NationStates Jolt Archive

49 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said an Israeli raid in Lebanon on Saturday violated the U.N.-backed truce and made him "deeply concerned."

A statement from the United Nations said Annan had spoken with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert, on Saturday about the raid.

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701," a spokesman for Annan said in the statement, which was posted on the U.N. Web site.

Sources: Yahoo/OcceanNEWS©2006
www.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060819/wl_nm/mideast_un_statement_dc_2

my2cents: I am sure Israel will find some lame excuse..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496669

Already a thread on this. And on the 1st page to boot.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496669

Already a thread on this. And on the 1st page to boot.I did not know what that thread was about.. I did not open it.

I did not know what that thread was about.. I did not open it.

Not my problem.

I did not know what that thread was about.. I did not open it.

So the title "1701 breached" wasn't a clue?

So the title "1701 breached" wasn't a clue?obvioulsly not.

So the title "1701 breached" wasn't a clue?

What was breached?

Undelia.. u should take that outside my thread.. (delete it)

Your mom, by me.

If you don't know fine, but don't be an asshole.

If you don't know fine, but don't be an asshole.

United Nations 1701 which is yet another cease-fire resolution (and we know how they turn out) was supposedly violated by Israel. However, there is data to indicate that the raid was launched because of a supposed weapons transfer in progress. If there was a weapons transfer in progress, then it shows that Hezbollah breached the cease-fire and not Israel.

What was breached?
USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was breached by phaser fire when Khan opened fire on her with shields down.

http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/movies/images/06_ii_enterprise_takes_a_hit.jpg

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Phaser3.jpg


KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

United Nations 1701 which is yet another cease-fire resolution (and we know how they turn out) was supposedly violated by Israel. However, there is data to indicate that the raid was launched because of a supposed weapons transfer in progress. If there was a weapons transfer in progress, then it shows that Hezbollah breached the cease-fire and not Israel.

Thank you. If this is true then I'd support Israel's decision.

Thank you. If this is true then I'd support Israel's decision.

Hence the raid. It was really the only way to verify if the intel was correct or not.

thanks Undelia.

Hence the raid. It was really the only way to verify if the intel was correct or not.LOL.. that way Israel can Violate the cease-fire at will.

LOL.. that way Israel can Violate the cease-fire at will.

*yawns*

And if what they are saying is correct, then it looks like Hezbollah broke it first.

Israel: Raid targets weapons transfer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.main.05/index.html)

There's the CNN article of what Israel is saying.

*yawns*

And if what they are saying is correct, then it looks like Hezbollah broke it first.

Israel: Raid targets weapons transfer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.main.05/index.html)

There's the CNN article of what Israel is saying.
Do we really need to continue this on another thread? The weapons transfer is what the IDF claim. It would 'break' the agreements of the Resolution, but not the cease fire... if you get my meaning?

*yawns*

And if what they are saying is correct, then it looks like Hezbollah broke it first.

Israel: Raid targets weapons transfer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.main.05/index.html)

There's the CNN article of what Israel is saying.

I like how the article says that southern Lebanon is the "former" stronghold of Hezbollah. Where is the proof that it is no longer still a stronghold?

I like how the article says that southern Lebanon is the "former" stronghold of Hezbollah. Where is the proof that it is no longer still a stronghold?

That is what I want to know.

Do we really need to continue this on another thread? The weapons transfer is what the IDF claim. It would 'break' the agreements of the Resolution, but not the cease fire... if you get my meaning?I do not see any break on the UN "agreement"..

But the Cease Fire can only be Violated by the first one firing weapons.. Thats clearly Israel.
Israel Violated the Truce.

Do we really need to continue this on another thread? The weapons transfer is what the IDF claim. It would 'break' the agreements of the Resolution, but not the cease fire... if you get my meaning?

No weapons transfers allowed under the cease-fire. Heck, they are not even supposed to have weapons in accordance with 1559. Either way you look at it, the cease-fire was violated but by whom will be a question that will be answered by people alot smarter than you, me, OcceanDrive, and Secretary Annan who was not even there.

I do not see any break on the UN "agreement"..

But the Cease Fire can only be Violated by the first one firing weapons.. Thats clearly Israel.
Israel Violated the Truce.

But point of fact remains that there aren't supposed to be weapon transfers at all.

From 1701: No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

But point of fact remains that there aren't supposed to be weapon transfers at all.for both sides?

If this rules applyes to one side only.. then this Cease-fire will not hold.

At the end it will blow.. mark my words.
For a cease-fire to hold.. it has to be fair.

But point of fact remains that there aren't supposed to be weapon transfers at all.

From 1701: No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

I suppose people would say that Israel should only be able to protest this and not actually take any action to stop them though. :rolleyes:

for both sides?

If this rules applyes to one side only.. then this Cease-fire will not hold.

At the end it will blow.. mark my words.
For a cease-fire to hold.. it has to be fair.

From 1701: No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;

Meaning, Hezbollah is not allowed to received weapons.

I suppose people would say that Israel should only be able to protest this and not actually take any action to stop them though. :rolleyes:

Yep. That supposition is pretty much accurate.

I noticed OcceanDrive cut off the rest of my quote too. Typical :rolleyes:

49 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan

So what has Coffee Cup Annan said about Lebanon not insuring Hezbollah disarm? You know the thing that caused this war. That was a violation of a UN resolution, but the silence from the UN was deafening. In fact, it was just as deafening as the silence about Iraq breaking umpteen resolutions before the start of the war in Iraq. As my sig says, the UN ain't got no balls and their priorities are all screwed up.

...except as authorized by its government;I see.. so Israel has to ask Beirut everytime if this or this weapon sale had the proper paperwork.. before carpet bombing the store.

So if I buy a shotgun at the local walmart in Beirut.. If Walmart is colecting salestaxes for the Gov.. I must asume Walmart has the weapons sales permit from the local city..

Or should I expect Israeli warplanes to strike both my house and Walmart.. because they cannot see (from the warplane) the City sales Permit at the weapons counter

I see.. so Israel has to ask Beirut everytime if this or this weapon sale had the proper paperwork.. before carpet bombing the store.

So if I buy a shotgun at the local walmart in Beirut.. If Walmart is colecting salestaxes for the Gov.. I must asume Walmart has the weapons sales permit from the local city..

Or should I expect Israeli warplanes to strike both my house and Walmart.. because they cannot see (from the warplane) the City sales Permit at the weapons counter

Oh brother. You really have lost all sense of reality haven't you? militias are not allowed to received arm shipments from foriegn parties. I do not know what the gun laws are in Beirut for personal use.

So what has Coffee Cup Annan said about Lebanon not insuring Hezbollah disarm? the US tried to Disarm Hezbollah.. and at the end the failed (star-wars-Reagan runed away from them), Israel tried to disarm for Hezbollah for some 20 years.. and failed.

Now you want the EU and the UN correct your failures?

you may wish they do it for you.. but it is not going to happen.

Oh brother. You really have lost all sense of reality haven't you? militias are not allowed to received arm shipments from foriegn parties.says who?

our militias received arm shipments from the French..
and the French militias received arm shipments from US.

the US tried to Disarm Hezbollah..

We did? When did we try that?

says who?

In the case of Hezbollah, United Nations Resolution 1559 and 1701.

We did? When did we try that?

Wasn't that why we were in Lebanon during their civil war in the 1980's?

Wasn't that why we were in Lebanon during their civil war in the 1980's?

Nope.

Is anyone honestly suprised that another UN Resolution failed?

Is anyone honestly suprised that another UN Resolution failed?

Honesty compells me to say no that I am not surprised.

We did? When did we try that?when Ronnie Ray-gun was President.

49 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said an Israeli raid in Lebanon on Saturday violated the U.N.-backed truce and made him "deeply concerned."

A statement from the United Nations said Annan had spoken with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert, on Saturday about the raid.

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701," a spokesman for Annan said in the statement, which was posted on the U.N. Web site.

Sources: Yahoo/OcceanNEWS©2006
www.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060819/wl_nm/mideast_un_statement_dc_2

my2cents: I am sure Israel will find some lame excuse..


Funny you didn't complain when Hezbollah violated within 24 hours after it started. :rolleyes:

when Ronnie Ray-gun was President.
Now if you can actually back that up....

Oh wait, I know you can't do so.

Is anyone honestly suprised that another UN Resolution failed?

The UN is usually very good at passing resolutions that everyone usually ignores and that they fail to enforce or if they try, will do so poorly.

Is anyone honestly suprised that another UN Resolution failed?of course not..

and I just said explained why:

But point of fact remains that there aren't supposed to be weapon transfers at all.for both sides?

If this rules applyes to one side only.. then this Cease-fire will not hold.

At the end it will blow.. mark my words.
For a cease-fire to hold.. it has to be fair.

*snip*

Israel can have weapons OD because they are a soveriegn nation. They have recognized boundries, currency, government, and Constitution. Hezbollah is a militia that was supposed to have disarmed after Israel pulled out of Lebanon.

Funny you didn't complain when Hezbollah violated within 24 hours after it started. :rolleyes:the UN cease Fire was violated by Israel..

thats what the UN says.
I posted a Link to prove that the UN says "Israel violated the UN Cease-Fire".. If you read the OP you will notice that the UN is saying it..

"Israel Violated the Cease-Fire"

do I need to repeat it? ;)

*snip*

Then I guess Hezbollah firing on the IDF as they were withdrawing in accordance with 1701 did not huh?

I find it funny how Annan said that Israel's action "violated" the cease-fire (even though it looks like the opposite is true) but Hezbollah firing on the IDF is not?

(sovereign Countries) have weapons...and Militias have Weapons too.

Like I said the French shiped arms to our Militias
and we shiped arms to the French Militias.

Militias have weapons.. Have you ever seen a Militia without weapons?

Then I guess Hezbollah firing on the IDF as they were withdrawing in accordance with 1701 did not huh?

I find it funny how Annan said that Israel's action "violated" the cease-fire (even though it looks like the opposite is true) but Hezbollah firing on the IDF is not?

Perhaps Annan believes that Israel being the "good guys" are supposed to sit back and take it while Hezbollah being the heavy in this drama is expected to try something as they are evil. Who really knows? Maybe the UN doesn't want to appear to disfavor what many call a terrorist organization so they have to slap Israel wrist.

Israel has claimed that it was an arms deal, and Lebanon has responded accordingly.

Yahoo!News
By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago



BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep in Lebanon on Saturday, engaging in a fierce gunbattle, and the Lebanese government threatened to halt further troop deployments to protest what U.N. officials called a violation of the 6-day-old cease-fire.

Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from Iran and Syria to the militant Shiite fighters. An Israeli officer was killed during the raid, and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

There were no signs of further clashes, but the flare-up underlined worries about the fragility of the cease-fire as the U.N. pleaded for nations to send troops to an international force in southern Lebanon that is to separate Israeli and Hezbollah fighters.

The office of Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement later Saturday labeling the operation a violation of the U.N. truce.

A contingent of 49 French soldiers landed in the south Saturday, providing the first reinforcements for the 2,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping mission known as UNIFIL that has been stationed in the region for years. About 200 more were expected next week.

