NationStates Jolt Archive

27/08/2006
The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request.

Sources:Yahoo/TelegraphGroupLtd./OcceanNEWS©2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UIZRWQBAYNCABQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/wleb27.xml

my2cents: I guess the UN is not taking orders from Israel..
The UN forces shall consider requests by the lebanese Gov.. because they are on Lebanese territory.
Makes sense.

So... in another few months we get to do this all over again. Joy.

Its not UNIFIL's place to disarm them, unless asked to by the Lebanese govt. (As is with the UN, it has to be asked to intervene)

Unless that happens, it the Lebanese govt. that will disarm them (either by amnesty, forced, or subsume them into the Lebanese Army).

Whether that will happen or not is another matter. Time and patience are needed. It took several years to get the IRA to disarm even though they agreed to a ceasefire.

Edit: Having said that, I don't agree with the my2cents at the bottom of the OP.

wow....what in the world did Israel ever do to you

wow....what in the world did Israel ever do to you
I doubt they've done anything to the OPer but they certainly did kill about 900 innocent civilians. Not exactly the way to make peace.

I doubt they've done anything to the OPer.exactamente.. they did nothing to the OPer.

.. but they certainly did kill about 900 innocent civilians. Not exactly the way to make peace.900.. that's the last 30 days.

So... in another few months we get to do this all over again. Joy.
This type of thing has been going on for years, it's gonna take a while.

they certainly did kill about 900 innocent civilians. Not exactly the way to make peace.

What makes you so "certain" that all of those civilians were innocent, exactly?

Hezbollah is a civilian organization. Even if you kill every single Hezbollah, and don't kill a SINGLE innocent, everyone would still be a civilian.

Yes, about 900 civilians died, what makes you think all, or even most, of those were innocents?

I doubt they've done anything to the OPer but they certainly did kill about 900 innocent civilians. Not exactly the way to make peace.

this is true. However I still do not agree with UNIFIL's decision, a great way to keep this cease-fire intact would to give Israel some breahing room. You can bet that if they feel threatened by Hezbollah something is going to get bombed. When Israel feels that an attack is immenent, they strike first The Six Days war is a perfect example.

Yes, about 900 civilians died, what makes you think all, or even most, of those were innocents?For one thing..

Maybe the Lebanese law.. UNLIKE THE ISRAELI law.. says innocent until proven guilty.

either way you killed the civileans? its up to you to prove they deserved to die.
Isreal killed 10 times more civileans?.. Israel is 10 times more criminal.

Yes, about 900 civilians died, what makes you think all, or even most, of those were innocents?

Does the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' come to mind? The problem is, Arthais - if you just kill people higgledy-piggledy, there's no way of knowing for sure what those civilians were all about.

Like the way I'll hear that some supposed member of Al-Qaeda's been blown up in an aerial raid - great, but how do we know who they were, and what they were on about, and what they'd done to deserve being made into mincemeat.

Shit like that is better aired in a courtroom than swept under a carpet.

For one thing..

Maybe the Lebanese law.. UNLIKE THE ISRAELI law.. says innocent until proven guilty.

either way you killed the civileans? its up to you to prove they deserved to die.
Isreal killed 10 times more civileans?.. Israel is 10 times more criminal.

I have no idea what Lebanese law is, that is irrelevant. This was not an issue of Lebanese criminal justice, this was a matter of warfare.

Whether one is not guilty as a matter of law does not necessarily make one innocent as a matter of fact.

Don't say civilians were innocent unless you know, for a fact, that they were innocent.

And unless you're suggesting that Israel just bombed randomly all the time, you have absolutly no idea what evidence they had. Seeing people carrying rocket launchers is a fairly good amount of evidence that they're guilty.

Does the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' come to mind? The problem is, Arthais - if you just kill people higgledy-piggledy, there's no way of knowing for sure what those civilians were all about.


And you know what evidence the israeli intelligence forces had...how, exactly? Why do you assume all military action was "higgledy-piggledy"?

