in place then to keep him there. Though in reality the Prime Minister, who is anti-Hezbollah, has more power, there isn't much he can do, especially after the last few politicians who did something about Hezbollah and Syria got blown up.). You want to fix the problem, move in troops and kick SYria out once and for all, free Lebanon for the Lebanese.

I am Lebanese, and I hope Israel moves in ground troops and kicks the shit out of Hezbollah and Syria.

Really, when was this 'war' announced?

You really need to pay attention. War was announced when Hezbollah crossed the border and attacked IDF forces, killing 8 and capturing 2. That's war right there dumbass.

*snip*

Funny since no other news organizations reported that Israel crossed the border.

The Israelis have said that the people behind the rockets attacks in Haifa are the Syrians, and that it was "definitely them".

Syria has threatened a response which will not be restrained in any manner.

It's also a good time to remember that Iran will get involved if Syria is attacked.

The proverbial shit may have just hit the proverbial fan.



(It's not on the BBC website so far, but it was on BBC News 24 about an hour ago, if you have access to it, then watch the events unfold there)
Everyone thinks this is a doomsday situation, but Im telling you its not. The whole thing will be over in a week.

There is no 'war' with Lebanon.

Israel is fighting Hezbollah. No formal war with Lebanon exists... thus, the incursion by Israeli soldiers on the 12th, and the constant attacks of infrastructure are attacks on a sovereign nation... and attacks on civilian targets are thus terrorism.

Then I guess the US did and does not have a war with Afghanistan. We were and are just fighting Al Queda. :eek:

Umm...well, your example is wrong for starters.

Hezbollah started during the Lebanese civil war and it's goal(a goal that still exists today because the Shebba farms remain occupied by Israel) was to kick out the Israeli forcing occupying much of the country. It was founded by Syria and Iran and is primarily funded, armed and trained by those nations.

WRong on 2 counts. 1) Hezbollah was formed to kick Israel out of Lebanon. That's done. They are no longer needed. 2) Shebba farms belongs to Syria and not to Lebanon.

No, acts of war do not require a nation. Remember 9/11? Also, Lebanon was harboring terrorists that committed acts of war, just like Afghanistan was harboring terrorists that committed acts of war.

9/11 was not an act of war. It was a terrorist attack, or a militant strike, or an act of rebellion against imperialists, or whatever you want to call it - but no war was declared.

As to the idea that Lebanon was 'harboring' terrorists... so was the US, just a few weeks ago, in Miami. Is it legitimate, then, for the US to be attacked?

[QUOTE=Celtlund]
Israel has not bombarded any civilian targets.

No? How is Tripoli involved? How is the Beirut power station not civilian?

this is gonna be fun.
:sniper: :mp5: :fluffle: :gundge: :mad: :eek:

massive religious war the escalates into an Apocalyptic World War 3

How ironic that religion would be the precursor to the apocolypse.

WRong on 2 counts. 1) Hezbollah was formed to kick Israel out of Lebanon. That's done. They are no longer needed. 2) Shebba farms belongs to Syria and not to Lebanon.

They are claimed by Lebanon and are still occupied by Israel, so for Hezbollah it is an excuse.

Granted it is a BS one but it is their excuse.

this is gonna be fun.
:sniper: :mp5: :fluffle: :gundge: :mad: :eek:

massive religious war the escalates into an Apocalyptic World War 3

You have a wierd sence of "fun." :rolleyes:

You really need to pay attention. War was announced when Hezbollah crossed the border and attacked IDF forces, killing 8 and capturing 2. That's war right there dumbass.


Dumbass? Flaming me, my friend? Not a good start.

I still don't see a formal declaration of war.... it isn't a 'state of war' without one.


Funny since no other news organizations reported that Israel crossed the border.

So - you don't look at enough news sources? I heard it on the 13th, on AP on the radio.

Edit:

"JERUSALEM - Israel bombed and shelled southern Lebanon and sent ground troops over the border for the first time in six years Wednesday after Hezbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers. The fighting killed eight Israeli soldiers and three Lebanese."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_lebanon_8

Umm...well, your example is wrong for starters.

Hezbollah started during the Lebanese civil war and it's goal(a goal that still exists today because the Shebba farms remain occupied by Israel) was to kick out the Israeli forcing occupying much of the country. It was founded by Syria and Iran and is primarily funded, armed and trained by those nations.


Lebanon can not do anything about it. Hell, up untill about 9 months there were 15,000 armed Syrian troops in Lebanon. Lebanon is under Syrian control, and untill Lebanon is freed from Syrian control Lebanon cannot do much.

Hezbollah is not lebanon, though it does control apart of the government with heavy Syrian support(The President, Lahoud is a Syrian puppet, Syria illegally changed teh constitution not once but twice, first to have him put in place then to keep him there. Though in reality the Prime Minister, who is anti-Hezbollah, has more power, there isn't much he can do, especially after the last few politicians who did something about Hezbollah and Syria got blown up.). You want to fix the problem, move in troops and kick SYria out once and for all, free Lebanon for the Lebanese.

I am Lebanese, and I hope Israel moves in ground troops and kicks the shit out of Hezbollah and Syria.
Hezbollah controls part of the Lebanese government, but the government of Lebanon is not responsible for what Hezbollah does.

So if Texas wants to invade Mexico, the US government isn't responsible for that?
Or if the Democratic party wants to invade Canada, the US government isn't responsible for that?

How the heck does that work out?

Then I guess the US did and does not have a war with Afghanistan. We were and are just fighting Al Queda. :eek:

Actually, the 'excuse' in Afghanistan was supposed to be the Taliban, wasn't it?

Just for Gni's benefit:

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- The Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas kidnapped two soldiers and killed three others in a cross-border raid Wednesday.

....

'Act of war'
Israel called Wednesday's abductions an act of war, and Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command, said he has "comprehensive plans" to battle Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, not just in its southern stronghold.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/mideast/index.html

Apparently they were not taken in Lebanon but in Israel and the soldiers died on Israeli soil and not on Lebanon soil. Apparently no Israeli troops have yet invaded Lebanon but if Hezbollah doesn't release the troops soon, there will be a ground invasion.

Really, when was this 'war' announced?