They were the first additions to what is intended to grow into a 15,000-soldier U.N. force to police the truce with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France leads UNIFIL and already had 200 soldiers in Lebanon before the reinforcements.

But with Europe moving slowly to provide more troops, Israel warned it would continue to act on its own to enforce an arms embargo on the Lebanese guerrilla group until the Lebanese army and an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force are in place.

"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous."

Defense Minister Elias Murr met with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen and threatened to halt the movement of Lebanese troops into the former war zone in the south if the United Nations did not intervene against Israel. That could deeply damage efforts to deploy a strong U.N. peacekeeping force.

"We have put the matter forward in a serious manner and the U.N. delegation was understanding of the seriousness of the situation," Murr told reporters. "We are awaiting an answer."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defended the raid during a phone conversation with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying it was "intended to prevent the re-supply of new weapons and ammunition for Hezbollah," officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

The Israeli leader pointed to the importance of the supervision of the Syrian-Lebanese border as well, they said.

The Israeli military also said the raid was launched "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah."

The Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the characterization of the raid as a truce violation, saying the Lebanese army and U.N. peacekeepers must take control of Lebanon's border with Syria to ensure arms don't reach Hezbollah.

"But in the interim, of course, we can't have a situation where endless amounts of weaponry arrive for Hezbollah, so we are forced to act in response to this violation," he said, warning that further incursions could occur.

A statement issued by Annan's spokesman later Saturday said that the U.N. chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.

"All such violations of Security Council Resolution 1701 endanger the fragile calm that was reached after much negotiation," said the statement, issued by spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

The White House declined to criticize the raid, noting that Israel said it acted in reaction to arms smuggling into Lebanon and that the U.N. resolution calls for the prevention of resupplying Hezbollah with weapons.

"The incident underscores the importance of quickly deploying the enhanced UNIFIL," White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said.

Roed-Larsen said earlier the Lebanese army has deployed more than 1,500 soldiers in three sectors of the south where Israeli forces have left, and the 2,000 peacekeepers of UNIFIL have set up checkpoints and started patrolling the areas.

The broad outlines of the U.N. cease-fire plan call on Hezbollah to halt all attacks and for Israel to stop offensive operations. It gives Israel the right to respond if attacked, but the commandos were flown in by helicopter and the raid took place far from Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Israel did not identify the officer killed in the raid. Hezbollah issued a terse statement saying guerrillas "ambushed" the commando force and suffered no casualties. Lebanese security officials said three guerrillas were killed and three wounded.

The security officials said the commandos flew in by helicopter to a hill outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon, about 17 miles from the Syrian border. Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the fighting.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but they had no other details.

Lebanese media speculated that Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa Valley and a member of the group's executive council, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.

The Israeli army denied it had captured any Hezbollah fighter, and said it had not been the raid's objective.

Overflights by Israeli jet fighters drowned out the clatter of helicopters that flew the commandos into the foothills of the central Lebanese mountains, local Hezbollah officials said.

Using two vehicles also delivered by helicopter, the commandos drove into Boudai and were intercepted by Hezbollah fighters in a field, the officials said. They said the Israelis identified themselves as Lebanese soldiers, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted.

Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew them out of the area an hour later, the Hezbollah officials said.

Witnesses reported seeing bandages and syringes at the landing site outside Boudai. The bridge that witnesses said was destroyed was about 500 yards from the landing site.

The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold. Baalbek is the birthplace of Hezbollah, a militant Islamic movement that is supported by Iran and Syria.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, buried 55 fighters Friday and Saturday in Haris, Majdel Silim, Bint Jbail, Deir Qanoun and south Beirut, security officials said. Israel claims it killed hundreds of guerrillas during the war. Hezbollah reported 68 deaths.

U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said more countries needed to join the peacekeeping force. The U.N. wants to have 3,500 soldiers on the ground by Aug. 28 to help police the truce that took effect Monday and ended 34 days of brutal warfare.

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Italy, France and Finland have promised troops. In an effort to encourage more countries to sign on, Annan said the peacekeeping force would not "wage war" on Israel, Lebanon or Hezbollah militants, addressing a key concern of many countries.

The U.N. and Lebanon's government have said Hezbollah will not be allowed to bring weapons out in public, but have declined to commit to trying to disarm the guerrillas, as called for in a September 2004 U.N. resolution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

and Militias have Weapons too.

Like I said the French shiped arms to our Militias
and we shiped arms to the French Militias.

Militias have weapons.. Have you ever seen a Militia whitout weapons?

The thing is, hezbollah has attacked a soveriegn country long after they have pulled out of Lebanon. No militia does that.

King Athur,

I posted the CNN article on what that very issue.

The thing is, hezbollah has attacked a soveriegn country long after they have pulled out of Lebanon. No militia does that.are you saying the French/Polish/Jewish Resistance should not have attacked Germany?

are you saying the French/Polish/Jewish Resistance should not have attacked Germany?

HAHA! Ok now you are getting into the realm of rediculousness.

The French Resistance attacked German soldiers in FRANCE! Jewish Resistance fighters fought Germans in the nations that they were resisting in. Same with the Polish Resistance fighters who were fighting Germans AND the USSR in their homeland.

Get a grip.

HAHA! Ok now you are getting into the realm of rediculousness.

The French Resistance attacked German soldiers in FRANCE! Jewish Resistance fighters fought Germans in the nations that they were resisting in. Same with the Polish Resistance fighters who were fighting Germans AND the USSR in their homeland.

Get a grip.I repeat my question:

Yes or No ?

French/Polish/Jewish Resistances should have attacked Germany.

I repeat my question:

Yes or No ?

French/Polish/Jewish Resistances should have attacked Germany.

Since Germany was occupying their land then the obvious answer is yes. They should have resisted the Germans who were occupying their lands.

However, Israel was not occupying any Lebanonese land when Hezbollah launched their cross border raid over a month ago. Nor where they holding Lebanonese land when they were firing Kaytusha rockets for the few years prior to this conflict.

So now that we have established that, get facts before trying to debate.

Since Germany was occupying their land then the obvious answer is yes. They should have resisted the Germans who were occupying their lands.

However, Israel was not occupying any Lebanonese land when Hezbollah launched their cross border raid over a month ago. Nor where they holding Lebanonese land when they were firing Kaytusha rockets for the few years prior to this conflict.

Shebaa Farms? The problem with Shebaa Farms, though, is that no one can seem to agree whether it's historically Lebanese or Syrian. Or Israeli, which is another issue altogether.

Shebaa Farms? The problem with Shebaa Farms, though, is that no one can seem to agree whether it's historically Lebanese or Syrian. Or Israeli, which is another issue altogether.

Actually, it is internationally recognized as Syrian terrority and not Lebanonese territory.

Actually, it is internationally recognized as Syrian terrority and not Lebanonese territory.

Do you have a source? I'm genuinely curious about it.

edit: I see that you're saying "internationally recognized". Never mind. It's disputed by the Lebanese, of course, and just because it's internationally recognized doesn't necessarily make it true that it wasn't historically Lebanese.

However, Israel was not occupying any Lebanonese land when Hezbollah launched their cross border raid over a month ago. Nor where they holding Lebanonese....

So now that we have established that, get facts before trying to debate.we have stablished??
When? when did we stablish that??

#1 Israel was/is holding POWs .. and as long as they hold POWs.. the war is not over.

#2 Hezbollah and the Elected Gov of Lebanon agree: Israel is occupying lebanese Land.

why dont you get some fact from sources other than the US media ??

Do you have a source?

From the UN as quoted in wikipedia:The United Nations stated:

"On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[33]

#1 Israel was/is holding POWs .. and as long as they hold POWs.. the war is not over.

Which war are we talking about?

#2 Israel is in fact occupying lebanese Land.

What territory would that be?

why dont you get some fact from sources other than the US media ??

I am backing up all that I am saying. You are not.

#2 Israel is in fact occupying lebanese Land.

Do you mean the Golan Heights? Isn't that Syrian? Besides everything Israel occupies was taken in wars of aggression by other powers who tried to destroy their country. Creating buffer zones in case of another attack is just fine in my opinion.

Which war are we talking about?


Regarding the POW's, the Israeli military had a policy throughout its involvement in the Lebanese war during the 1970's-80's of rounding up young men - many of them Palestinian, along with Lebanese - and making arrests. Many of the prisoners back then weren't guilty of anything other than being young Muslims or Palestinian men. As for the POW's now, a similar case might apply.

Do you mean the Golan Heights? Isn't that Syrian? Besides everything Israel occupies was taken in wars of aggression by other powers who tried to destroy their country. Creating buffer zones in case of another attack is just fine in my opinion.

Well, aside from displacing hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from the West Bank ... it's just fine, I suppose.

Which war are we talking about?

What territory would that be?

I am backing up all that I am saying. You are not.#1 The Hezbollah-VS-Israel war of course.
#2 Sheeba farms.
#3 :rolleyes: That is your usual CCL (corneliu circular logic.)

Well, aside from displacing hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from the West Bank ... it's just fine, I suppose.

Many ran off on their own when the Israelis came. As for the rest, that's a different issue. Occupying that territory helps with Israel's defence in case they are attacked yet again.

#1 The Hezbollah-VS-Israel war of course.

If I arrest you for theft, does that mean the theft is ongoing? Of course not, that's stupid.

#2 Sheeba farms.

Even Lebanon's own maps from the 60s places that land as Syrian. There is no organization or government in the world outside of Lebanon that contends that this land is Lebanese. The UN examined Israeli, Lebanese, and Syrian maps from the 60s, ALL of them show that as Syrian.

Sheeba farms is not Lebanese.

Many ran off on their own when the Israelis came.

I'm not sure that people would simply "run off" if they had no reason to fear eviction or something worse. It just seems like a ridiculous argument. And once again, where's your source for it?

There is no organization or government in the world outside of Lebanon that contends that this land is Lebanese. I call BullShit.

Occupying that territory helps with Israel's defence.I see...

So maybe India need to occupy a chunk of Pakistan.. and viceversa.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure that people would simply "run off" if they had no reason to fear eviction or something worse. It just seems like a ridiculous argument. And once again, where's your source for it?

I believe you are mistaking me for someone else, I don't remember you asking me for a source before. I got this information from a class in school. The Palestinians were afraid of the Israelis given the propaganda against them, so they abandoned their homes.

I call BullShit.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie

That's nice, try posting something in English.

That's nice, try posting something in English.the English page does not answer your Bullshit.

I believe you are mistaking me for someone else, I don't remember you asking me for a source before. I got this information from a class in school. The Palestinians were afraid of the Israelis given the propaganda against them, so they abandoned their homes.

Sorry, I think I asked Allegheny for a source a few minutes ago. Let's say you're correct, though. If a family flees from their home due to fear, do occupying soliders have the right to take that property for their own country? Shouldn't there be some sort of reassurance to the family that no, we don't have bad intentions, you can have your property back, we simply need to occupy this region for self-defense and so on? As far as I know, this hasn't really happened much at all.

the English page does not answer your Bullshit.

Oh, so in other words...you post in a foreign language and refuse to translate, and somehow claim it supports your position.

Well let's see what the English page says, huh?

In August 1972, Syrian president Hafez al-Assad said, "Syria and Lebanon are a single country."

