NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually being supported by the US and Her allies?
Here in Australia the Foreign Affairs Minister Mr A. Downer has said that attacks on Lebanon are justified and 7 News have said that the US have been giving missiles to the Israeli's. I dont think any war is justified unless a country is fighting against occupation. What do you think? Say your opinion and what your government is saying.

If they're supporting the war, good on them. Better Jews that muslims.

first, there are many threads on this subjects. most of them debated this point.
second, you had bad definition of justified war. the current fighting is against terror organization which kidnapped 2 soldiers and launch missles on northern israel (and even can't justified is act by occuption claim).
third, it is clear that this is supported by most of the western states and by G8, which see the hizbulla as terror organization and responsible for this fighting.
and lastly, the justification is known. the only thing which isn't fully agreed is how much use of force will still be justified.

I dont think any war is justified unless a country is fighting against occupation. What do you think?

So... if China nuked Sydney, Australia shouldn't go to war because there is no occupation?

So... if China nuked Sydney, Australia shouldn't go to war because there is no occupation?

Or if one of those Indonesian Muslim Terrorist groups start sinking every Australian Ship that passes by. No occupiation there you know.

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually being supported by the US and Her allies?
Here in Australia the Foreign Affairs Minister Mr A. Downer has said that attacks on Lebanon are justified and 7 News have said that the US have been giving missiles to the Israeli's. I dont think any war is justified unless a country is fighting against occupation. What do you think? Say your opinion and what your government is saying.


Unjust War?

Not according to Tony Blair, and not according to me either.

If Hezbollah can't take it, it can surrender - unconditionally.

Or if one of those Indonesian Muslim Terrorist groups start sinking every Australian Ship that passes by. No occupiation there you know.


But bombing Bali resorts is no just cause, right?

Only when they bomb every resort...

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually being supported by the US and Her allies?
Ignoring the bias of the OP one way or the other, I'll just say "ally" doesn't mean "blind supporter."

If they're supporting the war, good on them. Better Jews that muslims.

The Irony! Jews were once on the other end of that argument, you know. Do you really support Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanese citizens just because they are muslims?

Being from the U.S. i have to support israel, they at least unlike the rest of the western world know how to handle terrorist problems with some balls, no negociation, and if you attack israel what do you think would happen. would they sit on their asses as people die, no. they line their self deploying howitzers on your border and blow the shit out of you.

The Irony! Jews were once on the other end of that argument, you know. Do you really support Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanese citizens just because they are muslims?


I support bombing muslims who make it plain and clear that they support bombing Israel.
I support eradicating each and every muslim who is actually involved in that.

I support bombing muslims who make it plain and clear that they support bombing Israel.
I support eradicating each and every muslim who is actually involved in that.

Well, considering there's been 350 civilians killed, and this conflict is going to breed more anti-Israeli terrorists for decades, I'm glad you don't support this conflict.

Well, considering there's been 350 civilians killed, and this conflict is going to breed more anti-Israeli terrorists for decades, I'm glad you don't support this conflict.
as I said, this is questioning the ammount of force which used. it is different question than the OP argument about justifications for act at all.

Of course the Americans support Israel. Americans support the killing of muslims any time.
Anyone else that tags along does so because the yanks are the kid with the big stick these days.

I support bombing muslims who make it plain and clear that they support bombing Israel.
I support eradicating each and every muslim who is actually involved in that.
Meanwhile, a Hizbollah apologist is no doubt writing on a forum somewhere,
"I support bombing Americans who make it plain and clear that they support bombing Lebannon.
"I support eradicating each and every Jew who is actually involved in that."

Shame you two can't meet up. Your opinions being so similar as they are, I'm sure you'd get on like a house on fire.

Meanwhile, a Hizbollah apologist is no doubt writing on a forum somewhere,
"I support bombing Americans who make it plain and clear that they support bombing Lebannon.
"I support eradicating each and every Jew who is actually involved in that."

Shame you two can't meet up. Your opinions being so similar as they are, I'm sure you'd get on like a house on fire.


As in the case of UK vz Axis Powers, we cannot share this world in peace, and we wont.
And we wont consider truce nor parley with that lot either.

Well, considering there's been 350 civilians killed, and this conflict is going to breed more anti-Israeli terrorists for decades, I'm glad you don't support this conflict.


And you are quite sure that none of those 'civilians' ever said as much as an 'inshallah' for the wellbeing of Hezbollah?

As in the case of UK vz Axis Powers, we cannot share this world in peace, and we wont.
And we wont consider truce nor parley with that lot either.
How monochromatic your little world is.
Just stimulus-response, nothing else.
Guess it saves time thinking and considering the issues, eh?

And, dare I say it, you've Godwin'd yourself there.

And you are quite sure that none of those 'civilians' ever said as much as an 'inshallah' for the wellbeing of Hezbollah?

So it's ok to bomb people who think the wrong thing? :rolleyes: Israel and USA are the thought-police now?

And you are quite sure that none of those 'civilians' ever said as much as an 'inshallah' for the wellbeing of Hezbollah?
"If Allah wills it" is more like resignation than hopefulness. But even if somewhere deep in his heart, this guy kinda wants Hezbollah to succeed, we don't kill people based on personal belief. That's a slippery slope I don't even want to come near.

It is estimated that more than two thirds of the dead are children. Mainly as a result of the use of phosphurus, who many condemn as illegal under international law.

This war isnt the fault of the innocent lebanese, what did they do?

It is estimated that more than two thirds of the dead are children.
That is either a figure completely made up by the 'Hate War/Israel/America/We're loony lefties, hurrah!' brigade, or the Lebanese have been using children as human shields.

Children do not make up two thirds of the population.

That is either a figure completely made up by the 'Hate War/Israel/America/We're loony lefties, hurrah!' brigade, or the Lebanese have been using children as human shields.

Children do not make up two thirds of the population.

Yes, yes they do (children making up 66% of casualties), its been documented quite well as well, dont come up with excuses.. The lebanese are victims, and hezbollah isnt as crazy as some may make them seem, they care for the lebanese people, and arent only a militant organisation.

Yes, yes they do, its been documented quite well as well, dont come up with excuses.. The lebanese are victims, and hezbollah isnt as crazy as some may make them seem, they care for the lebanese people, and arent only a militant organisation.
Ah, I see, it's an 'excuse' that such a figure isn't published anywhere, except presumably on the Israeli hate site you're reading.

If Hezbollah can't take it, it can surrender - unconditionally.Hezbollah can easily take it, it's libanon and its civilians that can't take it. And they don't get to surrender.

Ah, I see, it's an 'excuse' that such a figure isn't published anywhere, except presumably on the Israeli hate site you're reading.

Its been documented on reliable, seemingly pro-Israel news channels, such as CCN, BBC, and on a number of australian channels.
Still, 350 civilians, thats a true figure, are you going to dispute that, or justify it?

Its been documented on reliable, seemingly pro-Israel news channels, such as CCN, BBC, and on a number of australian channels.
Still, 350 civilians, thats a true figure, are you going to dispute that, or justify it?
From the BBC:
At least 362 Lebanese, the great majority civilians, have been killed during the conflict, which is now into its 13th day. Thirty-seven Israelis have been killed, about half of them civilians.
Please point out for me where it says 'two thirds of them are children'.

Ah, I see, it's an 'excuse' that such a figure isn't published anywhere, except presumably on the Israeli hate site you're reading.

Well depending on what you see the UN as, their emergency relief coordinator says its about 1/3.

Link (http://news.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060720045009990001)

If they're supporting the war, good on them. Better Jews that muslims.At which point one might mention that there's 35-40% christians in Lebanon. (As if people's religion that should even matter.)

From the BBC:

Please point out for me where it says 'two thirds of them are children'.

It was shown on CNN, and BBC multiple times. They dont put everything on their sites.

Well depending on what you see the UN as, their emergency relief coordinator says its about 1/3.

Link (http://news.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060720045009990001)
1/3 from the UN is a reliable source. 2/3 just thrown into the air is not.

Hezbollah can easily take it, it's libanon and its civilians that can't take it. And they don't get to surrender.


Oh? They are unable to raise white flags? Should we send some white blankets?

1/3 from the UN is a reliable source. 2/3 just thrown into the air is not.

:D I'm just throwing out reports here...

I try to avoid taking sides on this...

:D I'm just throwing out reports here...

I try to avoid taking sides on this...
Well, I generally stay out of Israel debates simply because I don't believe there is an answer to the conflict that will ever satisfy everyone, but I couldn't see such an exagerated figure go unchallenged.

Solutions to problems become so much harder when you try to demonise the otherside and try to make them as somehow subhuman. How can there ever be peace when there is so much hatred on all sides?

The lebanese are victims, and hezbollah isnt as crazy as some may make them seem, they care for the lebanese people, and arent only a militant organisation.If Hezbollah cared for the lebanese people, they should return the soldiers they kidnapped and surrender; at the very least stop retaliating and escalating this conflict.
(Which however takes no blame away from Israel for the their part in the conflict. Both sides suck.)

If they're supporting the war, good on them. Better Jews that muslims.
Let's not make this religious.

Ok, official overall figures say that 1/3 of the dead are children. This has come from the UN, a good enough source one might say. In some places its worse though.

http://news.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060720045009990001

I'd like to see some UN appropriation of land, really. If Israel can't play nice, it should have its land taken away from it, and be put under direct UN administration.

Hell, it can't be run any worse.

Let's not make this religious.


It has pretty much become a religious was, and has been so ever since Mohammed preemptively wiped out Khaibar?

I'd like to see some UN appropriation of land, really. If Israel can't play nice, it should have its land taken away from it, and be put under direct UN administration.

Hell, it can't be run any worse.
I'd like to see you try and take any land from the Israeli's.

I think I'll stand over here while you do it.