Yesterday.

Hezbollah declares war on Israel

Saturday 15 July 2006, 4:32 Makka Time, 1:32 GMT

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah group, has pledged open war on Israel after it bombed his Beirut home on Friday in a dramatic expansion of the latest Israeli assault.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AF23D116-9B23-4857-AA1A-9EA595F2D4B1.htm

One word. Radicalisation.

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things. Now we have polarisation and authoritive action is the global standard on all sides of the discussion.

History is merely an excuse or justification for actions based on emotion. And the emotional state at the minute is very much due to events within the past 5 years.
Interesting that you stop your causation analysis at the American response to 9/11, rather than at the terrorist actions on 9/11.

Do you really believe that if America did nothing after 9/11, things would be better now? That no response would not have emboldened Islamic terrorism even more?

Israel has not bombarded any civilian targets.

"More civilians on both sides of the border were caught in the middle, and reports said an Israeli missile destroyed a van in southern Lebanon carrying 20 people - 15 of them children. More than 30 people were killed in the air strikes."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/435555p-366923c.html

"At least 16 died in the city of Tyre, while strikes on a border village killed at least seven, including five with Canadian and Lebanese citizenship."
"Dozens more were wounded in the Israeli strike on a building housing civil defence workers in Tyre. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5185624.stm

Presumably we'll be told it was their own fault for living too close to Arabs.

Just for Gni's benefit:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/12/mideast/index.html

Apparently they were not taken in Lebanon but in Israel and the soldiers died on Israeli soil and not on Lebanon soil. Apparently no Israeli troops have yet invaded Lebanon but if Hezbollah doesn't release the troops soon, there will be a ground invasion.

Israel doesn't get to 'declare war' for anyone else. Only themselves.

You have a wierd sence of "fun." :rolleyes:
at least it gives us something to watch on tv

Hezbollah controls part of the Lebanese government, but the government of Lebanon is not responsible for what Hezbollah does.

So if Texas wants to invade Mexico, the US government isn't responsible for that?
Or if the Democratic party wants to invade Canada, the US government isn't responsible for that?

How the heck does that work out?


The government of Lebanon has no say in what Hezbollah does, none. If it is any governments fault it is Syria and Iran.

And again, Hezbollah is not the lebanese government, it is an independent terrorist organization backed by Syria, a nation that has controlled Lebanon since the end of the civil war.

Notice how every Lebanese politician, writer and reporter who speaks out against Syria somehow gets blown up? Including high ranking government officials(Like Prime minsters).

Yesterday.

Hezbollah declares war on Israel

Saturday 15 July 2006, 4:32 Makka Time, 1:32 GMT

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the chief of Hezbollah group, has pledged open war on Israel after it bombed his Beirut home on Friday in a dramatic expansion of the latest Israeli assault.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AF23D116-9B23-4857-AA1A-9EA595F2D4B1.htm

Hezbollah is not the government. They cannot 'declare war' in any official capacity.

The government that the Palestinians elected has stated several times that they do not accept the existence of Israel and will do anything they can to destroy it. Despite repeated peace efforts by Israelis, Hamas has refused to negotiate.
If the Palestinians insist on electing terrorists to their government, Israel has every right to defend itself against them.
"Asshats in skullcaps"? Nothing racist there ... (/sarcasm).:rolleyes:

You'd be funny..... if you weren't for real.
You'd be funny .... if you actually answered with a reasoned and logical response, rather than a sarcastic quip.

'Act of war'
Israel called Wednesday's abductions an act of war, and Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel's Northern Command, said he has "comprehensive plans" to battle Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, not just in its southern stronghold.

"This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Adam said. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." (Watch as Israeli forces enter Lebanon -- 2:29)

Earlier, Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."

Five more Israeli soldiers died in fighting following the raid. Four died in an attack on their tank, and another died as soldiers tried to help them, the IDF reported.

Four Israel civilians and six soldiers have been wounded so far in the fighting, which has included more than 100 airstrikes on what Israel says are Hezbollah bases, and road and bridges that could be used in transporting the kidnapped soldiers.

You do not need a declaration of war when your soveriegnty has been violated by another nation's political party/terror group.

Funny since no other news organizations reported that Israel crossed the border.

More evidence that this was just plain untrue:

"Israeli ground troops entered southern Lebanon on Wednesday to search for the two newly captured soldiers.

That's according to Israeli government officials, who say the soldiers are trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/world/main1790016.shtml

Actually, the 'excuse' in Afghanistan was supposed to be the Taliban, wasn't it?

No. The government of Afghanistan which was the Taliban were harboring Al Queda and refused to hand them over to the US. Just like the government of Lebanon is harboring Hezbollah and has not disarmed them as they were supposed to do.

"More civilians on both sides of the border were caught in the middle,

As I have stated before in this post, colateral damage (innocent civilians) is a very unfortunate aspect of war. The civilians were not the target. Unfortunatly, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most armies try to do everything they can to minimize collateral damage, but can not eliminate it.

As I have stated before in this post, colateral damage (innocent civilians) is a very unfortunate aspect of war. The civilians were not the target. Unfortunatly, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most armies try to do everything they can to minimize collateral damage, but can not eliminate it.

One might argue, if Hezbollah are the 'enemy', attackinh Hezbollah, INSTEAD of civilian targets, might be a good idea.

Hezbollah is not the government. They cannot 'declare war' in any official capacity.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

One might argue, if Hezbollah are the 'enemy', attackinh Hezbollah, INSTEAD of civilian targets, might be a good idea.

No civilian targets are being hit. Legit military targets are.

No civilian targets are being hit. Legit military targets are.

Bullshit. How are cars full of civilians, "Legit military targets"?

If you say so. :rolleyes:

Not me, my friend. It's been the 'official' state of play since, at least, the formation of the UN.

One might argue, if Hezbollah are the 'enemy', attackinh Hezbollah, INSTEAD of civilian targets, might be a good idea.

Well, repeating myself will not change your mind, so I'll just refer you to all the earlier posts by myself and other. Nuff said.

Bullshit. How are cars full of civilians, "Legit military targets"?

You do realize that bombs do go astray? Yes? Thought so.

