NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok! Most of us have been seeing the build up of Israeli troops along the border with Lebanon. It is apparent that Israel could invade at any moment.

Hezbollah's leader has stated on Al Jazeera that if they do, "We have a number of surprises" according to him.

It is possible that Hezbollah MIGHT and I repeat the word MIGHT, have chemical weapons thanks to the support of Syria who does have Chemical weapons.

If Israel invades, and it looks like they might, will Hezbollah be foolish enough to actually use Chemical weapons (if they actually do have them) against Israel?

Yes I know I used the word Might alot but that's because no one knows just what type of surprises the Hezbollah leader is talking about so I am asking two Questions.

1) Do you think they have chemical weapons?

and

2) Will they be stupid enough to use them if they do have them?

I think he meant that they'll all jump out from behind a wall as the Israeli's appraoach and throw confetti over them.

Is anyone suggesting they have chemical weapons, or is this a 'might' in the same way that I 'might' have a snake in my bed tonight?

I think he meant that they'll all jump out from behind a wall as the Israeli's appraoach and throw confetti over them.

Is anyone suggesting they have chemical weapons, or is this a 'might' in the same way that I 'might' have a snake in my bed tonight?

Its just a plain might.

I doubt they do. They would advertise it explicitly if that were so. It's their way.

Its just a plain might.
Well, how on earth do you expect anyone to argue with a 'might'? They 'might' have chemical weapons. They 'might' not. They 'might' be planning to fight the Israeli's; they 'might' be planning to run away. Or, they 'might' be planning to simultaneously drop their trousers and shout "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!"

it's not like chemical weapons can't be manufactured by a civilian with a little scientific knowledge and the right materials. I have water purification pills which use Chlorine whic is used in some poison gases *shrug*

Chemical weapons aren't the most effective in the world, especially after they've been employed once as the enemy adapt (i.e, take gas-masks). They might use them if they have to. More likely it will be either

a) more advanced conventional munitions, cruise missiles or SAMs perhaps.

b) Unanticipated numerical force.

c) Something on the ground in Israel.

It's possible they have an old Soviet suitcase nuke or a warhead or somesuch from an abandoned facility but if that's the case I'd expect it to be a last-gasp weapon. And I doubt that it's the case.

I very much doubt it. They don't mess around, they use everything they have.

I very much doubt it. They don't mess around, they use everything they have.

That is very true. And if they did have them and use them, World opinion will turn against them so fast....

If they do have chemical or biological weapons and they use them they areTOAST

If they do have chemical or biological weapons and they use them they areTOAST

Yeah, that's the point. But they can't afford that kind of weapons.

ITV news says that Israel is already in Lebanon, has supposidly taken control of 4 villages in the South (still waiting for furthrr confirmation in this though).

Is this the same "might" as Iraq "has" WMD's?

Yeah, that's the point. But they can't afford that kind of weapons.

Not normally no but they could hvae gotten them from Syria who is a known Hezbollah supporter so it could be said that they could have given them some.

ITV news says that Israel is already in Lebanon, has supposidly taken control of 4 villages in the South (still waiting for furthrr confirmation in this though).

Is this the same "might" as Iraq "has" WMD's?

Its just a question. Do you think they have them and if they do will they use them if Israel invades?

You do know what whatif questions are I hope.

Not normally no but they could hvae gotten them from Syria who is a known Hezbollah supporter so it could be said that they could have given them some.

You know, what moves nations to war?

$$$$$$$$

No $, no weapons. It's The Law. Syria won't win anything making a clear support of Hezbollah and giving them money now. Syria is waiting to be linked to Hezbollah (kinda MDW's in Iraq), and being attacked, to call Iran. That's their movement.

Just no. They would have used it my now, and told everyone about it.

Its just a question. Do you think they have them and if they do will they use them if Israel invades?

You do know what whatif questions are I hope.
I have a full and rounded knowledge as to what a "what if" question is, I was merely posing the question whether this "might" was the same as the previous "has" that was used in Iraq.

In regards to the "what if", I would say that it is extremely unlikely that they have any chemical weapons, and even if they did they would be unlikely to use them due to the international backlash. However, should they have any such weapons the further Israel pushes into the Country, and thusly the less their ability to stop them, the more likely it is that they would use them.

You know, what moves nations to war?

$$$$$$$$

No $, no weapons. It's The Law. Syria won't win anything making a clear support of Hezbollah and giving them money now. Syria is waiting to be linked to Hezbollah (kinda MDW's in Iraq), and being attacked, to call Iran. That's their movement.

Syria is already linked to hezbollah.