Oh? They are unable to raise white flags? Should we send some white blankets?
Knowing you, you'd probably put smallpox in the blankets.

Well, I generally stay out of Israel debates simply because I don't believe there is an answer to the conflict that will ever satisfy everyone, but I couldn't see such an exagerated figure go unchallenged.

Solutions to problems become so much harder when you try to demonise the otherside and try to make them as somehow subhuman. How can there ever be peace when there is so much hatred on all sides?

Which is exactly my opinion on this.

Unless the facts are made clear (which will never happen, statistics are always read with bias) then there is no possible way to make this end. Nor can the slate be wiped clean.

It will be a war of attrition like always. I hate to say it but there will be only two outcomes to this, one will a complete victory for one side and the other will be a stalemate that will deteriorate just like the last one. The never ending cycle. :(

Oh? They are unable to raise white flags? Should we send some white blankets?They could possibly raise a white flag, but Israel only cares about Hezbollah. As long as Hezbollah doesn't surrender, they'll still bomb the civilians as colatteral damage.
Just look at how things go in Iraq, it surrendered to the US, but the US still bombs civilians trying to hit insurgents. Untill those give up, the civilians still won't be safe from either side. They don't have the option to surrender, or rather, it doesn't help them.

If Hezbollah cared for the lebanese people, they should return the soldiers they kidnapped and surrender; at the very least stop retaliating and escalating this conflict.
(Which however takes no blame away from Israel for the their part in the conflict. Both sides suck.)

Many seem to forget why hezbollah attacked.
For one, there are thousands of arab, and lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, who after many years of negotiations have not been released. Most these people have been in prison with no trial. Hezbollah wants these people free. Most these people are in fact innocent.
You say for them to stop retaliating, why?, so they continue to get bombed?.
If they stopped, Israel will continue to bomb them.
And finally, at this very moment, many from hezbollahs social services wing are helping the ones who have been left homeless, and assisting in handing out aid to the lebanese.

I'd like to see you try and take any land from the Israeli's.

I think I'll stand over here while you do it.

That's a little too close. Stand further away. I don't know if you're sekritly a Zionist militant!

ALLAH ACKBAR!

*rolls his eyes*

Seriously, though, I'm all for the removal of sovereignty from countries who declare war. Countries who declare war should be annexed into the UN. After all, countries have to be pretty fucked up nowadays to openly declare war on another country.

They could possibly raise a white flag, but Israel only cares about Hezbollah. As long as Hezbollah doesn't surrender, they'll still bomb the civilians as colatteral damage.
Just look at how things go in Iraq, it surrendered to the US, but the US still bombs civilians trying to hit insurgents. Untill those give up, the civilians still won't be safe from either side. They don't have the option to surrender, or rather, it doesn't help them.


Bulldust.

How many Lebanese HAVE walked up to the IDF, hands in air?

The German civilians did so en masse in 45.

That is either a figure completely made up by the 'Hate War/Israel/America/We're loony lefties, hurrah!' brigade, or the Lebanese have been using children as human shields.

Children do not make up two thirds of the population.
But they are more susceptible to death by injury. Adults survive better.

Oh? They are unable to raise white flags? Should we send some white blankets?
How can you surrender if you're not fighting in the first place? Do you think that the Israelis would see any white flags? War is long-range these days.

That's a little too close. Stand further away. I don't know if you're sekritly a Zionist militant!

ALLAH ACKBAR!

*rolls his eyes*

Seriously, though, I'm all for the removal of sovereignty from countries who declare war. Countries who declare war should be annexed into the UN. After all, countries have to be pretty fucked up nowadays to openly declare war on another country.


Oh, good!

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia....

They all declared war in 47, right?

Oh, good!

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia....

They all declared war in 47, right?

China, Japan, Russia, Germany, the UK, France. The list goes on.

It has pretty much become a religious was, and has been so ever since Mohammed preemptively wiped out Khaibar?
You want to surrender to Hezbollah's "divinely inspired" raving with your own equivalent of it?

It's hard to take the moral high ground when you're emulating the looneys.

But they are more susceptible to death by injury. Adults survive better.


How can you surrender if you're not fighting in the first place? Do you think that the Israelis would see any white flags? War is long-range these days.


Ask the German civilians who surrendered between 1st Januari 45, and 7th May, 45.

I dunno if you've ever been in a war, but the white sheets DO tend to stand out, waaaaay longer 'n the effective range of either a rifle or a tankgun.

It has pretty much become a religious was, and has been so ever since Mohammed preemptively wiped out Khaibar?

By wiped out, I assume you mean conqured with a negotiated surrender which allowed the Jews who had lived there to practice their religion and pay a tribute of half their crops to him in 628.

Wow, thats wiped out for sure.

They were wiped out from the area in 640 by Umar after Muhammed had died.

Given the usual atrocities, as we now consider them, at the time, the actions by the Jews in the defence of their land and the negotiated surrender are pretty good going.

You want to surrender to Hezbollah's "divinely inspired" raving with your own equivalent of it?

It's hard to take the moral high ground when you're emulating the looneys.


I have zero interest in the moral high ground.

I have also zero interest in the survival of anyone who actively and willingly advances the continued existence of islamism as a factor in global politics.

No truce, no negotation - Unconditional Surrender.

Perhaps the USS Missouri can be de-mothballed for the formal signing.

Ask the German civilians who surrendered between 1st Januari 45, and 7th May, 45.

I dunno if you've ever been in a war, but the white sheets DO tend to stand out, waaaaay longer 'n the effective range of either a rifle or a tankgun.

So what are the people in Beirut and Tyre, Sidon et al suposed to do? Trudge all the way down South to meet the IDF so they can surrender in person?

With all the highways, bridges, methods of transport destroyed- to get to the border?!

Quit making inane points.

I dunno if you've ever been in a war, but the white sheets DO tend to stand out, waaaaay longer 'n the effective range of either a rifle or a tankgun.
No, Israel would not that. Hezbollah militants could just raise white sheets to avoid getting killed and the bombers would see them, think "hey, civilians" and fly over.

Rifles and tanks are irrelevant.

Many seem to forget why hezbollah attacked.
For one, there are thousands of arab, and lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, who after many years of negotiations have not been released. Most these people have been in prison with no trial. Hezbollah wants these people free. Most these people are in fact innocent.And you think the current situation is an improvement? Negotiating till the heat death fo the universe would be preferable to this.

You say for them to stop retaliating, why?, so they continue to get bombed?. If they stopped, Israel will continue to bomb them.They are getting bombed anyway? They're not helping the situation any. At least not retaliating would take away any and all excuses for Israels behaviour, they could claim the moral highground, rather than be dismissed as terrorist scum.

And finally, at this very moment, many from hezbollahs social services wing are helping the ones who have been left homeless, and assisting in handing out aid to the lebanese.Ah yes, first create the suituation were people get a bloody nose, then give them a tissue, and suddenly you're the good guy. They'd have done the lebanese people a much greater service not getting them into this situation.
So, there's thousands of innocent arabs in israeli prisons, now, there are hundreds of innocent arabs dead,a nd still those thousands in prison. Great improvement.

Both sides suck. And I continue to stand by that.

By wiped out, I assume you mean conqured with a negotiated surrender which allowed the Jews who had lived there to practice their religion and pay a tribute of half their crops to him in 628.

Wow, thats wiped out for sure.

They were wiped out from the area in 640 by Umar after Muhammed had died.

Given the usual atrocities, as we now consider them, at the time, the actions by the Jews in the defence of their land and the negotiated surrender are pretty good going.


Very well: let the Israeli's offer peace to the islamic inhabitants of Lebanon under the same terms:
-muslims to be allowed to practise their religion in exchange for an annual tribute of 50% of their income.

I have zero interest in the moral high ground.

So you would have supported opening death camps in Yorkshire for Germans back in 1942?


I have no interest in killing all Muslims.

How many Lebanese HAVE walked up to the IDF, hands in air?How do you walk up to a plane with your hands in the air? the IDF has not really invaded lebanon, they can't walk up and surrender. And what do you think would happen if they could? They either get locked in camps, get told to go back home, or get thrown in prison as they must obviously be guilty of something if they surrender.

No, Israel would not that. Hezbollah militants could just raise white sheets to avoid getting killed and the bombers would see them, think "hey, civilians" and fly over.

Rifles and tanks are irrelevant.


IF they are irrelevant, why the bitching about the ground invasion?

The folks with white flags are then invited to walk over, HANDS RAISED, then are taken captive, patted down, and moved Out Of Area.

Very well: let the Israeli's offer peace to the islamic inhabitants of Lebanon under the same terms:
-muslims to be allowed to practise their religion in exchange for an annual tribute of 50% of their income.

Don't think I suggested that. Just pointing out your 'wiped out' was about as correct as '2/3rds of Lebanese casualties are children'.

Besides, that was using the morals, ethics and philosophy of that time in history. Why use the same now?

Both sides suck. And I continue to stand by that.

I can slightly agree with that, but which side sucks more?

In my mind, its Israel.

So you would have supported opening death camps in Yorkshire for Germans back in 1942?

Nope.
I'd support 1000 bomber raids over the Heimat, though.
As did Churchill and FDR.

Ah yes, first create the suituation were people get a bloody nose, then give them a tissue, and suddenly you're the good guy. They'd have done the lebanese people a much greater service not getting them into this situation.
So, there's thousands of innocent arabs in israeli prisons, now, there are hundreds of innocent arabs dead,a nd still those thousands in prison. Great improvement.


Sort of like the american crusade in iraq, isn't it?