Well, repeating myself will not change your mind, so I'll just refer you to all the earlier posts by myself and other. Nuff said.

And, apparently, merely presenting evidence that you are wrong, is not going to have any impact on your 'opinion'.

Check the links I've posted. Cars full of civilians are not a military target.

You do realize that bombs do go astray? Yes? Thought so.

So - a minute ago, there were no civilian targets, now there ARE, but it was an accident?

We aren't talking about ONE car, or one missile. If Israeli missiles are THAT innaccurate, there is no such thing as a military TARGET for them.

Acts of war requires nations.... Lebanon, as a nation, did not engage in acts of war.

Which, I guess, makes the Israeli bombardment of Lebanese civilian targets, to try to prompt change.... terrorism, no?
1. A significant percentage of the governing body in Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah.
2. Hezbollah controls the southern part of Lebanon.
3. The Lebanese government, as a whole, has done nothing to rein in Katyusha rocket attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel.
4. Hezbollah launched an operation from southern Lebanon across the border into Israel and kidnapped its soldiers.

Hezbollah in the government ---> no government condemnation of Hezbollah actions ---> implied support for a military action from one country into another.

I think most reasonable people, given the facts, could conclude that Hezbollah's recent kidnappings can be extended into an act of war by Lebanon on Israel.

So - a minute ago, there were no civilian targets, now there ARE, but it was an accident?

We aren't talking about ONE car, or one missile. If Israeli missiles are THAT innaccurate, there is no such thing as a military TARGET for them.

Bombs going astray happens. Sorry for that but no tech is perfect but bridges, roads, airports, and powerplants are legit targets in a war.

1. A significant percentage of the governing body in Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah.
2. Hezbollah controls the southern part of Lebanon.
3. The Lebanese government, as a whole, has done nothing to rein in Katyusha rocket attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel.
4. Hezbollah launched an operation from southern Lebanon across the border into Israel and kidnapped its soldiers.

Hezbollah in the government ---> no government condemnation of Hezbollah actions ---> implied support for a military action from one country into another.

I think most reasonable people, given the facts, could conclude that Hezbollah's recent kidnappings can be extended into an act of war by Lebanon on Israel.

The Lebanese government has not made any moves... ONLY Hezbollah. Hezbollah might be PART of the government, but the US wouldn't be 'at war' just because Hillary Clinton decided to start mowing down civilians in Tijuana.

I notice that, the initial Hezbollah 'attack' was entirely focused on a 'legitimate military target', and that the Israeli response has been to bomb the shit out of EVERYTHINNG.

As for the fact that Hezbollah 'controls' southern Lebanon... all well and good, 'm not complaining about attacking THAT infrastructure. But, where is Tripoli?

Well.. I haven't kept up on the news this weekend, but Friday at least 2 civilian homes were hit in Lebanon. 1 was apparently target directly, killing two adults & 7 children. I'm not clear on whether or not the other was intentionally hit, but it cost the lives of 1 adult & 8 children.

Seems a good 60% of the Israelis thinks this is the way to go, while a mere 14% thinks diplomacy is the better solution.

One might argue, if Hezbollah are the 'enemy', attackinh Hezbollah, INSTEAD of civilian targets, might be a good idea.
Good point.
Since that's what the IDF is doing, we agree.

Attacking Beirut Airport = blocking supplies from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah.
Attacking Beirut bridges = (see above)
Attacking southern Lebanon = attacking Hezbollah.

As far as civilian casualties, they would be far fewer if Hezbollah didn't pursue a policy of ... hiding behind civilians, like children behind their mothers' skirts.

Good point.
Since that's what the IDF is doing, we agree.

Attacking Beirut Airport = blocking supplies from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah.
Attacking Beirut bridges = (see above)
Attacking southern Lebanon = attacking Hezbollah.

As far as civilian casualties, they would be far fewer if Hezbollah didn't pursue a policy of ... hiding behind civilians, like children behind their mothers' skirts.It there any actual evidence that Beirut Airport was supplying Hezbollah? - Last time I read Israeli media bitch about Hezbolla's supply lines, I got the destinct impression that Damaskus Airport was the key.

Bombs going astray happens. Sorry for that but no tech is perfect but bridges, roads, airports, and powerplants are legit targets in a war.

You believe Israel is not required to adhere to Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and other customary and Treaty law?

You seem unaware of what is 'allowed', yourself.


"The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.

Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering"...

The Lebanese government has not made any moves... ONLY Hezbollah. Hezbollah might be PART of the government, but the US wouldn't be 'at war' just because Hillary Clinton decided to start mowing down civilians in Tijuana.

No, the US wouldn't be at war, but I bet Mexico would not make the distinction. In your analogy, the US is in the role of Hezbollah, and Mexico is Israel. If the relative strengths of the US and Mexico were reversed, you are darned tootin' that Mexico wouldn't care that it was just Hillary - they'd invade.

Not to mention the fact that Hezbollah makes up a significant portion of the government in Lebanon because - the people elected them! Which seems to have worked as well as it did for the Palestinians in voting Hamas into power.

You believe Israel is not required to adhere to Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and other customary and Treaty law?

You seem unaware of what is 'allowed', yourself.

Ohhh I love the word guide in there.

Anyways....as I said before, which you refuse to acknowledge (surprise surprise), we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is a legit military target and was not a legit target in a war.

It there any actual evidence that Beirut Airport was supplying Hezbollah? - Last time I read Israeli media bitch about Hezbolla's supply lines, I got the destinct impression that Damaskus Airport was the key.
I honestly don't know. I don't know of any evidence either way, but I have no reason to disbelieve that hypothesis, and I haven't heard that the Lebanese government, or Hezbollah on its own, has refuted it. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Good point.
Since that's what the IDF is doing, we agree.

Attacking Beirut Airport = blocking supplies from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah.
Attacking Beirut bridges = (see above)
Attacking southern Lebanon = attacking Hezbollah.

As far as civilian casualties, they would be far fewer if Hezbollah didn't pursue a policy of ... hiding behind civilians, like children behind their mothers' skirts.

Yes, Hezbollah should all stand in a line with targets painted on them...?

I wonder why they don't...