I'm not saying innocents didn't die, I am saying that it is ludicrusly short sighted to call them all innocent. And I'm sure the Israeli government would have been quite happen to let Lebanon deal with this in their own courtrooms, under their own criminal justice system.

Unfortunatly Lebanon appeared to be quite unwilling to do that.

This was not an issue of Lebanese criminal justice, this was a matter of warfare.I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.

27/08/2006
The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request.

Sources:Yahoo/TelegraphGroupLtd./OcceanNEWS©2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UIZRWQBAYNCABQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/wleb27.xml

my2cents: I guess the UN is not taking orders from Israel..
The UN forces shall consider requests by the lebanese Gov.. because they are on Lebanese territory.
Makes sense.

Just curious, but if a terrorist organization operating in a country neighboring yours had been launching rockets into the city where you live, would you be happy that the UN refused to do anything to prevent said terrorists from getting more rockets?

And you know what evidence the israeli intelligence forces had... Evidence? Israel has evidence? Show it.

Usually you have to prove them Guilty before you execute them..

But even if you are too late (they are already dead).. I challenge you to present your so called "evidence"..

You killed the civileans? its up to you prove they were Hezbollah figthers.

I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.

That's nice. You however are not the one who defines at as such. The Geneva Convention states that killing noncombatants that are being used as human shields is not, in fact, a war crime.

And since you are not in charge of the international standards of war crimes, it really doesn't matter from a global perspective what your "book" says.

Evidence? Israel has evidence? Show it.

Usually you have to prove them Guilty before you execute them..

But even if you are too late (they are already dead).. I challenge you to present your so called "evidence"..

You killed the civileans? its up to you prove they were Hezbollah figthers.

Interesting. I wonder how modern warfare would work, if you had to convict armed combatants through a trial before you shot them on the battlefield.

Evidence? Israel has evidence? Show it.



Do I have any idea what evidence the Israeli intelligence service has? Nope.

Do you? Nope.

Thus you have absolutly no idea who was innocent, and who was not. Thus any claim about how many innocents Israel has killed is absolutly without merit what so ever.

Usually you have to prove them Guilty before you execute them.

They weren't executed, they were killed in military action. Since when, in the history of warfare, has one nation had to bring others to trial BEFORE putting them out in the battlefield and killing them?

They weren't executed, they were killed in military action. Since when, in the history of warfare, has one nation had to bring others to trial BEFORE putting them out in the battlefield and killing them?

Yeah, I just said that like 5 minutes ago.

... if you had to convict armed combatants through a trial before you shot them on the battlefield.my point is that more than 90% were not armed.. making it a war Crime to kill those. (in my book)

my point is that more than 90% were not armed.. making it a war Crime to kill those. (in my book)


90%? Really?

Source?

my point is that more than 90% were not armed.. making it a war Crime to kill those. (in my book)

Israel tried to stop a terrorist orginization from bombing them. It was a civilIan (notice how that is spelled correctly) terrorist orginaztion so civilians had to killed. Were all of them guilty? no. Were most of them guilty? probably.

Anyway it beats the hell out of what Hezbullah did as they just shot rockets into random Israeli towns and hoped somebody would die whether soldiers or civilians while Israel tried to only harm and kill the Hezbullah members.

90%? Really?

Source?the source is the Lebanese Gov.

the source is the Lebanese Gov.

And you have not provided a citation for that...why?

And you have not provided a citation for that...why?I dont have to,

Lebanon Gov says latest toll is 68.

that covers my 90% number.

Levanon Gov also says 1/3 of the victims are children.

I dont have to,

Lebanon Gov says latest toll is 68.

that covers my 90% number.

Levanon Gov also says 1/3 of the victims are children.

I'll ask again.

Source?

Because the Tooth Fairy said you're wrong. And the Tooth Fairy is always correct, so therefore you're wrong.

And obviously the Tooth Fairy knows more than the Lebanese government, so if the Lebanese government said that, they're wrong too.

And how do I know that the Tooth Fairy said this? Well because the Tooth Fairy said this, duh.