Many seem to forget why hezbollah attacked.
For one, there are thousands of arab, and lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, who after many years of negotiations have not been released. Most these people have been in prison with no trial. Hezbollah wants these people free. Most these people are in fact innocent.
You say for them to stop retaliating, why?, so they continue to get bombed?.
If they stopped, Israel will continue to bomb them.
And finally, at this very moment, many from hezbollahs social services wing are helping the ones who have been left homeless, and assisting in handing out aid to the lebanese.
most of the prisoners are terrorists. they will be free if it will be for making sure the hizbulla disarm himself and stop terror against israel.
if it won't happen it will basically give the hizbulla more fresh terrorists, more motivation, and more public support. all of that will make the peace further away.
anyway, I don't think this is the real reason. hizbulla made this attack especially because his public support going down, and he was in "danger" of disarming or being weaker, if he wasn't "prove" the lebannese that he fight for them.

Don't think I suggested that. Just pointing out your 'wiped out' was about as correct as '2/3rds of Lebanese casualties are children'.

Besides, that was using the morals, ethics and philosophy of that time in history. Why use the same now?

Either those muslims who oppose Israel admit Muhammed and Umar were criminals, or... no peace.

I can slightly agree with that, but which side sucks more?I'm not sure. I suppose I'd have to wait to see how it ends.
If Hezbollah would now surrender, so the rest of lebanon can be spared. I'd say they'd suck less. If Israel stops the initiative and let's the UN take over, and maybe help repay the damages. They could claim to suck less.

But for all intents and purposes, all I care for is that it stops. So the people of lebanon can get on with their life in peace. I hate it when people fight at the cost of others.

Nope.
So you do not believe that if we are fighting an enemy, that we should sink to their level.

I can slightly agree with that, but which side sucks more?

In my mind, its Israel.
No, the Arabs are the more bigoted side.

IF they are irrelevant, why the bitching about the ground invasion?

The folks with white flags are then invited to walk over, HANDS RAISED, then are taken captive, patted down, and moved Out Of Area.
There is no real ground invasion.

Why should Lebanese civilians head south to meet the IDF? In all likelihood it will be assumed that they're combatants. They should head north.

This war is really not comparable to WWII. Israel is not fighting Lebanon, they're fighting Hezbollah, yet they're killing Lebanese people.

if it won't happen it will basically give the hizbulla more fresh terrorists, more motivation, and more public support. all of that will make the peace further away.


What do you think the current crisis is doing?
This is how terrorism breeds, in the conditions that Israel created.
I can guarantee you that after this has all finished, support for Hezbollah will be at an all time high.
Israel handled this situation very badly. They have themselves in a position where any negotiation would present them as "weak". Before attacking, they should have exhausted all diplomatic efforts.

Either those muslims who oppose Israel admit Muhammed and Umar were criminals, or... no peace.
How are Muhammed and Umar relevant to us?

Do you want to send around a questionnaire in Lebanon?

No, the Arabs are the more bigoted side.




What have the lebanese civilians done to deserve this, what has the lebanese nation done to deserve this.




Yay, my 100th Post

What have the lebanese civilians done to deserve this, what has the lebanese nation done to deserve this.




Yay, my 100th Post

-insert countdown before an assertation that the act of electing the Hezbollah was enough here-

So you do not believe that if we are fighting an enemy, that we should sink to their level.


No, the Arabs are the more bigoted side.


There is no real ground invasion.

Why should Lebanese civilians head south to meet the IDF? In all likelihood it will be assumed that they're combatants. They should head north.

This war is really not comparable to WWII. Israel is not fighting Lebanon, they're fighting Hezbollah, yet they're killing Lebanese people.

I'm thinking that my level of frightfulness would be dependent on my own tactical and philosophical considerations.
I might add here that my philosophical considerations are utterly devoid of any wish to hold back, or impugn, the concept of corporate responsibility.

If the Lebanese wish to head north, let 'em.

Either those muslims who oppose Israel admit Muhammed and Umar were criminals, or... no peace.

Where the hell did that come from? How can you possibly use a historic event which had different morals, ethics and philosophy govening its actions and ask people today to judge it on todays values, despite the fact that it would be utterly stupid to do so, because we cannot judge nor ask people to judge, what went on back then due to the differences in civilizations values.

-insert countdown before an assertation that the act of electing the Hezbollah was enough here-

They got elected as a result of their social work.

What do you think the current crisis is doing?
This is how terrorism breeds, in the conditions that Israel created.
I can guarantee you that after this has all finished, support for Hezbollah will be at an all time high.
Israel handled this situation very badly. They have themselves in a position where any negotiation would present them as "weak". Before attacking, they should have exhausted all diplomatic efforts.
so this is the same things happened otherwise.
I don't think the solution will be negotiation nor military, but I do think some actions were neccesery in order to make it possible for the UN or lebanon get into it, by the principals of G8 decision.
no side is perfect, but israel is probably better than the terrorists.

They got elected as a result of their social work.

Since when have people let little things like facts get involved in debates involving Israel?

Come on now.

How are Muhammed and Umar relevant to us?

Do you want to send around a questionnaire in Lebanon?


Let me play the question-game too:
How is the existence of, say, Shiites relevant to us?

War is the business of subordinating the very WILL of your enemy to your own, and not a walk in the park.

Since when have people let little things like facts get involved in debates involving Israel?

Come on now.

Er, actually, Asadiya ( sp ) was probably speaking at least 50% truth.

Where the hell did that come from? How can you possibly use a historic event which had different morals, ethics and philosophy govening its actions and ask people today to judge it on todays values, despite the fact that it would be utterly stupid to do so, because we cannot judge nor ask people to judge, what went on back then due to the differences in civilizations values.


I am not intending to ask - I am intending to impose.

No truce, no negotiations, no parley.

Either those muslims who oppose Israel admit Muhammed and Umar were criminals, or... no peace.

Uhm...What?
This begs the questions: How old are you? What sort of an institution do you live in? The question "where are you from" need not be asked.

I am not intending to ask - I am intending to impose.

No truce, no negotiations, no parley.

So you're going to force people to admit that two people they have never met, who are from another time and era and so not able to be judged by todays standards, are criminals.

Wow. Thats class work there my friend. Ever think for one second you might be as extreme as those you are fighting to change?

What have the lebanese civilians done to deserve this, what has the lebanese nation done to deserve this.
Read my other posts. They don't deserve this.

I'm thinking that my level of frightfulness would be dependent on my own tactical and philosophical considerations.
I might add here that my philosophical considerations are utterly devoid of any wish to hold back, or impugn, the concept of corporate responsibility.
What?

If the Lebanese wish to head north, let 'em.
Meaning, I presume, let them head north without being bombed on their way?

Let me play the question-game too:
How is the existence of, say, Shiites relevant to us?

Well, as humans they have a right to live. And they can probably buy our stuff if we're selling.

Go on, answer my questions.

War is the business of subordinating the very WILL of your enemy to your own, and not a walk in the park.
War is the business of neutralising threats, and not a psychological game.

I am not intending to ask - I am intending to impose.

So why ask questions if you're assuming the answers?

So you're going to force people to admit that two people they have never met, who are from another time and era and so not able to be judged by todays standards, are criminals.

Wow. Thats class work there my friend. Ever think for one second you might be as extreme as those you are fighting to change?

o lawd no

... Take a look at his signature and tell me that BogMarsh shouldn't be campaigning as hard against Italy and the USA.

Do you think that Israel unjust war

A thousand threads on the subject and you start a new one disguised as an editorial . Why didnt you just post your opinion in one of the other threads ?

Is Hezbollah's war being supported by Syria and Iran? Didn't Hezbollah receive training, funding, and all their weapons from Syria and Iran?

Are they just a proxy? Mmm?

Is this thread just a massive attempt at trolling?

Read my other posts. They don't deserve this.

SNIP



What don't they deserve? As far as I am concerned, troublesome islamist deserve only one single thing: to burn in Hell for all eternity, without a trial.

To neutralise a threat? Kiddo, we did NOT declare war on Germany to neutralise a threat, we did so to support our ally Poland and to end the very existence of the 3rd Reich.

No truce, and no parley.

Deep Kimchi makes a good point about this thread. It's redundant and trollbait.

BogMarsh: if you value this thread, you'll try to be less abusive. It's must be close to being locked anyway, and your "final solution" ranting is taking it that way, fast.
Love your work, btw :p

The Independent's today front page:

WARNING: blood

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6391/indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.th.jpg (http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.jpg)

So, are they terrorists? Was Israel trying to freed them? Why TF did Israel shoot the Bus?

I condemn this more recent War Crime of Israel. :mad:

Any justification? :rolleyes:

The Independent's today front page:

WARNING: blood

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6391/indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.th.jpg (http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.jpg)

So, are they terrorists? Was Israel trying to freed them? Why TF did Israel shoot the Bus?

I condemn this more recent War Crime of Israel. :mad:

Any justification? :rolleyes:


People were killed. In a war. In a place where there has been war and fighting for decades.

I am neither horrified, shocked, nor surprised.

The Independent's today front page:
WARNING: blood
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6391/indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.th.jpg (http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indpcrimiendeguerraeq5.jpg)

<snip emotive stuff and rhetorical questions>

This illustrates that Israel is losing support in the west's media. I see it every day on Australian TV, and in our papers. It's turning anti-Israel, by the day. Another week of the same, and the US administration will publicly reprimand Israel, and turn to the UN like a long-lost brother. See if I'm wrong.

I don't think it's right that the mass media has such power over public opinion, btw. But perhaps they're better at guessing the 'verdict of history' than politicians are.
The Independent, currently featuring that front page (http://www.independent.co.uk/)

This illustrates that Israel is losing support in the west's media. I see it every day on Australian TV, and in our papers. It's turning anti-Israel, by the day. Another week of the same, and the US administration will publicly reprimand Israel, and turn to the UN like a long-lost brother. See if I'm wrong.

I don't think it's right that the mass media has such power over public opinion, btw. But perhaps they're better at guessing the 'verdict of history' than politicians are.

Yes, Israel is showing the first signs of allowing a NATO/EU force to be deployed in the border between Israel and Lebanon.