Beirut airport is an airport.... it is a civilian airport, and I've seen NO evidence yet that Syria or Iran use it for transfer of weapons.

Thus - your argument is speculative at best... and, without evidence, the target is not military.

Similar on the bridges.

Attacking the part of Lebanon where Hezbollah is, not a bad idea. Still - I think precision is preferable to firing into infrastructure.

GNI, the first targets to go in a war is infrastructure.

GNI, the first targets to go in a war is infrastructure.
And internet?

You believe Israel is not required to adhere to Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and other customary and Treaty law?

You seem unaware of what is 'allowed', yourself.
You seem to be unaware of, or don't care, that the terrorist enemy was not well-contemplated in the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists deliberately hide themselves, like the cowards they are, among the civilian populace, with no regard for their safety, while those who fight against them, who go to great lengths to get the terrorists while minimizing danger to the civilian population, get raked over the coals by the media.

I have rarely seen a column saying something like "100 terrorist taken out hiding in an open market - 2 civilians dead as a result of their cowardice". Which I personally think is where the responsibility should be assigned.

I honestly don't know. I don't know of any evidence either way, but I have no reason to disbelieve that hypothesis, and I haven't heard that the Lebanese government, or Hezbollah on its own, has refuted it. Do you have any information to the contrary?One cannot prove a negative ;)

Still, Israel has target key infrastructure in Lebanon, presumably to paralyse the Lebanese economy, so from that perspective, the airport is a logical target as well. It's not proof, but it looks obvious.

Ohhh I love the word guide in there.

Anyways....as I said before, which you refuse to acknowledge (surprise surprise), we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is a legit military target and was not a legit target in a war.

The reason I used the word 'guide', was because the ICRC is not the Geneva Conventions or Protocols... and I was linking to a comprehensive source, rather than a specifi detail.

But - if that is a problem, let me show you WHY the current indiscriminate destruction by Israel is enough to be considered "a grave breach" (technical term - it means those responsible for the breaches must be punished) of Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

"3. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
(a) making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack;
(b) launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
(c) launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 (a)(iii);
(d) making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack;"

GNI, the first targets to go in a war is infrastructure.

You find the Geneva Conventions and Protocols irrelevent?

The US government does - which is why the US has not been in a DECLARED war since WW2... it gets 'awkward' when they want to do things like detain random citizens, or torture prisoners.

One cannot prove a negative ;)

Still, Israel has target key infrastructure in Lebanon, presumably to paralyse the Lebanese economy, so from that perspective, the airport is a logical target as well. It's not proof, but it looks obvious.
What is obvious?
War?
of the streaming logica coming out of it?

Thus - your argument is speculative at best... and, without evidence, the target is not military.


As is yours. You have no idea what intelligence sources the IDF has that would prompt them to believe the airport IS a place where arms are transferred. Your knee-jerk reaction seems to be to disbelieve the IDF. It logically makes sense though.

There are three ways arms could get to Hezbollah from Syria or Iran - sea, air, or land. I find it hard to believe any of those routes would be ignored for arms transfers, and it would be astonishing if Beirut Airport were not used for arms transfers by air.

You seem to be unaware of, or don't care, that the terrorist enemy was not well-contemplated in the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists deliberately hide themselves, like the cowards they are, among the civilian populace, with no regard for their safety, while those who fight against them, who go to great lengths to get the terrorists while minimizing danger to the civilian population, get raked over the coals by the media.

I have rarely seen a column saying something like "100 terrorist taken out hiding in an open market - 2 civilians dead as a result of their cowardice". Which I personally think is where the responsibility should be assigned.Like I said: Friday, the home of a Lebanese priest & suspected Hezbolla terrorist, was target in an Israeli airstrike. The entire family, Priest, wife & 7 children, was killed instantly.

That is not allowed in the Geneva Conventions. Yes, he was a legitimate military target, but as long as the colateral cost is greater than the military gain, an attack is not permissable.

The Geneva conventions do cover these things fairly well, unsurprisingly.

Since the attacks are not indiscriminate, it doesn't apply. Israel isn't making the civilians part of their attack so that part doesn't apply either. Infact, they have infact WARNED them to get out of the areas near Hezbollah targets.

You seem to be unaware of, or don't care, that the terrorist enemy was not well-contemplated in the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists deliberately hide themselves, like the cowards they are, among the civilian populace, with no regard for their safety, while those who fight against them, who go to great lengths to get the terrorists while minimizing danger to the civilian population, get raked over the coals by the media.

I have rarely seen a column saying something like "100 terrorist taken out hiding in an open market - 2 civilians dead as a result of their cowardice". Which I personally think is where the responsibility should be assigned.

The relevence of this to indiscriminate MISSILE fire, being?

Or - am I supposed to accept that the civilians killed in the multiple missile strikes on cars, were suspected to be 'terrorists hiding in a market'?

You find the Geneva Conventions and Protocols irrelevent?

The US government does - which is why the US has not been in a DECLARED war since WW2... it gets 'awkward' when they want to do things like detain random citizens, or torture prisoners.

A formal declaration of war your right on that. However we have declared war numerious times. As to "torturing" prisoners...those who do are punished. Nice try.

As is yours. You have no idea what intelligence sources the IDF has that would prompt them to believe the airport IS a place where arms are transferred. Your knee-jerk reaction seems to be to disbelieve the IDF. It logically makes sense though.

There are three ways arms could get to Hezbollah from Syria or Iran - sea, air, or land. I find it hard to believe any of those routes would be ignored for arms transfers, and it would be astonishing if Beirut Airport were not used for arms transfers by air.

I follow the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If the military enters a house, should they shoot everyone and everything inside - or should they verify a threat?

On the arms transfer thing... it seems likely land would be cheapest and most efficient.

Since the attacks are not indiscriminate, it doesn't apply. Israel is making the civilians part of their attack so that part doesn't apply either. Infact, they have infact WARNED them to get out of the areas near Hezbollah targets.
explain i dont get it.

Since the attacks are not indiscriminate, it doesn't apply. Israel is making the civilians part of their attack so that part doesn't apply either. Infact, they have infact WARNED them to get out of the areas near Hezbollah targets.