In addition, Lebanon does not appear as an independent state in maps in Syrian textbooks -- but rather as part of Greater Syria. The Shebaa Farms also appear as part of Syria on the large-scale map on the Syrian Ministry of Tourism's website.

In 2002 Israeli officials noted that Syria treated the area as its own over the years. They pointed to the fact, for example, that a Syrian census in 1960 included the residents of the Farms.

On August 15, 2006, however, Syria said it would not object to the deployment in Shabaa of UNIFIL soldiers, but would not allow the Lebanese Army to patrol or set up positions there

You got anything that refutes any of that?

Sorry, I think I asked Allegheny for a source a few minutes ago. Let's say you're correct, though. If a family flees from their home due to fear, do occupying soliders have the right to take that property for their own country? Shouldn't there be some sort of reassurance to the family that no, we don't have bad intentions, you can have your property back, we simply need to occupy this region for self-defense and so on? As far as I know, this hasn't really happened much at all.

I am not positive but I'm pretty sure that they were offered the possibility to return but many didn't want to live under the Israelis. Sucks of course, but if true they chose not to return. Doesn't excuse the current situation of putting all those who remained in "refugee" camps but different issue.

Oh, so in other words...you post in a foreign language and refuse to translate, and somehow claim it supports your position.

Well let's see what the English page says, huh?

You got anything that refutes any of that?

I might point out that Syria, who claims Shebaa Farms, made two of the statements you quoted. Hardly the most unbiased source around. And why should Israel care whether Shebaa Farms is Lebanese or Syrian? They'll hold onto Golan Heights in either case.

Oh, so in other words...you post in a foreign language and refuse to translate...I never refused to translate.

I never refused to translate.

FIne. Then translate.

And after you're done with that, refute the points i raised, if you can.

I might point out that Syria, who claims Shebaa Farms, made two of the statements you quoted. Hardly the most unbiased source around.

Exactly my point, our dear troll here seemed to be claiming that Syria states that the farm area is Lebanese. Syria in fact claims just the opposite, in fact their textbooks do not recognize the existance of Lebanon AT ALL.

There is no organization or government in the world outside of Lebanon that contends that this land is Lebanese. I call BullShit.

The Govs of France and Syria agree.. Shebaa Farms is Lebanese. (thats is the ones i found so far)..

Exactly my point, our dear troll here seemed to be claiming that Syria states that the farm area is Lebanese. Syria in fact claims just the opposite, in fact their textbooks do not recognize the existance of Lebanon AT ALL.

I'll agree with you on this point, but the very fact that Syria doesn't even consider Lebanon a state is reason to dismiss anything they claim with regard to Shebaa Farms. They've been leaning on Lebanon and meddling in its politics at least since the breakout of war in 1975, and yes, they are still there. You can never get rid of those secret police, after all.

FIne. Then translate.French Wikipedia: the Govs of France and Syria say Sheeba Farms are Lebanese.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie

I call BullShit.

The Govs of France and Syria agree.. Shebaa Farms is Lebanese. (thats is the ones i found so far)..

I have provided multiple points that Syria does not, in fact, consider Shebaa farms Lebanese. The Syrian census in the 60s counted residents in the area, and the academia of Syria does not recognize Lebanon as an independant country.

You have failed to refute those points, and failed to provide the requested translation.

There's certainly bullshit here...it ain't coming from me though.

the very fact that Syria doesn't even consider Lebanon a state is reason to dismiss anything they claim with regard to Shebaa Farms.

It is very hard to consider a piece of property belonging to an entity you claim does not exist.

Syria can not recognize the area as lebanese if they don't recognize a free Lebanon. Thus any claims that Syria believes the farm land to be Lebanese is spurious at best.

Fuck the U.N.

It is very hard to consider a piece of property belonging to an entity you claim does not exist.

Syria can not recognize the area as lebanese if they don't recognize a free Lebanon. Thus any claims that Syria believes the farm land to be Lebanese is spurious at best.

I'm not saying that Syria recognizes Shebaa Farms as Lebanese. I'm saying that we shouldn't even consider Syrian claims at all, because if it were up to Bashar Assad, he would absorb Lebanon into Syria and the whole Bekaa and southern regions would consist of Syrian military bases. This certainly wouldn't be good for American or Israeli interests, either.

I'm not saying that Syria recognizes Shebaa Farms as Lebanese. I'm saying that we shouldn't even consider Syrian claims at all, because if it were up to Bashar Assad, he would absorb Lebanon into Syria and the whole Bekaa and southern regions would consist of Syrian military bases. This certainly wouldn't be good for American or Israeli interests, either.

Oh I agree entirely. I post this merely to refute the claim that Syria considers the farm area Lebanese. They clearly don't.

Whether or not I CARE about what Syria thinks is another issue entirely, but it is improper to claim that Syria things the area is Lebanese. They don't.

#1 The Hezbollah-VS-Israel war of course.

And how many POWs did Israel take during this conflict who were fighting them?

#2 Sheeba farms.

Already showed that they belong to Syria and not to Lebanon.

#3 :rolleyes: That is your usual CCL (corneliu circular logic.)

You still have not backed up your claims that the US tried to disarm Hezbollah.

I call BullShit.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie

From Wikipedia's article on Shebaa Farms since you obviously failed to read it the first time:

The United Nations agreed with Israel that the area is not covered by United Nations UN Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and the UN certified Israel's pullout.[15] At the same time the UN noted that its decision was "without prejudice to future border agreements between the Member States concerned," referring to Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

The United Nations stated:

"On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defense and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic."[33]

I should also point out:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in remarks to the press with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Foreign Minister of Spain Josep Pique, Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov, and European Union Senior Official Javier Solana in Madrid, Spain, on April 10, 2002, said: "With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Shebaa Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy."

I have provided multiple points ...and I have provided 2 Govs that say its Lebanese land..

So still..
There is no organization or government in the world outside of Lebanon that contends that this land is Lebanese. I call BullShit.

and I have provided 2 Govs that say its Lebanese land..

So still..
I call BullShit.


You have provided nothing. You quoted a page in french, and have refused to provide a translation for it. Until you are able to demonstrate your points in the language appropriate for the medium, and refute the points I have raised, you have done nothing.

You have provided nothing. You quoted a page in french, and have refused to provide a translation for it.It says that both the France and Syria agree... its Lebanese Land.

French Wikipedia: the Govs of France and Syria say Sheeba Farms are Lebanese.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie
While the French opinion is of value, the Syrian opinion is not. A Soviet stooge cut adrift is about as worthwhile as an old pile of dog crap.

And your translation seems a bit spotty, to say that the Shebaa Farms are recognized as Lebanese territory. The only statement similar to that in the article is that some old French Mandate maps show the Shebaa Farms as part of Lebanon.

Of course, since that time, the Syrians had annexed the region as part of their country. This annexation was generally recognized, and the maps of the time period prior to the 1967 War show the Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory. The territory was taken from Syrian forces during the 1967 War.

Also, Syria does not believe that the Shebaa Farms have anything to do with UN Resolution 425, according to this article.

You're twisting the meanings.

And your translation seems a bit spotty...Do you speak french?

And your translation seems a bit spotty, to say that the Shebaa Farms are recognized as Lebanese territory. The only statement similar to that in the article is that some old French Mandate maps show the Shebaa Farms as part of Lebanon.

Yeah, in the 30s. Saying that what was true in the 30s is necessarily true now is saying that Boston is property of the British.

Of course, since that time, the Syrians had annexed the region as part of their country. This annexation was generally recognized, and the maps of the time period prior to the 1967 War show the Shebaa Farms as Syrian territory. The territory was taken from Syrian forces during the 1967
War.

Shh, let's not let facts interfere with this

Also, Syria does not believe that the Shebaa Farms have anything to do with UN Resolution 425, according to this article.

So...in other words, this article actually says the exact opposite of what he claims it says? No, that's not true, IT SAYS SYRIA BELIEVES IT TO BE PART OF LEBANON! Oceansdrive said so, it must be true.

You're twisting the meanings.

You'll get used to that when dealing with this fellow.

So...in other words, this article actually says the exact opposite of what he claims it says? No, that's not true, IT SAYS SYRIA BELIEVES IT TO BE PART OF LEBANON! Oceansdrive said so, it must be true.are you calling me a liar?

Do you speak french?
Speak, no. I couldn't string a sentence together if I tried. Read, yes.

It says that both the France and Syria agree... its Lebanese Land.

That is not a translation. That you you paraphrasing without any way of me to verify. i want a direct, word for word, translation.

If this said what you claim it said, then you should have no reason not to, as it would prove your argument. The only reason you would logically refuse to provide one is:

1) it doesn't say what you claim it says, and by translating it you'd be admitting that

2) you have no idea what it says, and were hoping I'd just look at it go "oh, french" and take your word on it.

Well, ya lost that gamble. Now I'm awaiting your full, word for word translation, so i may evaluate and respond. Until you do so, you have done nothing.

are you calling me a liar?

Yes, yes I am.

Speak, no. I couldn't string a sentence together if I tried. Read, yes.ok let me ask in a differnt way.

Do you 100% undestand written french?

ok let me ask in a differnt way.

Do you 100% undestand written french?

Do you?

ok let me ask in a differnt way.

Do you 100% undestand written french?
Not beyond flaw. But I'm pretty confident of my reading of this article.

are you calling me a liar?Yes, yes I am.I already told you what French Wikipedia says.

Whoever told you it does not say that.. he is the one "misleading" you.

I suggest you find your French translator and ask him for a full refund.

I already told you what French Wikipedia says.

Whoever told you it does not say that.. he is the one "misleading" you.

I suggest you find your French translator and ask him for a full refund.

I want a full translation. word for word. Not you giving me a one liner on what it says, given that you already have your obvious bias and, frankly, I do not trust you to intentionally misinterpret or mislead if it serves your point.

I consider you untrustworthy, and based on my prior experiences with you, I do not believe a single word you say if there is ANY possibility that you could be intentionally misleading or less than 100% truthful.

So I will repeat, I believe you to be a liar.

The other poster I have no reason to distrust. Thus I believe him over you.

You want to change my mind, give me a full trnaslation. until then I will continue to consider you a liar.

I already told you what French Wikipedia says.

Whoever told you it does not say that.. he is the one "misleading" you.

I suggest you find your French translator and ask him for a full refund.

Dude, I actually generally agree with alot of your views on the whole Israel-Lebanon thing but you're not helping your case with this.

If you can provide a translation of the French page then provide it, if not then say so and stfu about it.

I'll give it a shot...

Position of Syria

While Syria does not consider the Shebaa Farms to be subject to UNSC Resolution 425, it does claim that the territory was originally Lebanese. Although Syria has not referred the issue to the Secretariat of the United Nations.

Position of the UN
The UN has decided that this are is not part of the zones that are to be evacuated, as per UN Resolution 425. In the opinion of Kofi Annan, the UN considers the region to deal with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, both which concern the Syrian-Israeli conflicts. The UN also considers that the Lebanese claims (within the framework of resolution 425) on the Shebaa Farms are illegitimate since, according to its point of view the borders of 1923 are to be considered. The UNSC accepted a report of the Secretary General confirming the respect by Israel of resolution 425. Nevertheless, Lebanon and Hezbollah rejected this decision.

position of France
The French Government called for the evacuation of [the Shebaa Farms] in July of 2006. Some of their old Mandate-era maps recognize the region as belonging to Lebanon.