The mass/media has always had this kind of power, since the old french newspaper "L'ami du peuple" until nowadays CNN or BBC. The problem of the mass media appears when, instead of spreading unbiased information, it serves the interests of their owners.

Recently the spanish president Zapatero was called ¡¡Anti-Semite!! for critizising the disproportionate response of the IDF, and the right-wing media published it in the front page and opened their news reports in Radio and TV with the speech of the accuser, in a massive way. Later, the Spanish Jew community condemned that speech.

Yes, Israel is showing the first signs of allowing a NATO/EU force to be deployed in the border between Israel and Lebanon.

The mass/media has always had this kind of power, since the old french newspaper "L'ami du peuple" until nowadays CNN or BBC. The problem of the mass media appears when, instead of spreading unbiased information, it serves the interests of their owners.

Recently the spanish president Zapatero was called ¡¡Anti-Semite!! for critizising the disproportionate response of the IDF, and the right-wing media published it in the front page and opened their news reports in Radio and TV with the speech of the accuser, in a massive way. Later, the Spanish Jew community condemned that speech.


NATO would be far better than the UN peacekeepers.

NATO would not allow Hezbollah to return with their weapons, nor would it allow Hezbollah to rebuild its military strength and use that to attack Israel.

What don't they deserve? As far as I am concerned, troublesome islamist deserve only one single thing: to burn in Hell for all eternity, without a trial.

To neutralise a threat? Kiddo, we did NOT declare war on Germany to neutralise a threat, we did so to support our ally Poland and to end the very existence of the 3rd Reich.

No truce, and no parley.

For starters, if you're going to burn extremeists in hell for all eternity without a trial, then get in line mate, because with your views so far there is nothing that you are wanting to do that makes you any different from them.

Secondly, we never went to war initially to destroy the 3rd Reich. The initial objective was to protect Poland and force Germany to sue for peace, not to destroy them. The objective for destroying the 3rd Reich only became a valid objective after the loss of France and the Battle of Britain.

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually being supported by the US and Her allies?
Here in Australia the Foreign Affairs Minister Mr A. Downer has said that attacks on Lebanon are justified and 7 News have said that the US have been giving missiles to the Israeli's. I dont think any war is justified unless a country is fighting against occupation. What do you think? Say your opinion and what your government is saying.

Israel's war against Hezbollah is no more "unjust" than the US fight against Japan in WWII.

Hezbollah is not fighting "against occupation." Hezbollah is fighting to destroy Israel.

The US is supporting Israel and will continue doing so. The US should support Israel until final victory, when Hezbollah is crushed, humiliated and eliminated as a threat to Israel and the world.

Props to the US and to Israel.

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually being supported by the US and Her allies?

Oh it is justified for Israel was attacked directly by a political entity of Lebanon.

Here in Australia the Foreign Affairs Minister Mr A. Downer has said that attacks on Lebanon are justified and 7 News have said that the US have been giving missiles to the Israeli's. I dont think any war is justified unless a country is fighting against occupation. What do you think? Say your opinion and what your government is saying.

So you are saying if Japan attacks Australia, you would not support it because Australia isn't occupied by Japan?

NATO would be far better than the UN peacekeepers.

NATO would not allow Hezbollah to return with their weapons, nor would it allow Hezbollah to rebuild its military strength and use that to attack Israel.

While they would be more active, they would not necessarily make the situation any better.

I could easily envisage a drawn out and protracted low intensity conflict between them and Hezb'allah.

Well, considering there's been 350 civilians killed, and this conflict is going to breed more anti-Israeli terrorists for decades, I'm glad you don't support this conflict.

And the question you do have to ask yourself is, how many of them are actually civilians and how many are actually hezbollah?

And the question you do have to ask yourself is, how many of them are actually civilians and how many are actually hezbollah?
Those would be reports from hospitals.

Hezb'allah don't bring their wounded/dead to hospitals because they run their own facilities- seperate from civilian hosptials. They have quite an infrastructure in place.

Hence while we'll never know independently the exact number of Hezb'allah dead, we will know the number of civilians.

Many seem to forget why hezbollah attacked.

They hate Israel. There was no need to cross the border and attack the IDF.

For one, there are thousands of arab, and lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons, who after many years of negotiations have not been released. Most these people have been in prison with no trial. Hezbollah wants these people free. Most these people are in fact innocent.

Care to show us how you know that most of those in prison are innocent? I am dying to know.

You say for them to stop retaliating, why?, so they continue to get bombed?.

They stop firing, Israel stops dropping bombs. You do know this right?

If they stopped, Israel will continue to bomb them.

Oh bullshit.

And finally, at this very moment, many from hezbollahs social services wing are helping the ones who have been left homeless, and assisting in handing out aid to the lebanese.

Good. Too bad their militants don't feel the same way.

Oh, good!

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia....

They all declared war in 47, right?

And ironically, all but Syria has condemned Hezbollah's cross-border attack.

I can slightly agree with that, but which side sucks more?

In my mind, its Israel.

In that case, you are a fool.

Israel's war against Hezbollah is no more "unjust" than the US fight against Japan in WWII.

Hezbollah is not fighting "against occupation." Hezbollah is fighting to destroy Israel.

And the question that solves this point is: WHEN and WHY was Hezbollah created?

Founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Occupation Forces who occupied southern Lebanon
Hezbollah was "inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution"[2] and was formed primarily to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Those would be reports from hospitals.

Hezb'allah don't bring their wounded/dead to hospitals because they run their own facilities- seperate from civilian hosptials. They have quite an infrastructure in place.

And you know this how?

And the question that solves this point is: WHEN and WHY was Hezbollah created?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Yep that is why. Since Lebanon is no longer occupied, there is no need for Hezbollah. Thanks for proving that point.

Yep that is why. Since Lebanon is no longer occupied, there is no need for Hezbollah. Thanks for proving that point.
No, the Shebba Farms are still disputed territory to them. They say it is Lebanese territory being occupied by Israel.
Right or wrong, that is their reason for continued existence.


And you know this how?

Hezbollah won the support of Shi'ite Muslims by providing social services, health care and welfare when the Lebanese government failed. Hezbollah runs hospitals, news services and educational facilities for its followers in Lebanon. It is behind a large number of economic and infrastructure projects in the country. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG20Ak02.html


Mrouweh said that none of the casualties being treated in the hospital was a Hezbollah fighter.

"No one is in Hezbollah, I assure you," he said. "All of them are civilians. Hezbollah soldiers are not being sent to the hospital. We don't see them."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80A6775F-5AF3-425B-B86F-9497378249E5.htm

Well, considering there's been 350 civilians killed, and this conflict is going to breed more anti-Israeli terrorists for decades, I'm glad you don't support this conflict.


By that absurd reasoning, the US should still be fighting Japan and Germany, because of all those poor civilians killed by our air raids. Unfortunately for your logic, the war ended due to our application of overwhelming, disproportionate force, and we don't see any "anti-US terrorists for decades" emerging from Japan and Germany.

Wars end when one side decisively defeats the other. Better hope that Israel, together with the US and their allies, decisively defeats Hezbollah, their sponsors in Syria and Iran, and Islamofascism globally. Peace out :)

Yep that is why. Since Lebanon is no longer occupied, there is no need

for Hezbollah. Thanks for proving that point.

You are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

We can read:

he Golan Heights (or Golan), formerly also known as the Syrian Heights, are a plateau on the border of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Israel captured the Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War (and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War).
Syria asserts that the Heights are part of the governorate of Al Qunaytirah, and the international community considers the area Syrian territory under Israeli occupation.
The Israeli army captured the Heights and put it under military administration from 1967 until 1981, when the Knesset passed "The Golan Heights Law" [3], similar to its 1967 measures concerning Jerusalem. [...] Israel's measures are frequently termed "annexation" but the real status of the Golan is very far from legally clear - the word "annexation" or equivalent concepts, like "extending sovereignty," are not used in the law itself. In any case, the result of the extension of sovereignty/annexation has been an end to the application of military regulations to the populace. It has also been noted that the Golan Heights have been a part of peace negotiations between Syria and Israel
Additionally, Lebanon claims a small portion of the area known as Shebaa Farms on Mount Dov in the area of Mount Hermon. Syria's position on the subject is unclear. Syria's foreign minister has orally declared that the Shebaa farms are Lebanese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

In 1964 a joint Lebanese-Syrian border committee concluded that the Shebaa Farms area was Lebanese and that the international border should be redefined consistent with that conclusion.[5] On 16 May 2000 the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouq al-Shara, confirmed to Annan that the Syrian Arab Republic supported Lebanon's claim.[4]

No, the Shebba Farms are still disputed territory to them. They say it is Lebanese territory being occupied by Israel.
Right or wrong, that is their reason for continued existence.

Actually, the Sheba Farms is internationally recognized as part of Syria and Not lebanon :rolleyes:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80A6775F-5AF3-425B-B86F-9497378249E5.htm

And you are going to trust his word?

You are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

Golan Heights are Syrian and NOT LEBANON!

Actually, the Sheba Farms is internationally recognized as part of Syria and Not lebanon :rolleyes:

Like I said, regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong in their assertion- that is the reason they continue to exist.


And you are going to trust his word?
Am I going to trust the word of the doctor who works in the hospital and who sees the patients come in, day in day out?

Or am I supposed to trust your word- someone who hasn't backed up their claim with a primary source, who is living several thousand miles away from the incidents?

Am I supposed to not trust him because he's Middle Eastern?

What don't they deserve? As far as I am concerned, troublesome islamist deserve only one single thing: to burn in Hell for all eternity, without a trial.
Wrong "they", Boggie. Try again.

To neutralise a threat? Kiddo, we did NOT declare war on Germany to neutralise a threat, we did so to support our ally Poland and to end the very existence of the 3rd Reich.