All right, I seriously doubt Hezbollah would use chemical weapons, they're fairly sane as terrorists go so I don't think they would go there. Booby traps, landmines, maybe a few old russian tanks, elite snipers and guerilla rocket attacks are more their style.

And a notice to all the crazed Israel supporters in this. No Rockets were fired yesterday, none, not even a little one. Might this mean peaceful resolutions might be met?

All right, I seriously doubt Hezbollah would use chemical weapons, they're fairly sane as terrorists go so I don't think they would go there. Booby traps, landmines, maybe a few old russian tanks, elite snipers and guerilla rocket attacks are more their style.

And a notice to all the crazed Israel supporters in this. No Rockets were fired yesterday, none, not even a little one. Might this mean peaceful resolutions might be met?

There were actually some rocket attacks yesterday and there were several today.

There were actually some rocket attacks yesterday and there were several today.
Not according to the news I've seen, however, it may be faulty, as is any news actually..

Is anyone suggesting they have chemical weapons, or is this a 'might' in the same way that I 'might' have a snake in my bed tonight?
It's more in the sense that America might collectively have PMS, given the known connection between America and Women and the fact that women do, on occasion, have mood swings at a specific point in the menstruation cycle.

Syria is already linked to hezbollah.

Syria won't attack first, for the reasons I said. Their ace up their sleeve is Iran, not Hezbollah.

Syria won't attack first, for the reasons I said. Their ace up their sleeve is Iran, not Hezbollah.

All I said was that Syria supports Hezbollah.

Syria won't attack first, for the reasons I said. Their ace up their sleeve is Iran, not Hezbollah.
I think the whole point of this little war may be to force Iran to play it's cards before its ready. Thus giving the US another excuse to invade (although I seriously doubt they effectively can, as they are somewhat tied up in Iraq).

If Israel does invade however. there is a strong chance the UN will not side with them, and there are already threats of breaching the Geneva convention being pointed at them.

All I said was that Syria supports Hezbollah.

Yes. You moved me to think that your opinion is that Syria will join the war only with the idea of supporting Hezbollah, being it a severe mistake in political strategy...

Yes. You moved me to think that your opinion is that Syria will join the war only with the idea of supporting Hezbollah, being it a severe mistake in political strategy...

Nope. Syria would be wise to stay on the sidelines for they know if they do anything, they too will get attacked and they will not withstand it.

I think the whole point of this little war may be to force Iran to play it's cards before its ready. Thus giving the US another excuse to invade (although I seriously doubt they effectively can, as they are somewhat tied up in Iraq).

If Israel does invade however. there is a strong chance the UN will not side with them, and there are already threats of breaching the Geneva convention being pointed at them.

That's it... since Bush can't openly attack Iran they look for other ways.

Yeah, actually the UN will NOT side with them any longer unless they sit to talk. But don't worry, because here there are The Ones as Usual to make the things run this way...

Nope. Syria would be wise to stay on the sidelines for they know if they do anything, they too will get attacked and they will not withstand it.

Yes, what I try to state is that Syria will be attacked anyways. This is, that the Two/Three Allies are looking for links (false, again, if needed), for justifications to attack Syria.

That's it... since Bush can't openly attack Iran they look for other ways.

Yeah, actually the UN will NOT side with them any longer unless they sit to talk. But don't worry, because here there are The Ones as Usual to make the things run this way...

Anyone else find it odd that the UN is situated in the States, but that the US is no longer a member?

Interesting how world politics works isn't it.

Yes, what I try to state is that Syria will be attacked anyways. This is, that the Two/Three Allies are looking for links (false, again, if needed), for justifications to attack Syria.

There's already links between Hezbollah and Syria. No one needs to make a link there for it is a known fact. Syria isn't going to get attacked unless Syria does something stupid.

And now I am going to have to ask you to take your anti-bush comments out of this thread for it does not deal with Bush but Hezbollah.

Anyone else find it odd that the UN is situated in the States, but that the US is no longer a member?

Interesting how world politics works isn't it.

No longer a member? *dies of laughter*

Oh brother aren't you an idiot.

No longer a member? *dies of laughter*

Oh brother aren't you an idiot.

Thanks for the insult neighbour, proves your intellect is far superior to anyone elses here. So good of you to keep on top of world affairs and do your best to bridge the divide of the nations.

Thanks for the insult neighbour, proves your intellect is far superior to anyone elses here. So good of you to keep on top of world affairs and do your best to bridge the divide of the nations.

Well by making an idiotic comment, you showed yourself to be an idiot. Nothing wrong with stating a truth.