Not beyond flaw. But I'm pretty confident of my reading of this article.

Would you try again?

Position de la Syrie [modifier]
La Syrie considère que les fermes de Chebaa ne sont pas concernées par la résolution 425, mais sont néanmoins des territoires libanais.

Position de la France [modifier]
Les cartes de l'état major français, ancienne puissance mandataire sur le Liban et la Syrie, considèrent ce territoire comme libanais.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie

La Syrie apporte son appui au Liban. Pour Damas, ces fermes sont bien libanaises et donc, Israël doit les restituer au Liban.

http://www.rfi.fr/Actufr/Articles/006/article_2721.asp
Last link is the Wiki source.

I already told you what French Wikipedia says.

Whoever told you it does not say that.. he is the one "misleading" you.

I suggest you find your French translator and ask him for a full refund.

moreover I'm inclined to believe the other poster because his version of it seems entirely consistant with everything ELSE I've read.

So let's see, what seems more likely, that the french page would basically confirm what every other website I have encountered on the issues says

OR

This page, which just happens to not be in english is the one source, the ONE AND ONLY THING you can find that proves your point, which is referenced by an individual with a history of duplicity who conveniently refuses to provide a full and direct translation.

So which do I consider more likely, that this page is strnagly, amazingly, proof that everything else I read is wrong...OR that the page says exactly what every other page says, and you're just a liar...or you suck at french.

I want a full translation.
You want to change my mind, give me a full trnaslation. until then I will continue to consider you a liar.

Syria says its Lebanese Land.. If you do not beleive me.. go hire a traslator.
I do not care what you think. and I do not care what you want.

Syria says its Lebanese Land..

To bad you're a demonstrated liar.

If you do not beleive me.. go hire a traslator.
I do not care what you think.

I think you're the one who needs the translator.

I suggest you start by learning how to differentiate present from past tense.

They said it WAS, but it isn't anymore, as they also claim that the UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawl from ALL lebanese land does not include that area.

So let me ask this, if the Un resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from ALL Lebanese land, and Syria states that this resolution does NOT cover the Shaaba farms, then I think that's pretty clear that Syria does not consider Shaaba farms currently Lebanese.

Syria says its Lebanese Land.. If you do not beleive me.. go hire a traslator.
I do not care what you think.
Yet it's not affected by UNSC Resolution 425. That's a major conflict of opnion on the part of Syria. I think the wording of 425 makes it clear that if the land is Lebanese, then it falls under the auspices of 425. If it is not Lebanese, then 425 has nothing to do with it.

Do you see the logical clash that is derived here? Either it's Lebanese and effected by 425, or it's not.

To bad you're a demonstrated liar.



I think you're the one who needs the translator.I do not need a translator because I speak French. (I also speak Spanish)

I do not need a translator because I speak French. (I also speak Spanish)

apparently not very well.

Do you see the logical clash that is derived here? Either it's Lebanese and effected by 425, or it's not.Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.

apparently not very well.je ne sais pas comment tu peut etre certain.. tu na pas froid aux yeux un tout cas..
de toutes facons.. j doit aller casser la croute.. ne me attends pas.. suis deja parti.

Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.
Fundamentally contradictory statements.

If it's Lebanese territory under the occupation of Israel, then it's clearly subject to resolution 425. Inherent in being Lebanese territory is being subject to 425. If it is not subject to 425, then it is not Lebanese.

Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.

These two statements can not logically coexist. 425 involves all Lebanese territories under israeli occupation.

je ne sais pas comment tu peut etre certain.. tu na pas froid aux yeux un tout cas..
de toutes facons.. j doit aller casser la croute.. ne me attends pas.. suis deja parti.

My french is far from perfect but I fail to see the relevence of cold eyes to the debate?

je ne sais pas comment tu peut etre certain..

Because you seem to lack the ability to read the whole thing to put what you are reading in context. Anyone who fails to do that sucks at reading comprehension, in any language.

Oh wait, whoops, I'm not supposed to be able to speak french....

My french is far from perfect but I fail to see the relevence of cold eyes to the debate?
A saying that doesn't translate all that well into English.

A saying that doesn't translate all that well into English.

I hate idioms.

I should also point out:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in remarks to the press with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Foreign Minister of Spain Josep Pique, Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov, and European Union Senior Official Javier Solana in Madrid, Spain, on April 10, 2002, said: "With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Shebaa Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy."

OcceanDrive,

I suggest you read what I posted here. This is straight from the United Nations.

Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.

Nice contradiction.

French Wikipedia: the Govs of France and Syria say Sheeba Farms are Lebanese.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie

Now translate this into English. Something that you have refused to do.

OcceanDrive,

I suggest you read what I posted here. This is straight from the United Nations.it may be straigh from your the UN(or it may be straight from your ass)... either way it does not contradict my statement.

My statement is still standing.

(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermes_de_Chebaa#Position_de_la_Syrie)
Now translate this into English. Something that you have refused to do.:rolleyes:
That is the Syrian "position" on the Farms ownership.

and I have already translated it several times, here it is for the 11th time:

Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.

Somewhere out there, a hezzbollah fighter wonders why his shiny new AKM, AL fadjr 5 rocket, and Metis-m anti-tank missiles haven't arrived via Iranian truck....

Somewhere out there, a hezzbollah fighter wonders why his shiny new AKM, AL fadjr 5 rocket, and Metis-m anti-tank missiles haven't arrived via Iranian truck....http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181801990250175607 :cool:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181801990250175607 :cool:

I knew Hezzbollah were nothing more than cavemen :p

it may be straigh from your the UN(or it may be straight from your ass)... either way it does not contradict my statement.

My statement is still standing.

Actually it contradicts it as it came straight from your friend Kofi Annan. The only one pulling things out of a certain body part is you. Especially with all the evidence against you.

:rolleyes:
That is the Syrian "position" on the Farms ownership.

and I have already translated it several times, here it is for the 11th time:

Damas makes 2 clear Statements.

#1 the farms are Lebanese territories.

#2 the farms are not "concerned" by 425.

This is a contradictory statement. If the farms are not the concern of UN Resolution 425 then that clearly means that Shebaa Farms do not belong to Lebanon as 425 deals with the pull out of the IDF FROM ALL LEBANONESE territory.

Actually it contradicts it....no it does not.

no it does not.

You have no idea what UNSCR 425 states do you?

Actually it contradicts it....no it does not.

My statement is in post #68.. you cant miss it.. its in red

I confirmed my statement on posts #80 and #91.

Alleghany, My statement is still standing.

and there is nothing you or the UN can do about it.

no it does not.

My statement is in post #68.. you cant miss it.. its in red

I confirmed my statement on posts #80 and #91.

Alleghany, My statement is still standing.

and there is nothing you or the UN can do about it.

UN Resolution 425 and Kofi Annan's own statements proves you wrong.

The Shaaba farms can not logically be both part of Lebanon, and not covered under UNSCR 425.

That is a logical impossibility.

no it does not.
My statement is in post #68.. you cant miss it.. its in red
I confirmed my statement on posts #80 and #91.
Alleghany, My statement is still standing.

and there is nothing you or the UN can do about it.
UN Resolution 425 and Kofi Annan's own statements proves you wrong.Alleghany, Did you read my statement? its on post #60 (confirmed at #80 and #91)

You cnat miss them they are bold red.

The Shaaba farms can not logically be both part of Lebanon, and not covered under UNSCR 425.

That is a logical impossibility.

We have all stated that numerous times. I even just said it again twenty minutes ago.

It is apparent that OcceanDrive does not know what 425 is all about.

Alleghany, Did you read my statement? its bold red post #60 (confirmed at #80 and #91)

Did you read any of them?

I have read all of your posts. Each and everyone one of them. Each and everyone one of your posts dealing with Shebaa Farms have been debunked and destroyed on cross examination using backed up historical facts and United Nations Security Council resolutions and statements made by Kofi Annan.

I have read all of your posts. Each and everyone one of them. Each and everyone one of your posts dealing with Shebaa Farms have been debunked and destroyed on cross examination using backed up historical facts and United Nations Security Council resolutions and statements made by Kofi Annan.:D LOL.. Classic Corneliu..
I just love it when you do that.

:D LOL.. Classic Corneliu..
I just love it when you do that.

I do not know who this Corneliu person is. Now are you going to say something about my post or ignore arguments that debunks everything you have been saying?

:D LOL.. Classic Corneliu..
I just love it when you do that.

so in other words...by failing to back up your claims and resolve the logical inconsistancy, you admit you have no argument and thus conceed the point.

Good to know, thanks for admitting you were wrong.

so in other words...by failing to back up your claims and resolve the logical inconsistancy, you admit you have no argument and thus conceed the point.

Good to know, thanks for admitting you were wrong.

Careful, he just might repeat the argument that 425 does not prove that Shebaa does not belong to Lebanon and pull out maps from the 1930s to prove it regardless of any annexation that has taken place since then.

The Shaaba farms can not logically be both part of Lebanon, and not covered under UNSCR 425.as far as Damas is concerned.. the Farms are exempted from resolution 425.

besides.. resolutions are ignored by Israel and the other ME countries.. most of the time.

as far as Damas is concerned.. the Farms are exempted from resolution 425.

Damas! Is that short for Damascus? And if it was exempted from 425, that once again proves that the Shebaa Farms do not belong to Lebanon. And another reason why it does not belong to Lebanon is that it was taken during the Six Day War. Why do I say this? Because Lebanon was not a participent in the Six Day War.

besides.. resolutions are ignored by Israel and the other ME countries.. most of the time.

For once you have said something accurate.

as far as Damas is concerned.. the Farms are exempted from resolution 425.


The only way, the ONLY way, that the farmlands can be exempt from resolution 425 is if they're not part of Lebanon. There is no exemption from 425. Either the land is Lebanese and thus covered, or it is not, and thus not.

425 dealt with ALL occupied territories of Lebanon. ALL OF THEM. It did not specificy specific areas, it created a blanket statement of ALL occupied areas.

Thus the only way for the farms to NOT be part of 425 is if they are not Lebanese.

I do not know who this Corneliu person is. hehe.. if it moves like Corn.. tastes like Corn.. looks like Corn.. fells like Corn.. Posts like corn.. uses the same words like Corn..

...You know what they say about it ;)

are you going to say something about my post or ignore arguments that debunks everything you have been saying?[Just like with good old Corneliu.. I do not see any Arguments that contradict my statement.

Corneliu or Alleghany.. either way.. My statemnt is still Standing.

hehe.. if it moves like Corn.. tastes like Corn.. looks like Corn.. fells like Corn.. Posts like corn.. uses the same words like Corn..

...You know what they say about it ;)

Just like with good old Corneliu.. I do not see any Arguments that contradict my statement.

C.(or Alleghany :rolleyes: ) My statemnt is still Standing.

I see that you do not want to listen to facts. I will continue to post them regardless if you pay attention to them or not.

If anything, the statements from Damascus clearly illustrate a political manuever worthy of their deposed superpower patron, during its heyday.