Have you ever paid any attention to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols? You aren't 'allowed' to kill civilians... you can't target them.

Have you ever paid any attention to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols? You aren't 'allowed' to kill civilians... you can't target them.

And guess what? THEY ARE NOT TARGETING THEM!

Since the attacks are not indiscriminate, it doesn't apply. Israel isn't making the civilians part of their attack so that part doesn't apply either. Infact, they have infact WARNED them to get out of the areas near Hezbollah targets.
And where can the civilians run to, their bridges being destroyed and such?

What is obvious?
War?
of the streaming logica coming out of it?Nah, it's obvious that Israel targeted Beirut Airport because they haven't disclosed any evidence to support the operation (to the very best of my knowledge anyway), and because Hezbollah supply lines have been discussed on a regular basis for the last 5 years without Beirut Airport cropping up (Damaskus Airport, on the other hand..), and because it's consistent with the illegal Israeli terrorist warfare aimed at paralyzing the economy & free movement in Lebanon.

It really is obvious Beirut Airport was a legit military target, doncha think?

*Sigh*

A formal declaration of war your right on that. However we have declared war numerious times. As to "torturing" prisoners...those who do are punished. Nice try.

No - the last document the US Government issued that had the words "Declaration of War" on top, was WW2.

We have engaged in 'actions' since then, but none have been a 'legal' war... with all the controls that brings.

As to the torture of prisoners, I seem to recall the highest levels of the current regime passing infamous memoes about that very issue... for quite some time.

And guess what? THEY ARE NOT TARGETING THEM!Your statement contradicts those made by the Israeli military itself.

And where can the civilians run to, their bridges being destroyed and such?

Its called roads my dear Yootopia.

Its called roads my dear Yootopia.
Yes... which have been bombed...

Like I said: Friday, the home of a Lebanese priest & suspected Hezbolla terrorist, was target in an Israeli airstrike. The entire family, Priest, wife & 7 children, was killed instantly.

That is not allowed in the Geneva Conventions. Yes, he was a legitimate military target, but as long as the colateral cost is greater than the military gain, an attack is not permissable.

The Geneva conventions do cover these things fairly well, unsurprisingly.
So, how often do you think the terrorists will step out from behind their civilian shields, to make it more convenient for us to take them out?

Or perhaps we just need to sit down and dialog with them, since rational people send their children strapped with bombs to blow themselves up.

And I would bet that priest had no idea he was harboring a terrorist in his home. Perish the thought.

I heartily disagree that the "Geneva conventions do cover these things fairly well, unsurprisingly". They do not reflect the realities of asymmetric warfare against an enemy willing to blow up his own children to advance his own jihadi objectives.

No - the last document the US Government issued that had the words "Declaration of War" on top, was WW2.

We have engaged in 'actions' since then, but none have been a 'legal' war... with all the controls that brings.

As to the torture of prisoners, I seem to recall the highest levels of the current regime passing infamous memoes about that very issue... for quite some time.

You do realize the Constitution only says declare war. It says nothing about FORMALLY declaring it. Therefor, we have declared war numerous times since World War II when the Congress gave authority to use Force against a particular nation.

And where can the civilians run to, their bridges being destroyed and such?

Exactly - they have been heading AWAY from Southern Lebanon for days... but it doesn't matter, because Israel is bombing it ALL.

Yes... which have been bombed...

Not all of them.

Nah, it's obvious that Israel targeted Beirut Airport because they haven't disclosed any evidence to support the operation (to the very best of my knowledge anyway), and because Hezbollah supply lines have been discussed on a regular basis for the last 5 years without Beirut Airport cropping up (Damaskus Airport, on the other hand..), and because it's consistent with the illegal Israeli terrorist warfare aimed at paralyzing the economy & free movement in Lebanon.

It really is obvious Beirut Airport was a legit military target, doncha think?

*Sigh*
only fools know Irak is a Democracy :eek:

The government of Lebanon has no say in what Hezbollah does, none. If it is any governments fault it is Syria and Iran.

And again, Hezbollah is not the lebanese government, it is an independent terrorist organization backed by Syria, a nation that has controlled Lebanon since the end of the civil war.

Notice how every Lebanese politician, writer and reporter who speaks out against Syria somehow gets blown up? Including high ranking government officials(Like Prime minsters).
Hezbollah is not the government. They cannot 'declare war' in any official capacity.
Neither statement is correct. Hezbollah is indeed a part of the Lebanese government.

Not all of them.
No, not all of them, but most of the bridges out of Southern Lebanon have been blown up.

You do realize the Constitution only says declare war. It says nothing about FORMALLY declaring it. Therefor, we have declared war numerous times since World War II when the Congress gave authority to use Force against a particular nation.

The Constitution is one of the few in the world, that doesn't require the whole government to agree to war... the FORMAL declaration of war is important NOT because of what the Constitution says, but because of what the Geneva Conventions and Protocols say.

Simply 'using force' is not the same as 'declaring war'... a technicality we have played fast-and-loose with for half a century.

Neither statement is correct. Hezbollah is indeed a part of the Lebanese government.

How does that contradict what I said?

The Democrats are part of OUR government... does that mean the Democrats (alone) can declare war?

The Constitution is one of the few in the world, that doesn't require the whole government to agree to war... the FORMAL declaration of war is important NOT because of what the Constitution says, but because of what the Geneva Conventions and Protocols say.

Simply 'using force' is not the same as 'declaring war'... a technicality we have played fast-and-loose with for half a century.

Legal split hair: Using force is the same as declaring war.

The relevence of this to indiscriminate MISSILE fire, being?

Or - am I supposed to accept that the civilians killed in the multiple missile strikes on cars, were suspected to be 'terrorists hiding in a market'?
Answer to paragraph 1:
I was stating a hypothetical, not using a real-life example.

Answer to paragraph 2:
I have no idea what you are talking about, as, once again, I am speaking to a hypothetical example.

Purely out of interest does anyone think that Operation "Summer Rains" and whatever operation was triggered by the invasion of Lebanon on the 12th http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3274457,00.html is actually going to produce results at all different from those produced by every other collective reprisal? My understanding is that the Israeli Government has much more success when it simply uses Mossad.