There's already links between Hezbollah and Syria. No one needs to make a link there for it is a known fact. Syria isn't going to get attacked unless Syria does something stupid.

You know, we both have discussed things like these a thousand times. You know that Syria will be attacked sooner or later, and Iran too.

And now I am going to have to ask you to take your anti-bush comments out of this thread for it does not deal with Bush but Hezbollah.

Yes my ruler! :D


Actually, I can't, since Bush is an important actor of Middle East happenings nowadays.* Linking the USA to Israel is like linking Hezbollah to Syria, Israel wouldn't have all those weapons if... ahem.




*You know, I say Bush because if I said "americans" or "those who elected him twice" you would call me troll.


Back to the topic, Hezbollah will never own MDW's; for its cost and for the own Hezbollah's political interest.

Well by making an idiotic comment, you showed yourself to be an idiot. Nothing wrong with stating a truth.

It's name may still be on the charter, but does a country that wants nothing to do with UN sanctions and defies its orders anyway really a part of it. The US is on the verge on openly withdrawing and has constantly brushed aside UN dictates. You're country is a member in name alone, as you no longer take any part in actual deliberations and run roughshod over the world.

You know, we both have discussed things like these a thousand times. You know that Syria will be attacked sooner or later, and Iran too.

Actually, I don't think Syria is going to have a single bomb dropped on it. Iran won't be attacked either unless they do something to invite an attack. Despite popular belief, this president isn't stupid and neither are the Israelis.

Actually, I can't, since Bush is an important actor of Middle East happenings nowadays.* Linking the USA to Israel is like linking Hezbollah to Syria, Israel wouldn't have all those weapons if... ahem.

Actually....Israel does a good job in making some of their own weapons systems. Do we supply them weapons? Yes won't deny it. Its what allies do.

*You know, I say Bush because if I said "americans" or "those who elected him twice" you would call me troll.

No I wouldn't.

Back to the topic, Hezbollah will never own MDW's; for its cost and for the own Hezbollah's political interest.

Political interest I can buy but cost? I don't know about that.

It's name may still be on the charter, but does a country that wants nothing to do with UN sanctions and defies its orders anyway really a part of it. The US is on the verge on openly withdrawing and has constantly brushed aside UN dictates. You're country is a member in name alone, as you no longer take any part in actual deliberations and run roughshod over the world.

Once again, I'll call your bullshit. You are really stinking up the place.

Going further on Corneliu's initial question... related to that "surprise"...

Didn't Saddam say that USA would face a burning hell if they attacked?

Hum.

1) Do you think they have chemical weapons?

and

2) Will they be stupid enough to use them if they do have them?
1) I don't know. Their weapons are mostly supplied by Iran so it's quite possible.

2) Yes. They will use them and run, which will trigger a very brutal response from Israel. I'm sure the Lebanese public will enjoy the right to be incinerated in the ensuing blitz.

Once again, I'll call your bullshit. You are really stinking up the place.

Is it even possible to have a civil conversation here. You do your country proud.How about getting back to the actual subject so you can continue throwing about statements about the injustice against Israel you seem so proud of defending.

I do not doubt the Israeli peoples, only the direction their government chooses, if they march into Lebannon, there will be massive and senseless deaths on both sides and more civilians will die.

If they do have chemical or biological weapons and they use them they areTOAST
I wish that Israel was as good at toasting Hizbullah as they are at toasting civvies!

Political interest I can buy but cost? I don't know about that.

Hezbollah can't afford a nuke [cost], and if they could, they wouldn't find any seller[Hezbollah's political weight].

Do you understand it?

Now:

Opinions? Points of view?

Is it even possible to have a civil conversation here. You do your country proud.How about getting back to the actual subject so you can continue throwing about statements about the injustice against Israel you seem so proud of defending.

I do not doubt the Israeli peoples, only the direction their government chooses, if they march into Lebannon, there will be massive and senseless deaths on both sides and more civilians will die.

If you think Corneliu's incurred in a fault, you can advice a mod by pressing the red traingle under his name... :p

I wish that Israel was as good at toasting Hizbullah as they are at toasting civvies!

Because the opposite isn't true? So now the 200 someodd dead civilians in Lebannon are military targets? The destroyed homes and terrified people of both countries do not deserve what is happening to them, and this senseless violence should stop on both sides.

If you think Corneliu's incurred in a fault, you can advice a mod by pressing the red traingle under his name... :p

As tempted as I am, I will resist the urge. His lack of civility speak more as a fault in his character and his overbearing ego than anything else. Where he had the oppurtunity to reply with tact and dignity, he prefered childishness. I will gladly accept my own faults where they occur, however I request simply to be shown them in a civil manner, something that seems beyond Corneliu's grasp.