They are claiming, for the benefit of propaganda value, to obtain the support of people in Lebanon, that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon. At the exact same time, they deny that the Shebaa Farms are subject to UNSC Resolution 425 in the hopes that someday they'll be able to retake the Shebaa Farms by force.

The duplicity of Damascus regarding the Shebaa Farms is stunning, but expected. They learned from the best of the kleptocratic liar-states, the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they clearly do not recognize the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa Farms, and their statement that they believe the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon is a Maskirovka.

If anything, the statements from Damascus clearly illustrate a political manuever worthy of their deposed superpower patron, during its heyday.

They are claiming, for the benefit of propaganda value, to obtain the support of people in Lebanon, that the Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon. At the exact same time, they deny that the Shebaa Farms are subject to UNSC Resolution 425 in the hopes that someday they'll be able to retake the Shebaa Farms by force.

The duplicity of Damascus regarding the Shebaa Farms is stunning, but expected. They learned from the best of the kleptocratic liar-states, the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they clearly do not recognize the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa Farms, and their statement that they believe the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon is a Maskirovka.

Not to mention the area was taken during the Six Day War which Lebanon did not participate in.

Corneliu or Alleghany.. either way.. My statemnt is still Standing.

Your statement has been rejected as an oxymoron.

They(Syria) are claiming...that thethe Shebaa Farms are part of Lebanon.
...
...they(Syria) clearly do not recognize the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa Farms...
...
...they(Syria) believe the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon is a Maskirovka.I think your post is Maskirovka.. :D :D ;) :D

I think your post is Maskirovka.. :D :D ;) :D
I think you have no ability to objectively analyze the middle east.

I think you have no ability to objectively analyze the middle east.

You assume he has the ability to objectivly analyze anything?

You give him far more credit than I.

Furthermore, we are talking about Syria here, right? A government patterned after the Soviet system, a system based upon duplicity, whose history has shown us no reason to trust them for anything? A government who was only able to make war on Israel because the Soviets gave them the best equipment in the Soviet arsenal, before Soviet troops got it? Or am I missing something? Why the hell does Syria carry any credibility with you?

I think you have no ability to objectively analyze the middle east.I guess you have better "ability to objectively analyze the middle east" than us.

or dont you.. Andaluciae?

I guess you have better "ability to objectively analyze the middle east" than us.

or dont you?

Who is this us?

You assume he has the ability to objectivly analyze anything?

You give him far more credit than I.How about you Arthais,

do you have "ability to objectively analyze the middle east"

Do you?

I guess you have better "ability to objectively analyze the middle east" than us.

or dont you?
Who is this us?NS General.

NS General.

Ah.

I can answer that, I can objectively analyize the Middle East Conflict.

Furthermore, we are talking about Syria here, right? A government patterned after the Soviet system, a system based upon duplicity, whose history has shown us no reason to trust them for anything? A government who was only able to make war on Israel because the Soviets gave them the best equipment in the Soviet arsenal, before Soviet troops got it? Or am I missing something? Why the hell does Syria carry any credibility with you?

Syria is full of pristine green grassy hills full of smiley faced bunnys that hop around crapping bon bons and everyone goes around smiling eating bon bons with big crap eating bon bon faces to go with it.

I guess you have better "ability to objectively analyze the middle east" than us.

or dont you?
Hell yes. To clearly ignore the basics of logic, as you have done repeatedly throughout this thread, regarding the inherent contradictions between the two positions of Syria, you must have some veil pulled before your eyes.

I've laid out the fact that Syria professes a fundamental contradiction regarding the Shebaa Farms. That they claim that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon, yet they claim that 425 does not apply to the Shebaa Farms.

I'm not ignoring the fundamental contradictions of the matter, I am not violating the fundamental principle of reality that A is A, that it cannot be anything other than A, A cannot be ~A. The duplicity of Syria on the matter of Shebaa Farms is pretty damn clear to everyone but you.

they (Syria) claim that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon, yet they claim that 425 does not apply to the Shebaa Farms.Yes.. Thats what they claim..

You may not like what they claim.
You may find it ilogical..
You may find it controversial..
You may find it contrdictory..
You may find it unfair..
You may whinne all day about it..

But at the end of the day.. You cannot change their claim.

Only Damascus speaks for Damascus.
You cannot speak for Damascus.. You can whinne about it.. but you cant speak for them.

Yes.. Thats what they claim..

You may not like what they claim.
You may find it ilogical..
You may find it controversial..
You may find it contrdictory..
You may find it unfair..
You may whinne all day about it..

But at the end of the day.. You cannot change their claim.

Only Damascus speaks for Damascus.
You cannot speak for Damascus.. You can whinne about it.. but you cant speak for them.

In that case then it proves that Damascus does not recognize Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farms for if they, and the UN, did, then Israel would have to have pull out from there as then it would be recognized as Lebanonese Territory.

By saying it is excluded from 425, it proves that Lebanon does not have a claim to it and was never Lebanonese territory to begin with. Thank you for debunking your own statement.

Yes.. Thats what they claim..

You may not like what they claim.
You may find it ilogical..
You may find it controversial..
You may find it contrdictory..
You may find it unfair..
You may whinne all day about it..

But at the end of the day.. You cannot change their claim.

Only Damascus speaks for Damascus.
You cannot speak for Damascus.. You can whinne about it.. but you cant speak for them.
But Damascus is speaking for Damascus, and they're saying both things.

They are saying that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon and at the same time they're saying that they don't belong to Lebanon.

In that case then it proves that Damascus does not recognize Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farms for if they, and the UN, did, then Israel would have to have pull out from there as ......oh Brother..
read it again.
reposting
they (Syria) claim that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon, yet they claim that 425 does not apply to the Shebaa Farms.Yes.. Thats what they claim..

You may not like what they claim.
You may find it ilogical..
You may find it controversial..
You may find it contrdictory..
You may find it unfair..
You may whinne all day about it..

But at the end of the day.. You cannot change their claim.

Only Damascus speaks for Damascus.
You cannot speak for Damascus.. You can whinne about it.. but you cant speak for them.

*snip*

If Shebaa Farms belongs to Lebanon then why the heck is Syria saying that Israel did not have to pull out from there in accordance with 425?

But Damascus is speaking for Damascus.Yes Damascus is speaking for Damascus.. (and only they can speak for Damascus)
They are saying that the Shebaa Farms belong to Lebanon yes they are saying that...and at the same time they're saying that they don't belong to Lebanon.no.. Damascus is not saying that. That is your trying to speak for Damascus... that is you putting words in their mouth.. that is you interpretation..

Damascus "position" as translated from Wikepedia.fr

#1 the Farms are Lebanese territory

#2 Teh Farms are not "concerned" by UNSCR 425

nothing more.. nothing less.

#1 the Farms are Lebanese territory

#2 Teh Farms are not "concerned" by UNSCR 425

nothing more.. nothing less.

Which is the whole point of this thread. If Shebaa Farms do not fall under UNSCR 425 then that means that Shebaa Farms does not belong to Lebanon as 425 tells Israel to leave all Lebanonese territory.

Therefor, Syria saying Shebaa Farms is not part of 425 proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Shebaa Farms do not belong to Lebanon.

....Syria saying Shebaa Farms is not part of 425 proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Shebaa Farms do not belong to Lebanon.It proves absolutely nothing.

*rereads post* ..."proves beyond a shadow of doubt" .. !! !! ?? ??
your posting style reminds me of.. ahh nevemind. :D :D ;) :D

It proves absolutely nothing.

It proves you wrong is what it does. I do not expect you to understand though. You are ignorant apparently when it comes to this sort of thing.

nvm

Many ran off on their own when the Israelis came. As for the rest, that's a different issue. Occupying that territory helps with Israel's defence in case they are attacked yet again.

This is an interesting viewpoint. So if your dog attacks me, and I retaliate by blowing it away with a heavy machinegun and point it at you, thus scaring you out of your house, I can claim it as my own?

nvm

What? No witty comeback with repeatedly debunked information?

#1 the Farms are Lebanese territory

#2 Teh Farms are not "concerned" by UNSCR 425

nothing more.. nothing less.
It is damn simple, it is impossible for the position of Damascus to be both of those statements.

It is damn simple, it is impossible for the position of Damascus to be both of those statements.yet.. this is the case.

And where is the UN and what are they saying about Hez'bala (sp) viloating it??????

They are are requiered to dis-arm, but they are re-arming...The UN what a FRACKING joke of an organazation, it should be disbanded. What a waist of money.

Again, we condemn Israel for self-defense. We neglect to apply the same standards to Lebanon for allowing the Hezbollah to operate freely, nor to the Hezbollah for attacking Israel with the sole intention of causing civilian deaths.

It only works one way. A sovereign nation is allowed to act in its self defense. That's not an action open to condemnation.

49 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said an Israeli raid in Lebanon on Saturday violated the U.N.-backed truce and made him "deeply concerned."

A statement from the United Nations said Annan had spoken with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert, on Saturday about the raid.

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701," a spokesman for Annan said in the statement, which was posted on the U.N. Web site.

Sources: Yahoo/OcceanNEWS©2006
www.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060819/wl_nm/mideast_un_statement_dc_2

my2cents: I am sure Israel will find some lame excuse..

maybe kofi can toss some paper at the combatants..and everyone can wring their collective hands..and toss some more paper at the combatants..that will stop the bloodshed on both sides...stern words really have an impact on people that are in a life and death struggle.
ever try to break up a barfight?
aint gonna do it with paper that aint worth what it is printed on...and words..hate to be cynical,but they hate each other..and nothing is going to change that...except the combatants themselves.
we can argue the minuteua of every little detail..but the only thng that counts is going to be when both sides tire of the bloodshed..till then...exercise in futility...just as assigning blame is..he said she said bullshit.

i would like to see a 2 state solution to the palistinian issue,but that seems out of reach,for a myriad of reasons,from both parties..i will not take sides on an issue were both sides are right,and both sides are wrong.
and neither want to budge

guess after their sons and daughters,grandchildren keep getting buried...maybe they will tire of it..and compromise..till then..all the un resolutions are no more then pissing in the wind,trying to empty the ocean with a spoon...useless.

i truly feel bad for both sides of this...i do however wish the arabs would at least acknowledge isreals right to exist...even in a 2 state compromise.

then at least you have reasonable people on both sides...there will always be extreme pov's on both sides,and violence..but that would be a huge stepping stone in my mind.

Again, we condemn Israel for self-defense. We neglect to apply the same standards to Lebanon for allowing the Hezbollah to operate freely, nor to the Hezbollah for attacking Israel with the sole intention of causing civilian deaths.

It only works one way. A sovereign nation is allowed to act in its self defense. That's not an action open to condemnation.

But did they really have to use cluster bombs in civilian areas?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Just trying to be fair.

But did they really have to use cluster bombs in civilian areas?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Just trying to be fair.What did you expect.. Its Israel.

But did they really have to use cluster bombs in civilian areas?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Just trying to be fair.

The best way to hit light skinned vehicles like Katushya launchers and 23mm cannon mounted on trucks. Especially moving vehicles in an area.

The best way to hit light skinned vehicles like Katushya launchers and 23mm cannon mounted on trucks. Especially moving vehicles in an area.