No truce, and no parley.
Why would a truce with the Nazis have been unacceptable? If they agreed not to step outside the German borders what's the problem?

If Hezbollah agreed to stop attacking Israel, what's the problem?

People were killed. In a war. In a place where there has been war and fighting for decades.

I am neither horrified, shocked, nor surprised.
And you think that those people deserved it for being Lebanese, do you?

And the question you do have to ask yourself is, how many of them are actually civilians and how many are actually hezbollah?
Every one of them is a civilian. Why don't you ask yourself that question?

Please take out references to God from your signature. You're obviously a fake Christian because you support murder.

By that absurd reasoning, the US should still be fighting Japan and Germany, because of all those poor civilians killed by our air raids. Unfortunately for your logic, the war ended due to our application of overwhelming, disproportionate force, and we don't see any "anti-US terrorists for decades" emerging from Japan and Germany.
The force used against Japan and Germany was quite proportionate.

Why would a truce with the Nazis have been unacceptable? If they agreed not to step outside the German borders what's the problem?

I guess the thought of millions of people being sent up the chimney as ashes doesn't bother you.

I guess the thought of millions of people being sent up the chimney as ashes doesn't bother you.

That can't be taken into account as they weren't known about at the time, therefore had no bearing on the decision to go to war, hence at the time a truce would have been acceptable.

If it had been known about then yes, it would have been a major issue, but it wasn't.

Being from the U.S. i have to support israel, they at least unlike the rest of the western world know how to handle terrorist problems with some balls, no negociation, and if you attack israel what do you think would happen. would they sit on their asses as people die, no. they line their self deploying howitzers on your border and blow the shit out of you.

Yeah, Israel knows how to deal with terrorists, being one in and of itself.

And you are going to trust his word?

Again with the "Im not trusting muslims" sentiment.

Again with the "Im not trusting muslims" sentiment.

I'm sorry but in a middle of a combat zone like this, when someone is saying no hezbollah fighters are getting killed, I find that highly skeptical.

Again with the "Im not trusting muslims" sentiment.

There's plenty of reasons not to trust Hezbollah or the Palestinians, based solely on their "adherence" to previous peace plans or agreements. That historical record alone is sentiment enough not to listen to a word they say, unless it is only three words "We Unconditionally Surrender".

It's far simpler just to kill them.

I'm sorry but in a middle of a combat zone like this, when someone is saying no hezbollah fighters are getting killed, I find that highly skeptical.
Where did I or the link say that, or even allude to that?

I'm sorry but in a middle of a combat zone like this, when someone is saying no hezbollah fighters are getting killed, I find that highly skeptical.

I fin dit highly skeptical that any ARE being killed. I dont think shells and bombs have "Hezbollah seeking" guidance systems.

Then again, there wouldnt be a war if you didnt piss the Lebanese off, essentially creating Hezbollah.

Golan Heights are Syrian and NOT LEBANON!

You can shout it as loud as you want but I previously told you:

In 1964 a joint Lebanese-Syrian border committee concluded that the Shebaa Farms area was Lebanese and that the international border should be redefined consistent with that conclusion.[5] On 16 May 2000 the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouq al-Shara, confirmed to Annan that the Syrian Arab Republic supported Lebanon's claim.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

** And in the inmanent topic: I STILL KEEP CONDEMNING THE WHOLE WAVE OF ATTACKS FROM BOTH SIDES.

And, IMO, justifying ANY of the assasinations is a MEANNESS.

So, please...

There's plenty of reasons not to trust Hezbollah or the Palestinians, based solely on their "adherence" to previous peace plans or agreements. That historical record alone is sentiment enough not to listen to a word they say, unless it is only three words "We Unconditionally Surrender".

It's far simpler just to kill them.

Simple solutions to difficult problems are almost always wrong.

There's plenty of reasons not to trust Hezbollah or the Palestinians, based solely on their "adherence" to previous peace plans or agreements.

And Israel adhered to cease fires?

Theres only 2 nations rejecting a cease fire right now. Israel and the good ol US of A.

And Israel adhered to cease fires?

Theres only 2 nations rejecting a cease fire right now. Israel and the good ol US of A.

People who start attacks (as Hezbollah did) who then ask for ceasefires merely want to preseve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return.

I believe a basic rule should apply here.

If someone attacks you, they must want to settle this by force. So do so, promptly. Once they have had their houses destroyed, their land wasted, their infrastructure annihilated, crops burned, trees killed, wells damaged, and all of their military equipment used up or blasted, and most of the men of fighting age dead or wounded, then you can have a cease fire.

Because then, they will have paid for their stupidity.

You can shout it as loud as you want but I previously told you:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

So lets see the documents to prove it. Until such time as that is produced, it is still recognized as Syrian territory and not lebanonese.

People who start attacks (as Hezbollah did) who then ask for ceasefires merely want to preseve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return.

You are Wrong. It is the International Community who backs a ceasefire, not Hezbollah.

Once they have had their houses destroyed, their land wasted, their infrastructure annihilated, crops burned, trees killed, wells damaged, and all of their military equipment used up or blasted, and most of the men of fighting age dead or wounded, then you can have a cease fire.

Because then, they will have paid for their stupidity.

And you complain if the World leaves Israel alone.

So lets see the documents to prove it. Until such time as that is produced, it is still recognized as Syrian territory and not lebanonese.

You got sources and facts, don't be childish.

So lets see the documents to prove it. Until such time as that is produced, it is still recognized as Syrian territory and not lebanonese.

Point being what? They're still fighting for something they consider their friends and not their enemies. Thats all that was pointed out, not whether it was wrong or right.

Comprehension of what is being said is useful you know. Cat Hunters didn't dispute your position on the matter or anything, just answered why Hezbollah still exists which you wanted to know.

You are Wrong. It is the International Community who backs a ceasefire, not Hezbollah.

And you complain if the World leaves Israel alone.

I see no International force there to implement a ceasefire, nor do I see nations gearing up to send one.

So I don't see a ceasefire backed "by the international community", nor do I see all nations on board with the idea - especially nations that could enforce it.

I don't complain if the world leaves Israel alone. Let Israel do what the UN and Lebanon promised to do, signed an agreement to do, and would not do - destroy Hezbollah as a political and military influence in the region.

People who start attacks (as Hezbollah did) who then ask for ceasefires merely want to preseve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return.

People who like to establish exclusively jewish states on land previously settled want to preserve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return. Obviously, after all the bloodshed, Jesus is going to come down and praise Israel for taking back the "Holy Land" regardless of the murderous rampage.

What I dont think people understand is Israel was the first to show agression.

Where the hell did that come from? How can you possibly use a historic event which had different morals, ethics and philosophy govening its actions and ask people today to judge it on todays values, despite the fact that it would be utterly stupid to do so, because we cannot judge nor ask people to judge, what went on back then due to the differences in civilizations values.

Because like the Good Bushevik he is, BogPaper believes that each and every Muslim, Man Woman and Child, are all Evil Jihadist Borgs that are part of a global Hivemind that wants to conquer the world, establish The Muslim Caliphate™ and convert everyone to Islam.

"We are Muslim. Resistane is Futile. You will be Allah-similated."

People who like to establish exclusively jewish states on land previously settled want to preserve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return. Obviously, after all the bloodshed, Jesus is going to come down and praise Israel for taking back the "Holy Land" regardless of the murderous rampage.

What I dont think people understand is Israel was the first to show agression.

Actually, land in Israel was either initially given to them by the British, or paid for by Jews.

Once it looked like the Jews were there to stay, the Arabs wasted no time in organizing an attack in an attempt to destroy the Jews.

If someone attacks you, they must want to settle this by force. So do so, promptly. Once they have had their houses destroyed, their land wasted, their infrastructure annihilated, crops burned, trees killed, wells damaged, and all of their military equipment used up or blasted, and most of the men of fighting age dead or wounded, then you can have a cease fire.

Because then, they will have paid for their stupidity.

Interesting.
So you would have advocated the destruction of the Zionist movement following their attack on Britain in 1946? And all countries with Zionist supporters in their population?

The destruction of every middle-eastern country other than Israel following the Arab-Israeli war?

The destruction of the fledgling US by a Britain no longer distracted by a European war in 1816?

The destruction of the South following the US Civil war?

An all out Nuclear strike immediately annihilating at least half of the 1st world following the shooting down of Gary Powers U-2 (you can decide who was in the wrong there)?

Once it looked like the Jews were there to stay, the Arabs wasted no time in organizing an attack in an attempt to destroy the Jews.

The jews being there was no problem. Then they wanted to establish a jewish state, bulldoze the palestinian villages, create thousands of homeless palestinian refugees, push the palestinian refugees into a small piece of land that Israel occupies, shell the palestinians, detain the palestinians...

Now you have a problem.

Once it looked like the Jews were there to stay, the Arabs wasted no time in organizing an attack in an attempt to destroy the Jews.

The jews being there was no problem. Then they wanted to establish a jewish state, bulldoze the palestinian villages, create thousands of homeless palestinian refugees, push the palestinian refugees into a small piece of land that Israel occupies, shell the palestinians, detain the palestinians...

Now you have a problem.

Once it looked like the Jews were there to stay, the Arabs wasted no time in organizing an attack in an attempt to destroy the Jews.

You skipped an important step.

The jews being there was no problem. Then they wanted to establish a jewish state, bulldoze the palestinian villages, create thousands of homeless palestinian refugees, push the palestinian refugees into a small piece of land that Israel occupies, shell the palestinians, detain the palestinians...

Now you have a problem.

Interesting.
So you would have advocated the destruction of the Zionist movement following their attack on Britain in 1946? And all countries with Zionist supporters in their population?

The destruction of every middle-eastern country other than Israel following the Arab-Israeli war?

The destruction of the fledgling US by a Britain no longer distracted by a European war in 1816?