Chemical weapons, chemical weapons....


Since the US invaded Iraq this gets dredged up every so often.

These days, the words are attached to any force deemed sinister, that has any kind of military presence, as if the usage of such things would be like a nuclear weapon.

Its is most certainly not.

Chemical weapons are not super-weapons.

According to most top american military analysts, among them Gen W. Clark,
"There isnt anything you can do with Chemical weapons, that you cant do better with conventional ones."

Things like a stiff breeze can send that deadly cloud of serin gas you just made, right back at you....

Do I think they have them?

Not a chance.

If they did, they would already have used them against Isreal during the 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon.

Thanks for the insult neighbour, proves your intellect is far superior to anyone elses here. So good of you to keep on top of world affairs and do your best to bridge the divide of the nations.


Dont take it so bad.
Corny's a 15 year old conservative, who thinks his interest in history makes up for his complete lack of world experience.

Dont take it personally.

Hezbollah can't afford a nuke [cost], and if they could, they wouldn't find any seller[Hezbollah's political weight].

Do you understand it?

Now:

Opinions? Points of view?

Nukes? Who brought nukes up? I'm talking Chemical weapons.

Because the opposite isn't true? So now the 200 someodd dead civilians in Lebannon are military targets? The destroyed homes and terrified people of both countries do not deserve what is happening to them, and this senseless violence should stop on both sides.

First off. You forgot that terrorists don't come out into the open but hide among civilians. 2) there are always civilian deaths in war. Its a sad fact of life. 3) Hezbollah started this ruckus by going across the border and attacking the IDF which is never a good thing.

Dont take it so bad.
Corny's a 15 year old conservative, who thinks his interest in history makes up for his complete lack of world experience.

Dont take it personally.

Sorry but I'm most definitely older than 15.

Sorry but I'm most definitely older than 15.


What?

I thought fer sure I read the other day you were like 15 or so.

How old are you then?

What?

I thought fer sure I read the other day you were like 15 or so.

How old are you then?

Twenty-three.

Twenty-three.


Well, Sweet Gravy!


I officially retract my statement.

However, lets just assume I said something else, minorly offensive.

Carry on.

Well, Sweet Gravy!


I officially retract my statement.

However, lets just assume I said something else, minorly offensive.

Carry on.

n00b! :p

First off. You forgot that terrorists don't come out into the open but hide among civilians. 2) there are always civilian deaths in war. Its a sad fact of life. 3) Hezbollah started this ruckus by going across the border and attacking the IDF which is never a good thing.

Right well we got off to a bad start (partly due to my ignorance, partly due to your rude manner) However, lets put it behind us.

Though hezbollah are qualified as terrorists, they do have public and governmental support for their role in liberating lebannon some years back (2000 I believe was when Israel left, correct me if I'm wrong). As such, they do have "official" buildings and such, many of which were the first targets of the Israeli bombardment. These buildings, however, are in Civilian areas and the building they hit, though the home of Hezbollah's leader (who was absent at the time) was also the home of many civilians.

Civilians have only become the target of War in the last century. This is not to say they weren't killed in the millenia before hand, they just weren't openly targeted as they are now. That and the technology that allows the massacre of hundreds at a time is fairly new. I doubt a medieval cavalry unit could kill as many people as Israel has killed in in the last few days given a month (unless of course they had already all been rounded up and nobody ran away)

The problem with the "War on Terrorism" is that unlike traditional wars, you aren't striking at a country. You're trying to find and kill a band of dangerous men who know the area and don't want to be found. By targetting Civilian centers, you are no longer cutting off an enemies resources as in regular warfare. If nothing else, you are increasing their support by alienating the people you've just bombarded. This is not a War, it is an attempt at counter-terrorism that has gone awfully awry.

I condemn Hezbollahs actions in attacking Israel, Their acts are unjust and needless. Israels retort, however, will do nothing but fan the flames of hatred against their country. Surely you can agree that they are over reacting by bombing the entirety of Lebannon, including both civilian centers and lebanese military bases?

Right well we got off to a bad start (partly due to my ignorance, partly due to your rude manner) However, lets put it behind us.

Done and done. Allow me to apologize. I was just in a bad mood and I just took it out on well just about everyone :D

Though hezbollah are qualified as terrorists, they do have public and governmental support for their role in liberating lebannon some years back (2000 I believe was when Israel left, correct me if I'm wrong).