Also a great way to scatter unexploded ordinance all over the place. Do you know how many people all over the world lose life and limb as the result of stepping on the remnants of a cluster bomb or an old landmine years after the conflict is over?

Hey, I can't help it. I was on an anti-landmine group in high school. They infected me with their ultra-liberal pacifist pinko ideas.

Also a great way to scatter unexploded ordinance all over the place. Do you know how many people all over the world lose life and limb as the result of stepping on the remnants of a cluster bomb or an old landmine years after the conflict is over?

Hey, I can't help it. I was on an anti-landmine group in high school. They infected me with their ultra-liberal pacifist pinko ideas.

The Fourth Geneva Convention says that if fighters blend in with civilians in close proximity, the fighters cannot assume that they are protected from attack.

The attacker in such cases bears NO responsibility for what happens to the civilians in close proximity.

If Hez wants to spare civilians, they can station their launchers a kilometer outside of any village (which is certainly possible), and keep the kids off of their positions.

Otherwise, any and all civilian casualties are the fault of Hezbollah.

The Fourth Geneva Convention says
() The attacker in such cases bears NO responsibility for what happens to the civilians in close proximity..Proof?

The Fourth Geneva Convention says that if fighters blend in with civilians in close proximity, the fighters cannot assume that they are protected from attack.

The attacker in such cases bears NO responsibility for what happens to the civilians in close proximity.

If Hez wants to spare civilians, they can station their launchers a kilometer outside of any village (which is certainly possible), and keep the kids off of their positions.

Otherwise, any and all civilian casualties are the fault of Hezbollah.

HELLO DEEP KIMCHI I'M REALITY. I DON'T THINK WE'VE MET?

What you say may be true for conventional weapons. It is not true for cluster bombs. If unexploded ordinance scatters throughout the south of Lebanon in areas that Hezbollah uses for attacking Israel, even assuming that the place is at that time away from civilians, that land is uninhabitable until a team sweeps through and carefully removes every bit of it. Should the Lebanese government throw up DO NOT CROSS tape all over various places in the south? What if Hezbollah uses an abandoned village for its attack that might be reinhabited later? Is it all right to drop cluster bombs in that case?

I'm not saying that Israel can't defend itself. I'm saying that it just might be a bad idea to dump unexploded bombs all over the place - yes, even in uninhabited areas. Once again, you're showing everyone that you have selective hearing.

Proof?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

HELLO DEEP KIMCHI I'M REALITY. I DON'T THINK WE'VE MET?

What you say may be true for conventional weapons. It is not true for cluster bombs. If unexploded ordinance scatters throughout the south of Lebanon in areas that Hezbollah uses for attacking Israel, even assuming that the place is at that time away from civilians, that land is uninhabitable until a team sweeps through and carefully removes every bit of it. Should the Lebanese government throw up DO NOT CROSS tape all over various places in the south? What if Hezbollah uses an abandoned village for its attack that might be reinhabited later? Is it all right to drop cluster bombs in that case?

I'm not saying that Israel can't defend itself. I'm saying that it just might be a bad idea to dump unexploded bombs all over the place - yes, even in uninhabited areas. Once again, you're showing everyone that you have selective hearing.
Cluster bombs are conventional weapons. Non-conventional weapons include chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, it's increasingly unlikely for a western cluster bombs bomblets to not explode right away.

Furthermore, to group cluster bombs with landmines is a tremendous mistake. Landmines claim more lives, by orders of magnitude, than cluster bombs after the conflict.

Cluster bombs are conventional weapons. Non-conventional weapons include chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.


Sorry about that; I should have made the formal distinction. I suppose I just don't think of them as conventional weapons, but I didn't write the Geneva Conventions anyway. Still, a decreased amount of unexploded ordinance is unexploded ordinance, and it still may cause deaths after the conflict that could have been avoided.

Sorry about that; I should have made the formal distinction. I suppose I just don't think of them as conventional weapons, but I didn't write the Geneva Conventions anyway. Still, a decreased amount of unexploded ordinance is unexploded ordinance, and it still may cause deaths after the conflict that could have been avoided.
Of course, but sometimes a 500 pound bomb stands a greater chance of doing far more collateral damage then do bomblets. Whereas a 500 pound bomb would level a building, bomblets might only cause non-structural damage.

Of course, but sometimes a 500 pound bomb stands a greater chance of doing far more collateral damage then do bomblets. Whereas a 500 pound bomb would level a building, bomblets might only cause non-structural damage.

I won't argue with that.

I won't argue with that.
Quite.

I believe we might also agree that, fundamentally, war sucks.

The best way to hit light skinned vehicles like Katushya launchers and 23mm cannon mounted on trucks. Especially moving vehicles in an area.

Bomblets will open up anything unarmored like a kid on christmas day.

They don't do to well against buildings though, but work great for open air targets.

Quite.

I believe we might also agree that, fundamentally, war sucks.

Yeah, I basically agree on that as well. At best, it's a necessary evil.

Yeah, I basically agree on that as well. At best, it's a necessary evil.
But, on the other hand, sleep is awesome, and I shall adjourn to my bed. G'Nights.

But did they really have to use cluster bombs in civilian areas?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Just trying to be fair.
That's the thing about war. It's ugly. Did the Hezzies need to hide behind civilians? Did they need to fire rockets into Haifa? Did the Syrians and Iranians need to provide bigger and better rockets? The only way to win a war is to make the other side surrender. And the way to do that is to absolutely destroy them without regard to collateral losses.

That's the thing about war. It's ugly. Did the Hezzies need to hide behind civilians? Did they need to fire rockets into Haifa? Did the Syrians and Iranians need to provide bigger and better rockets? The only way to win a war is to make the other side surrender. And the way to do that is to absolutely destroy them without regard to collateral losses.

Thats why most wars are not won but end in a cease fire, followed by a peace treaty...

---
Peace is for the brave

Thats why most wars are not won but end in a cease fire, followed by a peace treaty...

---
Peace is for the brave

That's an interesting assertion. Care to back it up with all the wars in history?

That's an interesting assertion. Care to back it up with all the wars in history?thats is a lot of wars... most of them before the year 0. ~JC DOB

Wars either end in

#1 some kind of cease Fire.
#2 Unconditional surrender.
#3 genocide.

thats is a lot of wars... most of them before the year 0. ~JC DOB

Wars either end in

#1 some kind of cease Fire.
#2 Unconditional surrender.
#3 genocide.

Ceasefires often occur after major portion of someone's military are annihilated. I want proof, though, that the majority of wars end in ceasefire (as previously asserted by someone else).

Ceasefire is usually the result of a military defeat. The person is asserting that isn't the case.

Ceasefires often occur after major portion of someone's military are annihilated. I want proof, though, that the majority of wars end in ceasefire (as previously asserted by someone else).

Ceasefire is usually the result of a military defeat. The person is asserting that isn't the case.I understand your position..

My point is that it is impossible to prove.. either way.. you cant prove he is rigth.. you cant prove he is wrong.

for this one you will have to rely on Logic/deduction.
Good luck.

49 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said an Israeli raid in Lebanon on Saturday violated the U.N.-backed truce and made him "deeply concerned."

A statement from the United Nations said Annan had spoken with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert, on Saturday about the raid.

"The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701," a spokesman for Annan said in the statement, which was posted on the U.N. Web site.

Sources: Yahoo/OcceanNEWS©2006
www.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060819/wl_nm/mideast_un_statement_dc_2

my2cents: I am sure Israel will find some lame excuse..
Actually Hezbollah violated the cease fire by rearming their forces south of the Letani river. Since the cease fire was already violated Israel resumed fighting. Personally I don't think they ever should have stopped. The international community talked them into it because most were too anti semitic or just too dumb to see past Hezbollah's fake collateral damage and body counts.

Thats why most wars are not won but end in a cease fire, followed by a peace treaty...

---
Peace is for the brave
Followed by another war later on. Actually it's not another war, it's the continuation of the same damn war. Peace activists who bring a premature end to conflict condem the parties involved to fight the same war over and over again. Peace activists are simply an unwitting and witless force for death and destruction over the long term.

Peace activists who bring a premature end to conflict condem the parties involved to fight the same war over and over again.I wanna to take a minute.. to thank all Peace Activist.. for helping stop the Vietnam War.. for stoping the killing of Vietnamese families.

Thank you.

minute is up.. carry-on with your usual glorification of war.. and bashing of everyone who opposes it.

I understand your position..

My point is that it is impossible to prove.. either way.. you cant prove he is rigth.. you cant prove he is wrong.

for this one you will have to rely on Logic/deduction.
Good luck.
It's not impossible, and it's his assertion to prove.

I wanna to take a minute.. to thank all Peace Activist.. for helping stop the Vietnam War.. for stoping the killing of Vietnamese families.

minute is up.. carry-on with your usual glorification of war.. and bashing of everyone who opposes it.

We're not bashing people who oppose war. We're just bashing your continuous anti-Israel rants. If you wanna be a troll, at least find a new subject. :rolleyes:

That's the thing about war. It's ugly. Did the Hezzies need to hide behind civilians? Did they need to fire rockets into Haifa? Did the Syrians and Iranians need to provide bigger and better rockets? The only way to win a war is to make the other side surrender. And the way to do that is to absolutely destroy them without regard to collateral losses.

The answer to every one of your questions, and to my question, is no. You're flippant about collateral losses because you're far removed from the conflict. If you had family in Haifa or Tyre, you would have a different opinion.

The answer to every one of your questions, and to my question, is no. You're flippant about collateral losses because you're far removed from the conflict. If you had family in Haifa or Tyre, you would have a different opinion.
You can project your biases all you want, but the facts are plain. The Hezzies want to destroy Israel and will continue to try until they are defeated so badly that they cannot recover.

Incidentally, I've been a regular visitor to that part of Israel because we count the IAF among our customers. I don't know anyone that would consider my position 'flippant'.

You can project your biases all you want, but the facts are plain. The Hezzies want to destroy Israel and will continue to try until they are defeated so badly that they cannot recover.

Incidentally, I've been a regular visitor to that part of Israel because we count the IAF among our customers. I don't know anyone that would consider my position 'flippant'.

It's not flippant, because you've seen combat and know what it takes to make the opposition give up.

You can project your biases all you want, but the facts are plain. The Hezzies want to destroy Israel and will continue to try until they are defeated so badly that they cannot recover.

But you do the same thing.

Incidentally, I've been a regular visitor to that part of Israel because we count the IAF among our customers. I don't know anyone that would consider my position 'flippant'.

You can project your biases all you want, but the facts are plain. The Hezzies want to destroy Israel and will continue to try until they are defeated so badly that they cannot recover.

Incidentally, I've been a regular visitor to that part of Israel because we count the IAF among our customers. I don't know anyone that would consider my position 'flippant'.

Do you want to play that game? Fine. I have family in Sidon. Some of them live in the Emirates and were there for the summer - they had to leave the country through OMG DAMASCUS because it was the only route left to them. Maybe now you understand why I do mind excessive civilian casualties.

In a war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable. And once again I'll say that I am against Hezbollah and its tactics, although you want to make it sound like I support them. My point is that I don't think the Israeli military is doing much to prevent civilian casualties that could be avoided while still acheiving their goal of wiping the floor with Hezbollah.