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 repeated 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 would, in fact, only enflame the problem.

I would further ask those that have been so pro and unquesitoning of the heavy military operations whether they would, in turn, accept that Britain would have been fully within her rights to attack Israel?

If Britain isn't important enough then how about the abductions of US soldiers in Iraq (I don't see Bush giving orders for the bombing of Baghdad)?

Where ever the fault for the initial actions now surely it is obvious that Israel is acting in fashion that is not only unacceptable to the rest of the civilised world but that is also incredibly short-sighted in the fight to reach a full and lasting peace in the Middle east.

One word. Radicalisation.

Were it not for the American gung-ho "Let's Get Them Durn Terrists" response since 2001, the Islamic states would have been quite willing to sit down and talk about things. Now we have polarisation and authoritive action is the global standard on all sides of the discussion.

History is merely an excuse or justification for actions based on emotion. And the emotional state at the minute is very much due to events within the past 5 years.
I fully agree with you.

How does that contradict what I said?

The Democrats are part of OUR government... does that mean the Democrats (alone) can declare war?
No, they can't "legally" declare war on their own, but if John Kerry and a regiment of the US Marine Corps invaded North Korea, I don't think they would make the distinction between the Democrats and the US as a whole declaring war on them.

I sure wouldn't.

Legal split hair: Using force is the same as declaring war.

No - it really isn't.

'War' is an official state, between sovereign powers, which is bound by a number of Treaties and customary international laws.

'Police Actions' and 'use of force', are euphemisms... to allow a military response WITHOUT having to stick to International law on the matter.

Answer to paragraph 1:
I was stating a hypothetical, not using a real-life example.

Answer to paragraph 2:
I have no idea what you are talking about, as, once again, I am speaking to a hypothetical example.

Whereas, I'm talking about the 'real world'... which, apparently, your 'hypothetical example' is irrelevent to.

If Britain isn't important enough then how about the abductions of US soldiers in Iraq (I don't see Bush giving orders for the bombing of Baghdad)?
*coughs* Fallujah *coughs*
Where ever the fault for the initial actions now surely it is obvious that Israel is acting in fashion that is not only unacceptable to the rest of the civilised world but that is also incredibly short-sighted in the fight to reach a full and lasting peace in the Middle east.
I agree fully. I would prefer for them to stand their troops down and try to make peace.

I fully agree with you.
i don't
it goes further than that

No - it really isn't.

'War' is an official state, between sovereign powers, which is bound by a number of Treaties and customary international laws.

'Police Actions' and 'use of force', are euphemisms... to allow a military response WITHOUT having to stick to International law on the matter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue as well.

How does that contradict what I said?

The Democrats are part of OUR government... does that mean the Democrats (alone) can declare war?
As far as Mexico would be concerned... yes they can. There doesn't have to be a diplomatic meeting between the 2 countries with a formal ceremony declaring war. To suggest something like that is simply absurd.

As far as Mexico would be concerned... a portion of the US government declared war on Mexico and they would be completely within their rights to retaliate.

Sure, they would. Also, Iran would not have pursued nuclear weapons, and North Korea would have laid down their arms and joined the South. :rolleyes:

Do you really believe what you are saying?
George Bush, "Axis of Evil" speech.....look it up and then you might appreciate where we are today in world events.

Now, where is that road map to peace?

A formal declaration of war your right on that. However we have declared war numerious times. As to "torturing" prisoners...those who do are punished. Nice try.

I think you are arguing with a http://people.msoe.edu/~schaffnc/Miniature%20Pictures/Bashing%20Troll.JPG or a very thick headed person. You aren't going to change GNC's closed mind. :(

No - it really isn't.

'War' is an official state, between sovereign powers, which is bound by a number of Treaties and customary international laws.

'Police Actions' and 'use of force', are euphemisms... to allow a military response WITHOUT having to stick to International law on the matter.
As you say, though, it is merely a euphamism.

And it is really the same as a war.

No, they can't "legally" declare war on their own, but if John Kerry and a regiment of the US Marine Corps invaded North Korea, I don't think they would make the distinction between the Democrats and the US as a whole declaring war on them.

I sure wouldn't.

The question is - would full reprisal against major US cities, be justified?

Or would the US government disclaim the actions of a few insurgent hotheads, and make a big fuss about the bombs dropping on Oklahoma and Florida?

*coughs* Fallujah *coughs*


True. I had forgotten. *sigh* And all it achieved was a lot of dead people and a rallying cry for the insurgents.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue as well.

You can call it 'agree to disagree'... I call it "you were wrong"... and the evidence supports me.

Seriously - you aren't arguing against my opinion... you are arguing against the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and how a 'legal' war is defined.

I think you are arguing with a http://people.msoe.edu/~schaffnc/Miniature%20Pictures/Bashing%20Troll.JPG or a very thick headed person. You aren't going to change GNC's closed mind. :(

Yea I know. Hence why I agree to disagree with him twice. Hopefully he'll take the hint that it isn't worth fighting over.

*coughs* Fallujah *coughs*

I agree fully. I would prefer for them to stand their troops down and try to make peace.
So, Isreal should just ignore the rocket attacks on it's citizens?

Funny how the Islamic fundamentalists appologists say that it's morally reprehensible for Isreal to target civilians, but nary a peep on the unquestionable targetting of Isreali citizens.

As you say, though, it is merely a euphamism.

And it is really the same as a war.

No - it isn't.

A 'war' is a protected state... with Conventions and Protocols designed specifically to protect both sides.

By NOT 'declaring war', one gets to 'opt-out' of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

George Bush, "Axis of Evil" speech.....look it up and then you might appreciate where we are today in world events.
Was that the one in which he claimed that the US killed Pol Pot and Stalin, amongst others?

The one which was horribly ironic, as they died peacefully in their sleep?

Because it was either that one or a very similar one by Rummy.
Now, where is that road map to peace?
In the same gutter as the Geneva Convention.

You can call it 'agree to disagree'... I call it "you were wrong"... and the evidence supports me.

Your ego can't let things go can they? No I guess not. Listen, just because I said we should agree to disagree does not men that I am wrong and you are right. It means that we have 2 different opinions that neither one of us is going to change. So grow the hell up.