The destruction of the South following the US Civil war?

An all out Nuclear strike immediately annihilating at least half of the 1st world following the shooting down of Gary Powers U-2 (you can decide who was in the wrong there)?


Depends on what you can get away with.

Pushing Hezbollah back, and having a 25 mile deep stretch of Lebanon permanently patrolled by NATO forces who will never allow Hezbollah to return with weapons is the next best thing.

Depends on what you can get away with.

Pushing Hezbollah back, and having a 25 mile deep stretch of Lebanon permanently patrolled by NATO forces who will never allow Hezbollah to return with weapons is the next best thing.

NATO forces or EU forces- doesn't change the fact that no one wants to put their troops in an area thats a quagmire.

The jews being there was no problem. Then they wanted to establish a jewish state, bulldoze the palestinian villages, create thousands of homeless palestinian refugees, push the palestinian refugees into a small piece of land that Israel occupies, shell the palestinians, detain the palestinians...

Now you have a problem.

Deep Kimchi, the Bushevik/Kahanist mastermind and advocate of the "Sterilize All Muslims" plan, would not find that a problem. He's all for anything that kills brown people just because they worship "Allah" instead of "God."

Because like the Good Bushevik he is, BogPaper believes that each and every Muslim, Man Woman and Child, are all Evil Jihadist Borgs that are part of a global Hivemind that wants to conquer the world, establish The Muslim Caliphate™ and convert everyone to Islam.

"We are Muslim. Resistane is Futile. You will be Allah-similated."

Obviously you've mistaken Kellarly for me :p

Deep Kimchi, the Bushevik/Kahanist mastermind and advocate of the "Sterilize All Muslims" plan, would not find that a problem. He's all for anything that kills brown people just because they worship "Allah" instead of "God."

You blew it again, pal :p

Obviously you've mistaken Kellarly for me :p

Well given the amount of resistance that BogMarsh usually accumulates I'd say he could mistake quite a few people for both you or I :D

Deep Kimchi, the Bushevik/Kahanist mastermind and advocate of the "Sterilize All Muslims" plan, would not find that a problem. He's all for anything that kills brown people just because they worship "Allah" instead of "God."

Boy, you still have no idea what I advocated, or why.

Because you NEVER read what others post - you read the name, and then you knee jerk.

It would be rather odd to advocate killing "brown people", because I'm about as brown as you can get without being completely black.

I see no International force there to implement a ceasefire, nor do I see nations gearing up to send one.

So I don't see a ceasefire backed "by the international community", nor do I see all nations on board with the idea - especially nations that could enforce it.

I don't complain if the world leaves Israel alone. Let Israel do what the UN and Lebanon promised to do, signed an agreement to do, and would not do - destroy Hezbollah as a political and military influence in the region.

Great logic. Better yet, why not get Israel to comply with what it should have done 40 years ago. "Rule of law", "All equal before..." and all that.

Great logic. Better yet, why not get Israel to comply with what it should have done 40 years ago. "Rule of law", "All equal before..." and all that.

Why? The UN is a fart in the wind.

Why? The UN is a fart in the wind.

Then why were you citing the resolution concerning Hezbollah?

I see no International force there to implement a ceasefire, nor do I see nations gearing up to send one.

So I don't see a ceasefire backed "by the international community", nor do I see all nations on board with the idea - especially nations that could enforce it.


Well, look in the "UN biased" thread for that The Independent front page, and repeat what you have just said. Or get info about those French diplomats flying to Lebanon this week. Or, in an exercise of research as never nobody did, look for info about the antiwar protests all around the World.

Depends on what you can get away with.

Pushing Hezbollah back, and having a 25 mile deep stretch of Lebanon permanently patrolled by NATO forces who will never allow Hezbollah to return with weapons is the next best thing.

Drop the NATO thing. Never going to happen.
UN troops, carefully chosen from nations with no history of involvement there, and not offensive to muslims. Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Malaysia, maybe Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or minor North African powers.
Such a force would be enourmously weaker, more tentative than what you want. But needs be.
NATO? You're dreaming. Why not just say "the US" -- trying to make NATO a puppet of the US would break it in weeks.

Then why were you citing the resolution concerning Hezbollah?
Because most of the people on NS General seem to think that the UN is the thing to follow, and that international law somehow has force of its own, even if no one shows up to enforce it.

My point, which you seemed to miss, was that the UN is crap, its resolutions are bullshit of the highest order, and it never does anything it sets out to do - whether it benefits Israel or not.

If the UN was really biased against Israel, Israel would not exist. And if it was really in favor of Israel, and giving them great treatment, then the UN resolutions concerning Hezbollah would have been enforced.

And to explain it once again, I'm trying to point out that the UN can't enforce the use of toilet paper in its own building, let alone create peace anywhere on the planet.

Then why were you citing the resolution concerning Hezbollah?

Because like the signatories of PNAC, he only brings up the UN when they make a resolution that's a convenient excuse for their agenda. Otherwise they undermine it and bitch about how ineffective it is at the same time.

Drop the NATO thing. Never going to happen.
UN troops, carefully chosen from nations with no history of involvement there, and not offensive to muslims. Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Malaysia, maybe Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or minor North African powers.
Such a force would be enourmously weaker, more tentative than what you want. But needs be.
NATO? You're dreaming. Why not just say "the US" -- trying to make NATO a puppet of the US would break it in weeks.

Not necessarily. More likely to be a European Battle group- French (who are already there), Scandinavians (Finns are there already), possibly Germans, maybe Irish (already there) and a few others.

All that would really change are the ROE and what the MNF would be able to do.

Because most of the people on NS General seem to think that the UN is the thing to follow, and that international law somehow has force of its own, even if no one shows up to enforce it.

My point, which you seemed to miss, was that the UN is crap, its resolutions are bullshit of the highest order, and it never does anything it sets out to do - whether it benefits Israel or not.

If the UN was really biased against Israel, Israel would not exist. And if it was really in favor of Israel, and giving them great treatment, then the UN resolutions concerning Hezbollah would have been enforced.

And to explain it once again, I'm trying to point out that the UN can't enforce the use of toilet paper in its own building, let alone create peace anywhere on the planet.

And what you seem to miss, is that the UN was designed to be weak from the beginning. And that Israel would have been kicked into ine via sanctions decades ago were it not for the US. Therefore the UN might be weak, but its america that takes its lunch money.

I'm trying to point out that the UN can't enforce the use of toilet paper in its own building
Proof!

Proof!
Every time I've been there as a visitor, I've made sure to decorate the toilet stall using a Sharpie.

I also have used the toilet paper to festively decorate the bathroom.

Got any pictures?

Got any pictures?
I've done it so many times now - maybe I'll take my video camera the next time I go.

My forte is writing dirty jokes in other languages.

If they're supporting the war, good on them. Better Jews that muslims.

You are F***ing racist. Many of them are innocent

IS ISRAEL'S WAR BEING SUPPORTED BY THE US AND HER ALLIES?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/24/mideast.diplomacy/index.html

Rice holds surprise talks with Lebanese premier

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's shuttle diplomacy mission to the Mideast made a surprise stop in Beirut on Monday to discuss the crisis with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

"I am obviously here because I am deeply concerned about the Lebanese people and what they are enduring," Rice said. "We are talking about the humanitarian situation, and we are also talking about a durable way to end the violence."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said that later Monday, Rice would be announcing a "major U.S. commitment" of humanitarian supplies to begin arriving in Lebanon on Tuesday by helicopter and ship.

"We're working with Israel and with Lebanon to open up humanitarian corridors," Snow said during his daily briefing.

As they greeted each other on Monday, Siniora kissed Rice on both cheeks and said his country is hoping to "put an end to the war being inflicted on Lebanon," The Associated Press reported. (Watch Lebanon's president describe destruction in his nation -- 10:25)

Rice thanked the premier for his "courage and steadfastness," according to the AP.

Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrillas traded more attacks Monday with Israeli forces, violence that was sparked July 12 after the capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. (Watch how Israeli forces plan to expand Lebanon operations -- 1:40)
'Nothing to say'

After meeting for more than an hour, Rice and Siniora left without speaking to reporters, the AP reported. Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh emerged and told the press, "Nothing to say," according to AP.

Security surrounding Rice's visit to Lebanon's capital was tight: Sirens blaring, her long convoy sped past reporters, whisking her from the prime minister's office to that of parliamentary speaker Nabih Berry, who has close ties with Hezbollah and Syria. Berry was expected to transmit Hezbollah's viewpoint and possibly that of Syria.

After her meeting with Berry, Rice then left for Israel, where she was to meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. She was also expected to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

U.S. officials are telling CNN's John King privately not to expect a cease-fire to come out of Rice's mission. Rice said last week that Hezbollah is the source of the problem in Lebanon and a cease-fire "will be a false promise if it returns us to the status quo."

She did not plan to meet with Hezbollah or with Syrian leaders during her trip.

Although Syria is thought to hold much influence with Hezbollah, the Bush administration has argued that direct talks with Syria would be pointless.
'Too many civilians are suffering'

Although Israel has promised safe passage for ships carrying aid to Lebanese ports, that does not guarantee the aid will reach those who need it.

On Monday, Jan Egeland, the U.N. relief coordinator, said his team does not have safe access to those trapped in the rest of Lebanon and in dire need of aid.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Friday that he feared a "major humanitarian disaster" if the conflict did not end soon.

Egeland said the bombing had made many roads impassable.

Egeland has also said the United Nations has no direct contact with Hezbollah, and can appeal to the group only "indirectly," through the media.

His agency has launched an appeal for nearly $150 million in aid to help the estimated 800,000 Lebanese who are displaced or in need of humanitarian assistance.

In an interview with CNN from Beirut, he appealed for a cease-fire.