That is indeed correct. They left in 2000 after 18 years in southen Lebanon.

As such, they do have "official" buildings and such, many of which were the first targets of the Israeli bombardment. These buildings, however, are in Civilian areas and the building they hit, though the home of Hezbollah's leader (who was absent at the time) was also the home of many civilians.

Which is unfortunate but as we all know, the first tagets to go are govenment buildings. It is unfortunate about the civilians and that does pain pain me. I will not say that it doesn't.

Civilians have only become the target of War in the last century. This is not to say they weren't killed in the millenia before hand, they just weren't openly targeted as they are now.

You might want to double check that. There have been documented evidence of soldiers going after civilians in warfare even prior to the 1900s.

The problem with the "War on Terrorism" is that unlike traditional wars, you aren't striking at a country. You're trying to find and kill a band of dangerous men who know the area and don't want to be found.

Hence why we can't seem to find bin Laden.

By targetting Civilian centers, you are no longer cutting off an enemies resources as in regular warfare. If nothing else, you are increasing their support by alienating the people you've just bombarded. This is not a War, it is an attempt at counter-terrorism that has gone awfully awry.

And yet it seems that Arab governments realized just how dangerous terrorism got when Hezbollah attacked the IDF from across the boarder.

I condemn Hezbollahs actions in attacking Israel, Their acts are unjust and needless. Israels retort, however, will do nothing but fan the flames of hatred against their country. Surely you can agree that they are over reacting by bombing the entirety of Lebannon, including both civilian centers and lebanese military bases?

I'll agree on the first 2 sentences. In regards to Israel's actions, I do support it. It is my hope though that they do not invade southern lebanon but the way it looks, they just might.

Done and done. Allow me to apologize. I was just in a bad mood and I just took it out on well just about everyone :D

Same here, I was starting to get kind of snide and cynical there, apology accepted and I return one of my own. (Isn't it more fun to get along? well kinda anyway)

That is indeed correct. They left in 2000 after 18 years in southen Lebanon.

Yay I was right.

Which is unfortunate but as we all know, the first tagets to go are govenment buildings. It is unfortunate about the civilians and that does pain pain me. I will not say that it doesn't.

True enough, I just don't think Israel is taking the right path here.

You might want to double check that. There have been documented evidence of soldiers going after civilians in warfare even prior to the 1900s.

Of course there were (you may notice I edited it afterwards) people have been killing civilians forever, just not in the same way as more recently and not with the effectiveness they do now. Terror tactics are quite effective in war and what better way than to terrorize the civilians.

Hence why we can't seem to find bin Laden.

Of course, Though I doubt he's anywhere near Afghanistan, what with the kidney dialysis and all. Heck we haven't heard from the bearded maniac in a while, maybe he's dead (hopefully)

And yet it seems that Arab governments realized just how dangerous terrorism got when Hezbollah attacked the IDF from across the boarder.

I'm pretty sure they already new the dangers of terrorism, they just weren't expecting Israel to react in such a heavy handed fashion. (ot were they, back to my conspiracy theories :rolleyes: )

I'll agree on the first 2 sentences. In regards to Israel's actions, I do support it. It is my hope though that they do not invade southern lebanon but the way it looks, they just might.

I don't agree with you here, but then you already know that. I agree that Israel should have the right to defend itself, like any nation, but the way its going about with the targeting of civilians and the waylaying of refugees (A boatload of canadian refugees were stopped at two different times for two sessions totalling 4 or 5 hours dispite Israeli assurances that refugee ships would not be bothered) is something I simply cannot agree with.

Well, neither of us is going to convince the other it would seem. Then again, I don't think either of us is really trying. I agree with hunting down the perpetrators in any fashion possible (difficult but not impossible), or better yet trying to work things out diplomaticly (really difficult but not impossible). I just hope my landlord doesn't get shelled while he's there. (One of the 70 Canadian soldiers helping to move refugees)

I don't think neither one of us is trying but then, what is the purpose of debate if we try to convince one another of our side of the issue? A purpose of debate is to get all sides out there.

As to your friend, I'll keep him in my prayers but I do not think there will be a problem. Not to sound nationalistic or anything (though I am a patriot :D) the US hasn't gotten attacked yet while moving civilians out of the area.

I think Hezbollah realizes that if they do that, then they'll be in a world of hurt by the international community.

I think he meant that they'll all jump out from behind a wall as the Israeli's appraoach and throw confetti over them.

Is anyone suggesting they have chemical weapons, or is this a 'might' in the same way that I 'might' have a snake in my bed tonight?
That depends on how one defines "snake". ;)