We have engaged in 'actions' since then, but none have been a 'legal' war... with all the controls that brings.

They have all been "legal wars." Most even had the blessing of Congress although they never passed a formal declaration of war. The GC applied to all of them. :rolleyes:

I think you are arguing with a http://people.msoe.edu/~schaffnc/Miniature%20Pictures/Bashing%20Troll.JPG or a very thick headed person. You aren't going to change GNC's closed mind. :(

Calling me a troll?

You are wrong on this, my friend.

I have provided evidence, you've provided opinions.

The evidence says you are wrong.... but you call ME troll...

Hezbollah is not the government. They cannot 'declare war' in any official capacity.
Given that hezbollah has de facto immunity from the lebanese govt. if not de jure, and also given that hezbollah basically controls with the help of Syria parts of lebanon it can in fact be argued that lebanon is not currently sovereign. As such, crossing the border can be argued to be perfectly legal, as can any strikes against hezbollah.

So, Isreal should just ignore the rocket attacks on it's citizens?

Funny how the Islamic fundamentalists appologists say that it's morally reprehensible for Isreal to target civilians, but nary a peep on the unquestionable targetting of Isreali citizens.

What Yootopia is trying to say, as am I, is that it is horrible that three people have been kidnapped and others killed but killing hundreds in response isn't going to bring peace. It is clear that you don't think that Israel should stop killing people in retaliation for the deaths of its citizens so it would seem logical for you to believe that other people will feel the same way.

If the aim is peace then Israel needs to stop killing people every day.
If the aim isn't peace then Israel needs to accept that every year hundreds of its citizens will be injured or killed.

Please point me to proof that I am wrong.

Calling me a troll?

You are wrong on this, my friend.

I have provided evidence, you've provided opinions.

The evidence says you are wrong.... but you call ME troll...
or a terrorist :D

No - it isn't.

A 'war' is a protected state... with Conventions and Protocols designed specifically to protect both sides.

By NOT 'declaring war', one gets to 'opt-out' of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.
So you are saying that because we, in the "war" on terror, haven't had a formal declaration of war by both sides, we are not bound by the Geneva Conventions?

Hot damn, so we can indescrimantly target civilians, we can really torture prisoners.. you know the kind of torture that Saddam used. We can behead the prisoners on international TV like everyone else does...

Sweet, how fun can this war get :rolleyes:

Your ego can't let things go can they? No I guess not. Listen, just because I said we should agree to disagree does not men that I am wrong and you are right. It means that we have 2 different opinions that neither one of us is going to change. So grow the hell up.

Again - you are wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion.

It is not my 'opinion' that the US has not issued a formal 'declaration of war' since WW2 - although you are welcome to provide the evidence of a formal declaration.

It is not my opinion that the Israeli attacks are 'grave breaches' of the GCaP - I provided you a specific link to the 1977 Protocol document that explains it. Again - you are welcome to provide evidence that defines these acts differently.


But - you HAVEN'T provided any evidence.

I have shown you, WITH evidence, why you are wrong, and rather than admit it, you fall back on 'let's agree to disagree'. But - this is not a disagreement of opinion... this is you 'disagreeing' with all the evidence.

And you discuss MY ego?

So you are saying that because we, in the "war" on terror, haven't had a formal declaration of war by both sides, we are not bound by the Geneva Conventions?

Hot damn, so we can indescrimantly target civilians, we can really torture prisoners..


We have been doing...

*snip*

All I'm going to say to you is get over yourself. It is apparent you cannot take an opposing view and that whoever disagrees with you is immediately wrong no matter the circumstance.

Grow up.

Given that hezbollah has de facto immunity from the lebanese govt. if not de jure, and also given that hezbollah basically controls with the help of Syria parts of lebanon it can in fact be argued that lebanon is not currently sovereign. As such, crossing the boder can be argued to be perfectly legal, as can any strikes against hezbollah.

I have not actually argued that attacking Hezbollah, or even crossing the border were anything BUT legal.

We have been doing...
you have no clue.

As for calling you a troll... if the shoe fits......

We have been doing...

None of that. And before you bring up Abu Ghraib, those responsible have been punished.

All I'm going to say to you is get over yourself. It is apparent you cannot take an opposing view and that whoever disagrees with you is immediately wrong no matter the circumstance.

Grow up.

Again, you try to make this 'opinion'.

You are not wrong because you disagree with me, but because you disagree with reality...

we can really torture prisoners..


10 February 2000 An Israeli government report, released five years after it was compiled, admits that the internal security service, Shin Bet, uses systematic torture on Palestinian suspects.

Sadly, suspects have been tortured for a while.

All I'm going to say to you is get over yourself. It is apparent you cannot take an opposing view and that whoever disagrees with you is immediately wrong no matter the circumstance.

Grow up.
Oh, this is a classic!

We have been doing...
...We dont seek out civilians, nor does Israel.

We may kill civilians simply because they are in the blast radius of a legit target, but thats alot different than seeking out innocents.

you have no clue.

As for calling you a troll... if the shoe fits......

I have provided evidence, which has not been rebutted.

I have not been trolling.

You seem to be claiming I am, as though it would invalidate my evidence.

That, my friend, is an example of an 'ad hominem' fallacy.

None of that. And before you bring up Abu Ghraib, those responsible have been punished.
Lindsay thingummydooj got 2 months of hard labour. That's not exactly very much.

And the PsiOps people behind it have seemingly gotten off Scot-free because they did exactly what they wanted to do.

Again, you try to make this 'opinion'.

You are not wrong because you disagree with me, but because you disagree with reality...

The only one denying reality is you you lousy troll.

...We dont seek out civilians, nor does Israel.

We may kill civilians simply because they are in the blast radius of a legit target, but thats alot different than seeking out innocents.

Indiscriminate fire mean we target civilians equally with military ones. No dice.

None of that. And before you bring up Abu Ghraib, those responsible have been punished.
Who?
the electors?
like in "palestina"

The only one denying reality is you you lousy troll.

I've provided links to the actual protocol documents!

If you STILL argue it, you ARE denying reality.