If you've been to northern Israel, I'd think you would be even more sensitive to the issue, since they were also under fire throughout the conflict.

USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was breached by phaser fire when Khan opened fire on her with shields down.

http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/movies/images/06_ii_enterprise_takes_a_hit.jpg

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Phaser3.jpg


KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so glad somebody else beat me to it! :)

Do you want to play that game? Fine. I have family in Sidon. Some of them live in the Emirates and were there for the summer - they had to leave the country through OMG DAMASCUS because it was the only route left to them. Maybe now you understand why I do mind excessive civilian casualties.

In a war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable. And once again I'll say that I am against Hezbollah and its tactics, although you want to make it sound like I support them. My point is that I don't think the Israeli military is doing much to prevent civilian casualties that could be avoided while still acheiving their goal of wiping the floor with Hezbollah.

If you've been to northern Israel, I'd think you would be even more sensitive to the issue, since they were also under fire throughout the conflict.
As long as the Hezzies hide in civilian areas, civilian casualties are unavoidable. To avoid causing civilian casualties, would mean ceasing to exterminate the Hezzbolah vermin. It can't be both ways because of the tactics that they've adopted. And this effort has to end in their extermination.

As long as the Hezzies hide in civilian areas, civilian casualties are unavoidable. To avoid causing civilian casualties, would mean ceasing to exterminate the Hezzbolah vermin. It can't be both ways because of the tactics that they've adopted. And this effort has to end in their extermination.

You're dodging the question. I said myself that civilian casualties were unavoidable. Answer this: do they have to use weapons that, while accepted as conventional, scatter unexploded bomblets that will almost certainly not kill a Hezbollah fighter but rather a farmer, or a kid, you know, one of those pesky non-combatants?

Do you want to play that game? Fine. I have family in Sidon. Some of them live in the Emirates and were there for the summer - they had to leave the country through OMG DAMASCUS because it was the only route left to them. Maybe now you understand why I do mind excessive civilian casualties.

In a war, there will always be collateral damage. It's unavoidable. And once again I'll say that I am against Hezbollah and its tactics, although you want to make it sound like I support them. My point is that I don't think the Israeli military is doing much to prevent civilian casualties that could be avoided while still acheiving their goal of wiping the floor with Hezbollah.

If you've been to northern Israel, I'd think you would be even more sensitive to the issue, since they were also under fire throughout the conflict.
What do you think the Israelis could have done to reduce casualties? They dropped leaflets and even called residents on the phone to tell them to leave because their neighborhood would be bombed! When the enemy hides among the civilian population some civilian casualties will happen, but Hezbollah has been inflating civilian casualties in order to bring a premature end to the conflict.

What do you think the Israelis could have done to reduce casualties? They dropped leaflets and even called residents on the phone to tell them to leave because their neighborhood would be bombed! When the enemy hides among the civilian population some civilian casualties will happen, but Hezbollah has been inflating civilian casualties in order to bring a premature end to the conflict.

Cluster bombs? Did you even read what I wrote? If you disagree with me, fine, say so, but at least read it.

What do you think the Israelis could have done to reduce casualties? They dropped leaflets and even called residents on the phone to tell them to leave because their neighborhood would be bombed!
How about not bombing convoys of cars? If they're supposed to flee, how are you supposed to do that if convoys are targeted? Nevermind the ambulances or aid convoys...

How about not bombing convoys of cars? If they're supposed to flee, how are you supposed to do that if convoys are targeted? Nevermind the ambulances or aid convoys...

THANK YOU. I forgot about these cases. But I'm sure those cars were filled with Hezbollah fighters who were, uh, leaving the south. Right?

You're dodging the question. I said myself that civilian casualties were unavoidable. Answer this: do they have to use weapons that, while accepted as conventional, scatter unexploded bomblets that will almost certainly not kill a Hezbollah fighter but rather a farmer, or a kid, you know, one of those pesky non-combatants?

Modern cluster munitions all have a fail-safe self-destruct to clear those pesky bomblets. Far lower dud rate than in the past, so a lot of your complaints are based on out of date tech.

Additionally, Hez are firing with the kids right around the launcher. Storing rockets in buildings full of kids.

A precision weapon would still kill them.

Cluster munitions are often used against targets that might dismount and move as soon as they realize they're under attack. Say three truck launchers are firing from an area. With guided missiles, you'll probably hit one, and the rest will run to fire tomorrow. With cluster munitions, you're going to hit all three.

Still perfectly legal under the Fourth Geneva.

Why don't you call Hezbollah, and tell them to stop encouraging kids to hang out where they launch from? Tell them to put the launchers at least 1 km from the nearest village?

And, tell them to stop bragging to the UN rep, Jan Egeland, about how their policy of doing so saved a lot of their fighters from death, while killing a lot of civilians. They bragged about it.

Modern cluster munitions all have a fail-safe self-destruct to clear those pesky bomblets. Far lower dud rate than in the past, so a lot of your complaints are based on out of date tech.

Additionally, Hez are firing with the kids right around the launcher. Storing rockets in buildings full of kids.

A precision weapon would still kill them.

Cluster munitions are often used against targets that might dismount and move as soon as they realize they're under attack. Say three truck launchers are firing from an area. With guided missiles, you'll probably hit one, and the rest will run to fire tomorrow. With cluster munitions, you're going to hit all three.

Still perfectly legal under the Fourth Geneva.

Why don't you call Hezbollah, and tell them to stop encouraging kids to hang out where they launch from? Tell them to put the launchers at least 1 km from the nearest village?

And, tell them to stop bragging to the UN rep, Jan Egeland, about how their policy of doing so saved a lot of their fighters from death, while killing a lot of civilians. They bragged about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Speaking to the BBC from Tyre, southern Lebanon, Mr Clark said UN mine clearance teams had inspected just 40% of sites known to have been hit by Israeli munitions during the recent conflict with Hezbollah.

"The picture is still emerging at the moment, but there is a general spread of these munitions throughout southern Lebanon," Mr Clark said.

The Mine Action Service had a presence in southern Lebanon long before this year's fighting, clearing mines and unexploded ordnance from previous conflicts.

But Mr Clark said the aftermath of the recent fighting had to take precedence over the search for mines laid during Israel's 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

"Now there is a whole new problem here. In terms of the new problem I would like to think that we could get it under control in six months and complete clearance in 12 months."


Is the BBC a tool of Hezbollah? By the way, yes I am against everything Hezbollah is doing with regard to their location, their tactics etc. I'm not sure why you think they would listen to me if I told them to stop moving among the civilian population, but whatever.

Modern cluster munitions all have a fail-safe self-destruct to clear those pesky bomblets. Far lower dud rate than in the past, so a lot of your complaints are based on out of date tech.

Additionally, Hez are firing with the kids right around the launcher. Storing rockets in buildings full of kids.

A precision weapon would still kill them.

Cluster munitions are often used against targets that might dismount and move as soon as they realize they're under attack. Say three truck launchers are firing from an area. With guided missiles, you'll probably hit one, and the rest will run to fire tomorrow. With cluster munitions, you're going to hit all three.

Still perfectly legal under the Fourth Geneva.

Why don't you call Hezbollah, and tell them to stop encouraging kids to hang out where they launch from? Tell them to put the launchers at least 1 km from the nearest village?

And, tell them to stop bragging to the UN rep, Jan Egeland, about how their policy of doing so saved a lot of their fighters from death, while killing a lot of civilians. They bragged about it.

Funny CNN Int. just had a hing on IDF clusters saying that modern oneshave a failure rate of 10%(looking for linky) and that the IAF uses old cold-war models with a failure rate as high as 40%

Cluster bombs? Did you even read what I wrote? If you disagree with me, fine, say so, but at least read it.
What's wrong with them? After using them, when there is a cease fire, you can clean up the unexploded ordinance. The vast majority of bomblets explode as planned. There really aren't that many unexploded bomblets left behind, and unexploded ordinance is always left behind after a war. Even technology like artillery shells that have been around for ages leave behind some unexploded pieces.

How many convoys of cars leaving the area were hit?

every single one the Israelis spotted...

How about not bombing convoys of cars? If they're supposed to flee, how are you supposed to do that if convoys are targeted? Nevermind the ambulances or aid convoys...
How many convoys of cars leaving the area were hit?

What's wrong with them? After using them, when there is a cease fire, you can clean up the unexploded ordinance. The vast majority of bomblets explode as planned. There really aren't that many unexploded bomblets left behind, and unexploded ordinance is always left behind after a war. Even technology like artillery shells that have been around for ages leave behind some unexploded pieces.

The BBC reported that it would take six months to basically get a hold on the situation regarding the unexploded ordinance. In the meantime, "not that many" is still something, after all, and the article indicates that there's quite a lot of it laying around. Yes, I know, it's okay under the Fourth Geneva Convention. That isn't my point.

What's wrong with them? After using them, when there is a cease fire, you can clean up the unexploded ordinance. The vast majority of bomblets explode as planned. There really aren't that many unexploded bomblets left behind, and unexploded ordinance is always left behind after a war. Even technology like artillery shells that have been around for ages leave behind some unexploded pieces.
People are still finding unexploded ordinance from World War II in Western Europe, and Soviet ordinance in Eastern Europe after all.

every single one the Israelis spotted...
source?

What's wrong with them? After using them, when there is a cease fire, you can clean up the unexploded ordinance.
With a few years of effort.

I tell you what, imagine that you where you live there are some criminals. Imagine that the police think the best thing to do to deal with the criminals is to bomb the place from the air.
The police tell you to leave. Unfortunately, the first thing they did was bomb the roads and the second thing they did was fire a rocket at your dad as he was driving the family car back to pick you up.
A few days later they fire a cluster bomb at your house. Fortunately it doesn't kill you but it does fill the place with up to 40% unexploded ordinance. The bombing also destroyed all the social care buildings and the water and sewer supplies.

When you try and point out these facts to an ignorant American reporter he tells you "not to worry" and then gets in his SUV and drives back to his 5-star hotel in Tel-Aviv. Your mom, baby sister and you sit on the wall opposite your house and wait for the sun to come back up so you can see whether you are going to tread on any bomblets on your way to get water from the well 8 miles away.

You hear on the the radio that the bomb clearance teams could take up to 6 months to reach you.

Guess you are living on the street till then.

Except, the local Hezbollah representative (the one who took your mother to the only hospital in reach, a Hezbollah hospital, and made sure that she didn't die during her labour) comes along and says that he can provide housing for you and gives you several thousand dollars to help tide you over whilst your life is salvaged for you.

That's what's wrong with using cluster munitions.

Even technology like artillery shells that have been around for ages leave behind some unexploded pieces.
Far lower 'dud' ratio.
Are a bit more obvious.
Tend not to get stuck in trees or roll under beds or random bits of scrap that kids play with.

source?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12/saturday/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5218210.stm

The U.N. had to call a 72-hour cease-fire just to drive in aid convoys becaue Olmert stated that "any vehicle spotted south of the Litani river would be bombed"

People are still finding unexploded ordinance from World War II in Western Europe, and Soviet ordinance in Eastern Europe after all.

WWI actually.