So, I expect you to concede that you're wrong now.

And just in case my point has not been made...you state that the government of Lebanon has stated something, now prove that they said that.

Then when you're done with that, prove that the government is correct, or provide more trustworthy sources, as the Lebanese government's credibility is a little low these days, ya know, with that whole israeli warship/australian demolition thing.

I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.
There are these things called bombs, y'know. When they land on the ground they explode. Sometimes, in an explosion, things around the bomb which were not targeted can be destroyed. And sometimes, the targets are near civilians. Got that?

What makes you so "certain" that all of those civilians were innocent, exactly?

Hezbollah is a civilian organization. Even if you kill every single Hezbollah, and don't kill a SINGLE innocent, everyone would still be a civilian.

Yes, about 900 civilians died, what makes you think all, or even most, of those were innocents?

You don't give benefit of the doubt or a trial in combat. Point. click. bang. Dead/blasted Jihadi.

For one thing..

Maybe the Lebanese law.. UNLIKE THE ISRAELI law.. says innocent until proven guilty.

either way you killed the civileans? its up to you to prove they deserved to die.
Isreal killed 10 times more civileans?.. Israel is 10 times more criminal.

Actually, Israel is in the right. Remember Qana? There's israeli gunship video floating around of a Hezzie rocket truck running from building to building. Doing what? Dropping off tea and crumpets you say? Yeah....

Does the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' come to mind? The problem is, Arthais - if you just kill people higgledy-piggledy, there's no way of knowing for sure what those civilians were all about.

Like the way I'll hear that some supposed member of Al-Qaeda's been blown up in an aerial raid - great, but how do we know who they were, and what they were on about, and what they'd done to deserve being made into mincemeat.

Shit like that is better aired in a courtroom than swept under a carpet.

Sending in a check to uncle bin laden is more than enough reason to have your home curbstombed by the USAF in the middle of the night. Have your family with you? Tough. You should really think about them when you involve yourself in terrorism.

Don't support the people who want to forcibly convert me to Islam, and/or behead me.

27/08/2006
The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request.

Sources:Yahoo/TelegraphGroupLtd./OcceanNEWS©2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UIZRWQBAYNCABQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/wleb27.xml

my2cents: I guess the UN is not taking orders from Israel..
The UN forces shall consider requests by the lebanese Gov.. because they are on Lebanese territory.
Makes sense.


fine then there will be NO peace because Israel wiill do it ...and the UN will have proved itself worthless yet again .

my point is that more than 90% were not armed.. making it a war Crime to kill those. (in my book)

If 20 hezzbollah fighters are operating from beneath a hospital with 200 people in it and the building is bombed, who is responsible?

Hezzbollah, not the IDF.

So unless the IDF was picking up random houses in Lebanon to bomb, your point is mute, moot, dead, and stuffed.

I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.

How do you know they were unarmed, did you walk in right before the bombs fell and checked if they had weapons in there? You see the Hezabollah flags going up over Lebanon right now, "Innocent Hezabollah supporters right?"

But yeah this will happen all over again, the UN will sit on their asses while the Rockets start firing AGAIN. What Oceandrive do you still believe that Israel will just pack up because people want them too?

Which I know YOU want them to!

It's not going to happen unless every single person in Israel dies, but hey you'd support that too wouldn't you. Do you think that these fanatics will defeat Israel, you think that the UN would declare war on Isreal, (Which I'm sure you want)

Do you think if Israel falls the middle East will continue to exist? Idiot, if Israel dies it's "The Bomb" for whoever kills them in the Middle east. (I myself would do the same, if someone was going to kill me I'd be suret to take them with me) So you better ****ing hope Israel doesn't die. Unless you like a rain of radioactive sand to come down for the next who knows how many years.

Get out of your fantasy world Ocean Israel is there to stay no matter what you or what those Religious Facists want.

What makes you so "certain" that all of those civilians were innocent, exactly?