"Too many civilians are suffering, both in northern Israel and here in Lebanon," he said.
Blair: It's a 'catastrophe'

In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair said officials "have been working very hard to put in place a plan that would allow ... the immediate cessation of hostilities.

"Of course, we all want to see this on both sides. It's important that it happen. It's important that it happen because what is occurring at the present time in Lebanon is a catastrophe. It is damaging that country and its fragile democracy. But it is also important that we deal with the reasons that this conflict has come about."

A senior U.S. State Department official said Monday that it was Rice's idea to stop in Beirut, despite the security risks, to show the Lebanese people "we are here, we are concerned."

"The fact that we are going to go right into Beirut after all that has happened is a dramatic signal to Lebanon and this government," the official said.

Before her arrival in Lebanon, Rice said the United States recognized the need for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, but only when the conditions are right. (Watch U.N. official shocked by damage in Beirut -- 3:05)

"We believe that a cease-fire is urgent," Rice told reporters on a flight from Washington to a refueling stop in Ireland. "It is important, however, to have conditions that will make it sustainable."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/24/blair.maliki/index.html

He added: "I don't want the killing to go on. I want the killing to stop. Now. It's got to stop on both sides and it's not going to stop on both sides without a plan to make it stop."

If it helps you feel intellectually superior, CatHunters, I'm ignoring your post for being very long, and obvious cut-and-paste.

lol nice one

Every time I've been there as a visitor, I've made sure to decorate the toilet stall using a Sharpie.

I also have used the toilet paper to festively decorate the bathroom.

"I would never join any club which would have me as a member"
Groucho Marx's dictum is more defensible than "they suck because I abused their hospitality and got away with it."
But I know a joke when I write it. Use the :) or the ;) , why dontcha?

If it helps you feel intellectually superior, CatHunters, I'm ignoring your post for being very long, and obvious cut-and-paste.

Your attitude on the subject of the thread is very questionable.

By the way, your answer describing your opinion about my post is a curious manner to ignore my post.

Now, let the discuss begin.

Your attitude on the subject of the thread is very questionable.

By the way, your answer decribing your opinion about my post is a curious manner to ignore my post.

Now, let the discuss begin.

OK. I'll use a javelin, thanks.
EDIT: OK, that's mean. But the appropriate way to cite a source is with a source

OK. I'll use a javelin, thanks.

What about the hammer or a shot put?

OK. I'll use a javelin, thanks.
EDIT: OK, that's mean. But the appropriate way to cite a source is with a source

Okay, irony!

Have you tried to read the second line of my post?

It says something like http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/24/mideast.diplomacy/index.html

Next time, don't guide yourself only by the name of the poster, bro. :fluffle:

People who start attacks (as Hezbollah did) who then ask for ceasefires merely want to preseve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return.
Hez aren't asking for a ceasefire. They want to destroy Israel.

People who like to establish exclusively jewish states on land previously settled want to preserve the status quo - i.e., they get to attack, and not be attacked in return.
Israel is not an exclusively Jewish state. Not only do they have Arab and Christian citizens, but an Arab sits on Israel's Supreme Court.

NATO forces or EU forces- doesn't change the fact that no one wants to put their troops in an area thats a quagmire.
Also, Israel doesn't like other countries to help fight its wars.

Hez aren't asking for a ceasefire. They want to destroy Israel.

Yes they do and yea, they did ask for a cease-fire before Israel launched their counter-offensive.


Israel is not an exclusively Jewish state. Not only do they have Arab and Christian citizens, but an Arab sits on Israel's Supreme Court.

And arabs serve in the IDF as well.

Also, Israel doesn't like other countries to help fight its wars.

Nearly accurate.

yea. I'm aggeeing with Corneliu
100% all the way

Next time, don't guide yourself only by the name of the poster, bro. :fluffle:

I did not. :fluffle:

However, I maintain that cutting-and-pasting that much ... stuff ... into a thread is only reasonable after a long debate, where your interlocutor has plainly failed to follow links, but keeps demanding evidence.

I don't want to debate your sources. I want to debate your opinions, every word of which you have bothered to type yourself.

I'm a bad debator, I admit. I do not hold a consistent opinion, and I sway into the personal, into humour, and into sheer obfuscation. But I won't debate a wodge of cut-and-paste. Because that's all it is, a swipe of the mouse and two clicks.

Yes they do and yea, they did ask for a cease-fire before Israel launched their counter-offensive.

Really? I never heard about it. If Hez wants a ceasefire then why do they continue firing rockets into Israel?

Really? I never heard about it.

Yep they did because they knew what was going to happen.

Yep they did because they knew what was going to happen.
Link/Source?

Link/Source?

Hold on. I'm trying to find a source.

Hold on. I'm trying to find a source.
No worries.

I just like seeing these things in their entirety. :)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060716/mideast_template_060717/20060717?hub=TopStories

July 17, 2006

Israel is not an exclusively Jewish state. Not only do they have Arab and Christian citizens, but an Arab sits on Israel's Supreme Court.

Well the Arabs are pushed into Gaza and the West Bank, because Israel likes to bulldoze Arab villages.

And Im sure that lone Arab has no say.

EDIT: actually that lone Arab is a Christian, so he probably does have some say, not being a Muslim and all.

Hold on. I'm trying to find a source.

You're in a better mood today. I won't spoil it. :fluffle:

Well the Arabs are pushed into Gaza and the West Bank, because Israel likes to bulldoze Arab villages.
I don't mean the Palestinians. I mean those who live alongside the Jewish citizens.

And Im sure that lone Arab has no say.
You have no proof of that assertion!

I don't mean the Palestinians. I mean those who live alongside the Jewish citizens.

Yeah, those Arabs are either Jewish or Christian.

You have no proof of that assertion!

Youre right, the assertion was wrong. That Arab is a christian, so he has some say.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060716/mideast_template_060717/20060717?hub=TopStories

July 17, 2006

they did ask for a cease-fire before Israel launched their counter-offensive

What are you thinking of when you say 'counter offensive'? Do you mean ground troops?

Otherwise I would have said Israel's 'counter offensive' began back on the 12th/when the first bombings took place on Beirut etc.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060716/mideast_template_060717/20060717?hub=TopStories

July 17, 2006
That's shocking.

I did not. :fluffle:

However, I maintain that cutting-and-pasting that much ... stuff ... into a thread is only reasonable after a long debate, where your interlocutor has plainly failed to follow links, but keeps demanding evidence.

I don't want to debate your sources. I want to debate your opinions, every word of which you have bothered to type yourself.

I'm a bad debator, I admit. I do not hold a consistent opinion, and I sway into the personal, into humour, and into sheer obfuscation. But I won't debate a wodge of cut-and-paste. Because that's all it is, a swipe of the mouse and two clicks.

Great, I'm moving your reply to my MAJESTIC NSers Blue Book. :)

I tried to make a response to Deep Kimchi, who was maintaining that nobody in the International Community was asking for a ceasefire.

EDITED :D

What are you thinking of when you say 'counter offensive'? Do you mean ground troops?

Otherwise I would have said Israel's 'counter offensive' began back on the 12th/when the first bombings took place on Beirut etc.

I know I know. So far that's the only cease-fire call I've seen out of Hezbollah. There are way to many links to go through them all.

That's shocking.
For who?

Hezb. asking for one?

Israel continuing regardless?

Hezb. continuing regardless? What?

That's shocking.
With a request for an unconditional ceasefire from Hezbollah, that sounds like they need a break from being curb stomped.

I know I know. So far that's the only cease-fire call I've seen out of Hezbollah. There are way to many links to go through them all.

You are true when you say that Hezbollah wanted a ceasefire, but the latest news are that they are not giving up anymore.

You are true when you say that Hezbollah wanted a ceasefire, but the latest news are that they are not giving up anymore.

And they want to know why Israel hasn't let up or stopped yet. As I said earlier, when Hezbollah stops firing their rockets into Israel and returns their soldiers, Israel will stop the bombardment.

As I said earlier, when Hezbollah stops firing their rockets into Israel and returns their soldiers, Israel will stop the bombardment.

No. Israel will stop when they proclaim they have damaged Hezb'allah significantly enough to cause the ceastion of attacks.*

*for a few short years.

*for a few short years.

Meaning 50, 60 years.

Meaning 50, 60 years.
Meaning 5 or 6, like the last time.

Meaning 5 or 6, like the last time.
Ah, but this time, you get a settlement that permanently puts NATO troops on a 25 mile deep band of land between Israel and whomever.

Ah, but this time, you get a settlement that permanently puts NATO troops on a 25 mile deep band of land between Israel and whomever.
Hmmm.

Excuse my pessimism.

We'll see.

Hmmm.

Excuse my pessimism.

We'll see.

It's one of the proposals.

And putting NATO there is a lot better than putting the utterly useless UN troops there - who will run prostitution rings, and invite Hezbollah to fire rockets at will from right at the edge of the Isreali border.

Ah, but this time, you get a settlement that permanently puts NATO troops on a 25 mile deep band of land between Israel and whomever.

This 25 mile deep band of no-mans-land, who's territory does it fall on? Israel don't seem to like giving up land.

Oh, what's your exit plan for the NATO troops? Don't want them there for all eternity do we.

It's one of the proposals.

And putting NATO there is a lot better than putting the utterly useless UN troops there - who will run prostitution rings, and invite Hezbollah to fire rockets at will from right at the edge of the Isreali border.

NATO minus British and US troops. You're still talking at primarily French, Scandinavian, possibly Canadian troops.

Most of those are already there- they just need a different set of ROE. I can't honestly see NATO countries offering up their troops to actively take on either Hezb'allah or the IDF if push comes to shove.

This 25 mile deep band of no-mans-land, who's territory does it fall on? Israel don't seem to like giving up land.

Oh, what's your exit plan for the NATO troops? Don't want them there for all eternity do we.

The territory is in Lebanon, where Hezbollah used to call home.