You're dodging the question. I said myself that civilian casualties were unavoidable. Answer this: do they have to use weapons that, while accepted as conventional, scatter unexploded bomblets that will almost certainly not kill a Hezbollah fighter but rather a farmer, or a kid, you know, one of those pesky non-combatants?
I'm not avoiding anything. While denying it, you are clearly under the impression that war can be made sanitary, where only the bad guys are killed and the good guys are left unharmed. That's not true. When munitions are selected, they are selected based on two things. 1. Which munition has the best P_k in a given situation. That's why we don't use Harpoon missiles on tanks. It's probably the reason that CBUs are being used against missile launchers, however. The second factor is "What do I have on hand?" Sometimes the optimum weapon isn't available and a substitute needs to be made. Go back and do step 1 on what's in the armory. That might also be why CBUs are being used.

The bottom line is that you need bombs on target to destroy the target. If the best aren't available, you use what you have.

WWI actually.

yea, didn't some french farmer step on a toe-popper from The Somme recently?

With a few years of effort.
The Beeb says that it would take no more than six months, that's definitely not a few years.

I tell you what, imagine that you where you live there are some criminals. Imagine that the police think the best thing to do to deal with the criminals is to bomb the place from the air.
Quite the false analogy. Police, unlike the IDF, have a substantial close up ground presence, and no major opposition from the population. As such, they have no need to launch air-strikes against a criminal. If the situation were similar for the IDF in Lebanon, they would do much the same, but it isn't. It's quite the opposite.

Beyond that, the bit about the police telling you to leave then killing your dad is also more than a bit of bullshit. Besides the fact that Israelis chose their targets based on gathered intelligence, instead of randomly blasting cars. Given that some 500,000 people left from the areas that were targets, and no more than 500 Lebanese civies died, It would seem pretty clear that your scenario is an absolute worst case scenario.
Far lower 'dud' ratio.
Are a bit more obvious.
Tend not to get stuck in trees or roll under beds or random bits of scrap that kids play with.
At the exact same time, as I elaborated last night, if the IDF hit everything with a 500 pound bomb instead of using cluster munitions, the 500 pound bomb would flatten any nearby houses. A cluster bomb on the other hand would not cause any major structural damage.

Welcome to the world of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

snip
You really do have a way with words.

I'm not avoiding anything. While denying it, you are clearly under the impression that war can be made sanitary, where only the bad guys are killed and the good guys are left unharmed. That's not true. When munitions are selected, they are selected based on two things. 1. Which munition has the best P_k in a given situation. That's why we don't use Harpoon missiles on tanks. It's probably the reason that CBUs are being used against missile launchers, however. The second factor is "What do I have on hand?" Sometimes the optimum weapon isn't available and a substitute needs to be made. Go back and do step 1 on what's in the armory. That might also be why CBUs are being used.

The bottom line is that you need bombs on target to destroy the target. If the best aren't available, you use what you have.

I have to leave soon and can't keep arguing. I'll just say that yes, you are avoiding the issue and no, I don't believe that war can be made sanitary. Did I _ever_ say that? Please quote me. I said that civilian casualties are inevitable. I am rather disputing the Israeli use of a certain type of weapon. I refuse to believe that the IDF is running out of bombs and so are forced to use cluster bombs.

I second everything that Inconvenient Truths wrote. This sort of tactic will, if anything, increase resentment towards Israel on the Lebanese side and Hezbollah will gain more support.

You really do have a way with words.
So did Goebbels.

He's making use of classic Agitprop, nothing more. There's as much reality to his words as there is to the words of Hiz'bo'allah.

So did Goebbels.

He's making use of classic Agitprop, nothing more. There's as much reality to his words as there is to the words of Hiz'bo'allah.
:rolleyes:

Right. He disagrees with you and he's

A) A Nazi

and

B) somehow a supporter of Hezb'allah.

Riiight.

So did Goebbels.

and so did pope john-paul II

so pope=nazi propagandist?

:rolleyes:

Right. He disagrees with you and he's

A) A Nazi

and

B) somehow a supporter of Hezb'allah.

Riiight.
And you're busily drawing the wrong conclusions.

I was trying to say that someone can be wrong and be good with words, espescially in the fashion of propaganda, which is exactly what he wrote is...

...and...

...that he's bullshitting.

Tell me, where did I ever make either of those claims?

Tell me, where did I ever make either of those claims?
By comparing him to Goebbels, you compared him to a Nazi.

By comparing his 'reality' to the 'reality' of Hezb'allah, you alluded to a vague stance of "if it ain't critical of Hezb'allah, its supportin' 'em".

You didn't need to bluntly state the claim, you simply alluded to it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12/saturday/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5218210.stm

The U.N. had to call a 72-hour cease-fire just to drive in aid convoys becaue Olmert stated that "any vehicle spotted south of the Litani river would be bombed"
No, you see that doesn't support your statement that the Israelis bombed every single convoy they spotted. If they had there would be alot more casualties and it would be easy to find outraged news reports of it.

By comparing him to Goebbels, you compared him to a Nazi.

By comparing his 'reality' to the 'reality' of Hezb'allah, you alluded to a vague stance of "if it ain't critical of Hezb'allah, its supportin' 'em".

You didn't need to bluntly state the claim, you simply alluded to it.
I was comparing his use of language to the techniques used by Goebbels, not he himself. There's a major difference.

And I was impugning his facts, not he himself, by comparing them to the claims of Hiz'bo'allah.

If I wanted to do any of the things you charge, I would have come right out and said it.

The Beeb says that it would take no more than six months, that's definitely not a few years.
As the clean up teams are still assessing the situation, I applaud the BBC's prescisence.


Quite the false analogy. Police, unlike the IDF, have a substantial close up ground presence, and no major opposition from the population.
I thought that the IDF invaded Lebanon using several thousand troops?
I also though that many of the southern parts of Lebanon actually held religious factions that were friendly to the Israelis. In fact, wasn't there a plan by Israel to encourage a sepratist movement by Christian's in the south that would have ended with a seperate state marked by the Litani river (will go away and look up reference and then insert with an edit)?
Also, didn't the majority of Lebanese evacuate the area (so I read here)?
If the situation were similar for the IDF in Lebanon, they would do much the same, but it isn't. It's quite the opposite.
So there were not a substantial number of IDF troops in Lebanon?
And they suffered from major opposition from the population of south Lebanon?

Beyond that, the bit about the police telling you to leave then killing your dad is also more than a bit of bullshit.
The IDF did instruct people to leave their homes.
Are you implying that no one's parents were killed in the fighting?
I was laying it on a little thick. If you want you can imagine that your dad survived but decided not to risk the roads after hearing that even the Red Cross and the UN were being targeted by the IDF.

Besides the fact that Israelis chose their targets based on gathered intelligence, instead of randomly blasting cars.
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Israel_attacks_fleeing_convoy.html?siteSect=143&sid=6967529&cKey=1155334956000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5182564.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1173702006
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12082006/325/israel-hits-convoy-fleeing-south-lebanon-7-dead.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12082006/140/israeli-jets-fire-fleeing-convoy.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2289900,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1821706,00.html
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1173512006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/29/wmid229.xml
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1189530.php/Convoy_of_civilians_and_army_troops_under_Israeli_fire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/07/fisk_israel_com.php
http://www.countercurrents.org/leb-fisk280706.htm

I found this segment to be particularly enlightening:-
""The attack was carried out based on a suspicion. It was found to be incorrect," an army spokeswoman said."

Given that some 500,000 people left from the areas that were targets, and no more than 500 Lebanese civies died,
500.
1,140.
Depends which sources you believe.
And lets say that another 30% suffered serious injury.

It would seem pretty clear that your scenario is an absolute worst case scenario.
Not that clear. I think the worst case scenario would be that your family were at Qana. Or were in one of the cars that were hit by rockets or bombs.
Judging from pictures and reports in the UK press, the scenario is bleak and perhaps not atypical but the broad events are certainly not uncommon.

At the exact same time, as I elaborated last night, if the IDF hit everything with a 500 pound bomb instead of using cluster munitions, the 500 pound bomb would flatten any nearby houses. A cluster bomb on the other hand would not cause any major structural damage.
I suspect that I would rather have my house flattened than have it left standing but surrounded by bomblets that can kill my inquisitive children or absent minded wife.

Welcome to the world of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
To en extent. But there were other weapons that could have been used that would have been almost as effective but would have inflicted significantly less civilian casualties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Is the BBC a tool of Hezbollah? By the way, yes I am against everything Hezbollah is doing with regard to their location, their tactics etc. I'm not sure why you think they would listen to me if I told them to stop moving among the civilian population, but whatever.

Who put the mines there in southern Lebanon to stop the IDF? Eh?

So did Goebbels.
Comedy gold :D

He's making use of classic Agitprop, nothing more. There's as much reality to his words as there is to the words of Hiz'bo'allah.
Or the IDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War
"The most famous case of the cooperation between the media with the government was during the conquest of Beaufort. The Prime Minister of Israel reported that Beaufort was conquered "without losses", even though it was known that six soldiers of Sayeret Golani, including the commander of the Sayeret, Major Goni Hernik, fell during the fighting."

I was comparing his use of language to the techniques used by Goebbels, not he himself. There's a major difference.
I've always liked to style myself as a Bush or a Sharon.

And I was impugning his facts,
I thought you were impugning my imaginary scenario? ;)

Who put the mines there in southern Lebanon to stop the IDF? Eh?
I am unware of the IDF planting any mines in Lebanon (and I am not sure they would given the short term nature of any likely occupation).
By logical deduction that means they were planted by Hezbollah.
Frankly, I have little more tolerance for landmines than cluster bombs. the sooner they are banned from use and their user actually punished, the better.

I thought that the IDF invaded Lebanon using several thousand troops?
I also though that many of the southern parts of Lebanon actually held religious factions that were friendly to the Israelis. In fact, wasn't there a plan by Israel to encourage a sepratist movement by Christian's in the south that would have ended with a seperate state marked by the Litani river (will go away and look up reference and then insert with an edit)?
Also, didn't the majority of Lebanese evacuate the area (so I read here)?
The IDF forces moved up to the Litani, but there were areas in which Hiz'bo'allah was operating that the IDF did not put ground forces.

Are you implying that no one's parents were killed in the fighting?
I was laying it on a little thick. If you want you can imagine that your dad survived but decided not to risk the roads after hearing that even the Red Cross and the UN were being targeted by the IDF.
Of course people's parents were killed in the fighting, but these incidences were extremely rare.


I found this segment to be particularly enlightening:-
""The attack was carried out based on a suspicion. It was found to be incorrect," an army spokeswoman said."
I believe that it can be thoroughly proven that intelligence mistakes happen. What a shocker.

I suspect that I would rather have my house flattened than have it left standing but surrounded by bomblets that can kill my inquisitive children or absent minded wife.
If your house was flattened your wife and kids would be killed.

I am unware of the IDF planting any mines in Lebanon (and I am not sure they would given the short term nature of any likely occupation).
By logical deduction that means they were planted by Hezbollah.
Frankly, I have little more tolerance for landmines than cluster bombs. the sooner they are banned from use and their user actually punished, the better.

Probably a lot more landmines laying around, than unexploded cluster bomblets. I mean, Hezbollah had years to dig their bunkers, and emplace the mines.