Hezbollah is a civilian organization. Even if you kill every single Hezbollah, and don't kill a SINGLE innocent, everyone would still be a civilian.
Using that logic, then Hizbollah didn't kill any Israeli civilians either - seeing as all Israelis need to do a period in the armed service.
Thus all Israelis are part of the army and there are no innocent civilians in that country. If you killed every single Israeli, everyone of them would be a member of the IDF.

Yay for using warped logic to justify killing civilians - my favourite kind!

Using that logic, then Hizbollah didn't kill any Israeli civilians either - seeing as all Israelis need to do a period in the armed service.
Thus all Israelis are part of the army and there are no innocent civilians in that country. If you killed every single Israeli, everyone of them would be a member of the IDF.

Yay for using warped logic to justify killing civilians - my favourite kind!

Do me a favor. Go back, reread my post, and pay REALLY REALLY close attention to it, and once you did that, read it again, to make 100% sure I said what you think I said.

But just in case you still don't get it, let me try again.

Hezbollah is not a military organization, at all, it is not part of the Lebanese military, they are all civilians. Thus there are two types of civilians in Lebanon. Innocent civilians, and Hezbollah. Innocents are innocents. Hezbollah are terrorists.

So when a Lebanese civilian is killed by military action, that civilian was either a member of Hezbollah, or an innocent. Are there innocent civilians in Lebanon? Absolutly. Are there civilians that are anything BUT innocent? Absolutly.

So when we hear that Israel killed civilians, what we do NOT know, if we have any further information, is whether those civilians were innocents, or whether they were Hezbollah.

Simply killing civilians is not a bad thing, Hezbollah is a civilian organization. Just because someone is a civilian does NOT mean he's not, in fact, a terrorist.

We do not know for sure how many civilians that died in this were innocent, and which were terrorists. And since we do NOT know that number, any claims to that number, such as "Israel killed 900 innocents omg!" is stupid, we do not know who were innocent, and who were terrorists, thus any claims one way or the other are stupid at best, and propagandizing at worst.

As for the "no innocent civilians in Israel bit", this is so stupid I shall not even dignify that with an answer.

Now once again, before you go all righteous indignation, go ahead and reread what I said...then read it again, and make sure, make REALLY REALLY sure I'm saying what you think I'm saying, before you go develop some mental masturbatory material about how you "pwned" me.

How do you know they were unarmed, did you walk in right before the bombs fell and checked if they had weapons in there? You see the Hezabollah flags going up over Lebanon right now, "Innocent Hezabollah supporters right?".
How do we know they were unarmed?
Probably due to the fact that babies and small children have great difficulty holding guns.

But I guess you don't care that children were killed by the IDF, do you?
In your mind they were all Hizbollah, and thus deserving of death.

Oh well. Keep dehumanising the other side Lone Alliance - it makes the killing their children all that much easier to accept, doesn't it?

How do we know they were unarmed?
Probably due to the fact that babies and small children have great difficulty holding guns.

But I guess you don't care that children were killed by the IDF, do you?
In your mind they were all Hizbollah, and thus deserving of death.

Oh well. Keep dehumanising the other side Lone Alliance - it makes the killing their children all that much easier to accept, doesn't it?

Innocents dying is tragic.

Do I care that they died? You bet your ass I do. And who do I blame for that? I blame those that used them as human shields.

That wasn't the IDF, by the wya.

How do we know they were unarmed?
Probably due to the fact that babies and small children have great difficulty holding guns.

But I guess you don't care that children were killed by the IDF, do you?
In your mind they were all Hizbollah, and thus deserving of death.

Oh well. Keep dehumanising the other side Lone Alliance - it makes the killing their children all that much easier to accept, doesn't it?

Nope, but I still don't see the proof that 1/3 were children, especially after the fact that a bombing that was claimed to have killed 40 turned out to have really only killed one person, or the claim that only around 60 Hezabollah soldiers died. And isn't it really strange that there were such high concentration of children in these bombing areas but so few adults? I wouldn't be suprised if they just took the kids and let them get bombed on purpose. Of course the noble Hezabollah would never do that right?