Don't call me troll again. In connection with the 'dumbass' comment earlier, I'll not recieve it happily. I do not appreciate enduring flames in PLACE of debate.

I have provided evidence, which has not been rebutted.

I have not been trolling.

You seem to be claiming I am, as though it would invalidate my evidence.

That, my friend, is an example of an 'ad hominem' fallacy.
I made some sarcastic comments about some examples of things not allowed by the Geneva convention... since you said that didn't apply.

You then implied that we have indeed been doing things like I suggested.

Can you point the a time that someone from the US has, in an even remotely official capacity, ripped a fetus from a pregnant woman, infront of her husband eyes, after having repeatedly raped her, then killing her husband?

I say again, you have no clue.

Indiscriminate fire mean we target civilians equally with military ones. No dice.

That is not happening jackass.

None of that. And before you bring up Abu Ghraib, those responsible have been punished.

Corny, Corny, Corny... still a loyal Bushevik to the end. Believing Abu Ghraib was anything but a classic military case of "Brass Flies, Grunt Fries." Unless Lindy England was more than just a West Virginny Guardsman who studied Islam extensively to know what specifically profaned Muslims.

:rolleyes:

All I'm going to say to you is get over yourself. It is apparent you cannot take an opposing view and that whoever disagrees with you is immediately wrong no matter the circumstance.


You are wrong. Some things are no matter of opinion.

You really need to grow up.

And please stop calling people names.

Was that the one in which he claimed that the US killed Pol Pot and Stalin, amongst others?
Not sure about that, but I am sure about who escalated the Middle East problems......Senor Bush-kebob.

President Delivers State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html)

In the same gutter as the Geneva Convention.
Apparently so. :(

Calling me a troll?

You are wrong on this, my friend.

I have provided evidence, you've provided opinions.

The evidence says you are wrong.... but you call ME troll...

I have read and understand every one of your posts on this forum. Most of what you have provided is not "evidence" but your opinion. Some of that opinion has been backed up by facts, but facts can be interpreted in more than one way.

Fact: a bomb was dropped.
Fact: Civilians die.
Opinion: The civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time (collateral damage.)
Opinion: The civilians were deliberately targeted.

Understand?

I've provided links to the actual protocol documents!

If you STILL argue it, you ARE denying reality.

You are the only one denying reality. I know I am not denying reality. You are.

Don't call me troll again. In connection with the 'dumbass' comment earlier, I'll not recieve it happily. I do not appreciate enduring flames in PLACE of debate.

Since your the one with an over inflated ego who cannot take an opposing view and denounce those who do as wrong, your the one flaming troll.

Interesting that you stop your causation analysis at the American response to 9/11, rather than at the terrorist actions on 9/11.

Do you really believe that if America did nothing after 9/11, things would be better now? That no response would not have emboldened Islamic terrorism even more?
I'm not saying they should have done nothing. Doing nothing but sitting there would certainly have emboldened those already in Al-Qaeda and would probably result in another attack at some point.

But the "even more" point I must question. Doing nothing, while certainly not a good idea, would probably have been better than villainising entire Islamic states in the way that they have done.

Those we call Terrorists (yes, I call them that too) attacked the West because they feared we were trying to destroy their way of life and abuse their people for our own gains with our cultural spread, our authoritive religion and our materialist fancies. Marking out Islamic states as active targets, throwing billions of dollars into an offensive campaign and installing puppet regimes was exactly the sort of response that justifies those fears and gives them ammunition in the ideological fight for the hearts and minds of the people of the middle east.

Solidarity with the people should have been our aim from the get go. The US, immediately after the attacks, had the stage to itself and the ideal opportunity to stand up and demonstrate how it was completely undeserving of what it was being accused of. It could have pledged to defeat terrorism and oppression in one fell swoop by bringing social and economic aid to the everyday middle-eastern citizen. It could have engaged in multilateral discussions with representatives of the Iraqi, Afghan, Iranian, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese people (to name but a few) to find out exactly what their troubles were. It was given the clearest chance in recent history to spread a message of peace and reconsiliation and bring an end to the previous century of war and conflict; to create a world where terrorist activity would never occur and the words of its selfish proponents would fall on deaf ears. And it, as a nation, rejected that chance unanimously.

... Wow. That was far more vicious than I intended it to be. I think I'll post it anyway for dramatic value, but all I'm saying is that the US could certainly have conducted its response in a more controlled and responsible manner.

You are wrong. Some things are no matter of opinion.

You really need to grow up.
EXPLAIN , the growing thing.
i 'm curious

I have read and understand every one of your posts on this forum. Most of what you have provided is not "evidence" but your opinion. Some of that opinion has been backed up by facts, but facts can be interpreted in more than one way.

Fact: a bomb was dropped.
Fact: Civilians die.
Opinion: The civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time (collateral damage.)
Opinion: The civilians were deliberately targeted.

Understand?

Well said.

Indiscriminate fire mean we target civilians equally with military ones. No dice.
It would appear that death of innocent civilians er.... "co-lateral damage" is way too high during the current Israeli offensive.

I made some sarcastic comments about some examples of things not allowed by the Geneva convention... since you said that didn't apply.

You then implied that we have indeed been doing things like I suggested.

Can you point the a time that someone from the US has, in an even remotely official capacity, ripped a fetus from a pregnant woman, infront of her husband eyes, after having repeatedly raped her, then killing her husband?


Irrelevent.

Just because we haven't done EVERYTHING that is 'illegal', doesn't make us Girl Scouts.

The only one denying reality is you you lousy troll.

Corn, don't feed him and maybe he will go away. As for me, I need to go to the post office and grocery store. Good evening.

That is not happening jackass.

So - now I'm a jackass, too?

No content... just an insult. No riposte or rebuttal.

You are the only one denying reality. I know I am not denying reality. You are.

Since your the one with an over inflated ego who cannot take an opposing view and denounce those who do as wrong, your the one flaming troll.
The discussion has officially ended. The argument is now underway.

I note, with a wry and yet slightly sad expression, the similarities between conduct in this thread and conduct in the middle east.

Corn, don't feed him and maybe he will go away. As for me, I need to go to the post office and grocery store. Good evening.

Have a good evening.