There isn't an exit plan. Do you see an exit plan for US troops currently in the Sinai since decades ago?

Sure, it's fine for all eternity as long as no one gets stupid again. The Sinai, as an example, is a very quiet place.

The idea has already been floated. I'm not dreaming:

Mr. Amir Peretz, Israeli Minister of Defence declared on Sunday that Israel would accept the deployment of an international force in Lebanon and that this force could be placed under NATO command. This proposal is interesting but will be less easily implemented than it seems.

Expressing himself after he met the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Mr. Peretz underlined, the daily newspaper Haaretz reported, that "the goal of Israel is to see the Lebanese army deploying along the borders, but we understand that we speak about a weak army and that, in the medium term, Israel will have to accept a multinational force". After having stressed that its country did not have any intention to enter in war with Syria, Mr. Peretz nevertheless affirmed that one of the roles of the future international force should be "to prevent the supply of weapons [ with Hezbollah ] from Syria".

If the deployment of a multinational force is currently being studied in several capitals, it will be stressed that it could not probably be done in the short run. On the one hand, the United States maintains their will to leave time to Israel "to clean" the Hezbollah; on the other hand, it is not a question of doing walk-on parts. It is thus estimated, in the staffs headquarters, that a minimum of 10 000 men would be necessary to achieve the goals. However, today, the projection of 10 000 soldiers, with their equipments (among other things heavy armoured tanks and combat helicopters) and of the logistics cannot be conceived in a couple of days.

The second problem is that the mandate of these troops will have to be precise and clear and they will have to be able to counter by force any Hezbollah infiltration attempt but also, as French President Jacques Chirac stressed a few days ago, to continue to disarm this organization "if necessary by coercive means" to apply the resolution 1559. It is thus really a matter of making a safe place of south Lebanon and of staying there for at least several months to allow a more “muscled” Lebanese army to relieve. As the Hezbollah is unlikely to accept this solution, it is out of question, if one does not want to suffer a setback, of sending contingents without any combat and anti-insurrection experience and tactical know-how. These conditions tend to eliminate the majority of the armies of the Third World which, often, form the biggest part of the battalions of the U.N. "blue helmets".

In addition, all the attempts of the U.N. "to restore peace" by force or "to maintain it" by the same means finished, these 15 last years, by bloody failures and tragedies for the civil populations, from Somalia to Bosnia or Rwanda. In question: the absence of a clear mandate, the insufficiency of the engaged forces, the too vague rules of engagement and fire and, finally, the pre-eminence of the "diplomatic field" on the "military field”. All this leading to paralysing the commands or pushing them to make some promises impossible to keep because of lack of courage and means (as showed the massacre of 7 000 Bosnian civilians placed under the "protection" of the U.N. in Srebrenica....)

The idea of a force directed by NATO and profiting from the presence of combat units of the armies of this organization could thus be retained. But will France - always reticent vis-a-vis NATO, which it regards as an organization under American supervision - agree to see Atlantic Alliance playing a prevailing role in the Middle East?

In addition another question arises: NATO and several European States are currently engaged in other combat zones: in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. These operations cannot obviously be suspended and reduce the capacity of the Alliance and Europe to intervene significantly on a "fourth front”.

Finally, a last element of analysis is to be remembered: if the interposition force fights the Hezbollah, there will be losses which the Western public opinions are perhaps not ready to accept on the one hand and, on the other hand, the risk will be real to see Hezbollah launching terrorist actions against the countries which would have sent troops.

The territory is in Lebanon, where Hezbollah used to call home.

Figures.

There isn't an exit plan. Do you see an exit plan for US troops currently in the Sinai since decades ago?

Sure, it's fine for all eternity as long as no one gets stupid again. The Sinai, as an example, is a very quiet place.

So you advocate putting troops on the ground in a hostile area with no exit strategy to act as a buffer between two groups that hate each other and you don't see the problems inherent to this?

Do you think that Israel unjust war is actually.... Blah Blah Blah
Don't you lefties ever get tired of being anti-semitic?

So you advocate putting troops on the ground in a hostile area with no exit strategy to act as a buffer between two groups that hate each other and you don't see the problems inherent to this?

Works in Kosovo.

It's not likely that Israel will attack NATO forces - after all, there's a similar arrangement in the Sinai, and you haven't had any Israeli attacks there.

I can't be resposible for Hezbollah. Maybe we'll find out that Hezbollah is really the stupid party in all of this, and that if we put NATO troops there, we'll find it out first hand.

Then all of that "oh, the Hezbollah are oppressed by Israel" will suddenly sound like the bullshit it is.

Don't you lefties ever get tired of being anti-semitic?
Don't you ever get tired of playing the 'anti-semitic card'?

Perfect for stifling debate.

Don't you lefties ever get tired of being anti-semitic?

Will you miliaristic right wingers ever run out of straw?

Works in Kosovo.

It's not likely that Israel will attack NATO forces - after all, there's a similar arrangement in the Sinai, and you haven't had any Israeli attacks there.

I can't be resposible for Hezbollah. Maybe we'll find out that Hezbollah is really the stupid party in all of this, and that if we put NATO troops there, we'll find it out first hand.

Then all of that "oh, the Hezbollah are oppressed by Israel" will suddenly sound like the bullshit it is.

I could easily see Hezb'allah doing something utterly dickheadedish if NATO troops were there.

There would be no difference whether it be NATO or an EU Battle group- I honestly doubt any country would be willing to put their troops into that situation, especially since the British and Americans won't be involved.

A potentially protracted conflict with a 'resistance force' like Hezb'allah would not sit well with a multinational force.

Don't you lefties ever get tired of being anti-semitic?

I have a question for you my friend, I don't always support the USs' foreign policy, the US is a predominantly christian country, does this make me anti-christian? I have been know to criticise the way the Soviets did things. That was an athiest state. Does that make me anti-athiest? I sometimes dislike the actions of Iran, does that make me anti-muslim?

I could easily see Hezb'allah doing something utterly dickheadedish if NATO troops were there.

There would be no difference whether it be NATO or an EU Battle group- I honestly doubt any country would be willing to put their troops into that situation, especially since the British and Americans won't be involved.

A potentially protracted conflict with a 'resistance force' like Hezb'allah would not sit well with a multinational force.

Exactly.

And then we would know who the dickheads in this little halfwit peccadillo are - with no more debate over whether the dickheads are Israeli or Hezbollah.

And then we could squash the dickheads and be done with this endless crap.

The Sinai, as an example, is a very quiet place.
Yep. Very peaceful. Dahab bombings killed 24 people just couple of months ago... A year ago 60 killed in Sharm al-Sheikh... Over 30 in Taba bombings two years ago... All in MFO zone C, right?

Yep. Nothing ever happens in MFO controlled Sinai...

Will you miliaristic right wingers ever run out of straw?
Will you ignorant-of-the-facts left wingers ever just answer a question?

"Is Israel's war being supported by the US and Her Allies?"

Yes, and rightly so. End of story.

The idea has already been floated. I'm not dreaming:

and then you post a page full of stuff, without attribution.
If you wrote it, congratulations. If not, attribute it.

Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. Here granny, it's an egg. Suck.

Yep. Very peaceful. Dahab bombings killed 24 people just couple of months ago... A year ago 60 killed in Sharm al-Sheikh... Over 30 in Taba bombings two years ago... All in MFO zone C, right?

Yep. Nothing ever happens in MFO controlled Sinai...

Don't see any war breaking out, do you?

Don't see any war breaking out, do you?
Certainly don't. You consider it a very quiet place, do you?

Will you ignorant-of-the-facts left wingers ever just answer a question?

Oi, numbnuts, I asked you a question ^

Certainly don't. You consider it a very quiet place, do you?

Quieter than downtown Washington D.C., if you count the number of murders per year. Far quieter.

Will you ignorant-of-the-facts left wingers ever just answer a question?


Yes.

Quieter than downtown Washington D.C., if you count the number of murders per year. Far quieter.
LOL
Okay. That's so odd I better not touch it. As long as you're fine with it.

Certainly don't. You consider it a very quiet place, do you?

In fact, since it's quieter than Washington, D.C., I have a great idea.

Let's do what we did with the Egypt-Israel peace plan. Bribe the KEEERAP out of Syria like we did Eqypt.

Offer them money, etc.

Sit some MFO right in southern Lebanon. Make sure Hez is disarmed.

After a while, it gets pretty quiet. If Syria and Lebanon are the recipients of largesse from the West, they'll sit on Hezbollah for us.

I have another proposition... as it seems you need the MFO forces in D.C. more...

I have another proposition... as it seems you need the MFO forces in D.C. more...

lmao

I have another proposition... as it seems you need the MFO forces in D.C. more...

I refer to my stint in MFO as "the quiet time".

I thought I would die of boredom.

<snip>

After a while, it gets pretty quiet. If Syria and Lebanon are the recipients of largesse from the West, they'll sit on Hezbollah for us.

makes more sense than embargoing them for electing 'terrorists.'
What a difference a few weeks makes. Who's winning, again?

For who?

Hezb. asking for one?

Israel continuing regardless?

Hezb. continuing regardless? What?
Hez asking for ceasefire, but continuing its rocket attacks.

Don't you lefties ever get tired of being anti-semitic?
Most Jews are lefties.

As for your signature, I remember back in 2004 al-Qaeda wanted Bush to be re-elected. There's your difference.

I refer to my stint in MFO as "the quiet time".

I thought I would die of boredom.
UNIFIL wasn't actually riveting suspense either. Of course we had that prostitution ring you mentioned to run... besides that, nothing else much.

UNIFIL wasn't actually riveting suspense either. Of course we had that prostitution ring you mentioned to run... besides that, nothing else much.
My father spent many years in UNIFIL. He liked the Finns :D

My father spent many years in UNIFIL. He liked the Finns :D
That's because we had the best prostitutes.