Nope I don't blame the children, it's a sad thing for children to die, but is it the IDF's fault? No.

If someone is running from the police and in a horrible act they throw a mother and baby in front of the police car making them run over them is it the police's fault. Seriously should the police be charged with murder or should the criminal be charged with Murder? I'll wait for your reply...

If 20 hezzbollah fighters are operating from beneath a hospital with 200 people in it and the building is bombed, who is responsible?

Hezzbollah, not the IDF.

So unless the IDF was picking up random houses in Lebanon to bomb, your point is mute, moot, dead, and stuffed.

They are, pretty much. They obliterated downtown Beirut, and bombed up and down Lebanon even though Hezbollan forces are located in South Lebanon.


As for it being the fault of Hezbollah, not the IDF, who pressed the button? As far as I'm concerned, that's what it boils down to. If it's you that launched the missile, you take responsibility. An artillery shell or guided bombs are the worst way to solve these things because of horrendous collateral damage and the resulting indiscretion for their use. Israel has one of the largest and most efficient armies by manner of it's conscription. Why don't they put it to proper use? You don't see Britain bombing Northern Ireland because of the IRA, why do we hold Israel to a lower standard?


Going back to the picking up random houses to bomb point, it may not be Lebanon but this is pretty indicative of the Israeli tactics.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2319379,00.html

Nope I don't blame the children, it's a sad thing for children to die, but is it the IDF's fault? No.

If someone is running from the police and in a horrible act they throw a mother and baby in front of the police car making them run over them is it the police's fault. Seriously should the police be charged with murder or should the criminal be charged with Murder? I'll wait for your reply...


That's a poor analogy. This is more a case of "A man is on the run from the police, he hides in the same house as a mother and child. Rather than sending a team to deal with him, they flatten the house." The police are responsible because they don't care who or what gets in the way, as long as they look like they're getting their man. When the police employ such tactics it's opression - state sanctioned terrorism.

exactamente.. they did nothing to the OPer.

900.. that's the last 30 days....In Lebanon.

Add a 100, 150 or so in the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

It's amazing how little press coverage the increased offensive within Israel's borders has gotten after Hizbollah - Israel conflict. If I didn't know any better I'd say the attack was pre-planned by IDF....

Gotham City State;11606522']As for it being the fault of Hezbollah, not the IDF, who pressed the button? As far as I'm concerned, that's what it boils down to. If it's you that launched the missile, you take responsibility. An artillery shell or guided bombs are the worst way to solve these things because of horrendous collateral damage and the resulting indiscretion for their use. Israel has one of the largest and most efficient armies by manner of it's conscription. Why don't they put it to proper use? You don't see Britain bombing Northern Ireland because of the IRA, why do we hold Israel to a lower standard?

So, by your logic, so long as Hezbollah operates amongst the civilian populace, they have the moral high ground and Israel should just let them get on with it? I think not.

I was unaware that the IRA launched missiles at Britain with the sole aim of killing as many civilians as possible?

I was unaware that the IRA launched missiles at Britain with the sole aim of killing as many civilians as possible?

Bombs are bombs. Doesn't really matter whether they are planted or 'launched' now does it?

I doubt they've done anything to the OPer but they certainly did kill about 900 innocent civilians. Not exactly the way to make peace.

Sorry Hez killed 900 civilians. Stop invading other countries and killing and kidnapping soldiers.

I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.

There has never been a war in the entire history of mankind where noncombatants wernt killed so good luck with those war trials.

So, by your logic, so long as Hezbollah operates amongst the civilian populace, they have the moral high ground and Israel should just let them get on with it? I think not.

I was unaware that the IRA launched missiles at Britain with the sole aim of killing as many civilians as possible?
FYI majority of Israel's casualties were *military personnel* (44 dead civilians vs 119 dead soldiers). Interestingly 18 of the civilian casualties were allegedly Israeli arabs...

Lebanese side took a loss of 44 dead soldiers and *1600* dead civilians.

Hizbollah suffered 74 to 500+ casualties depending on which propaganda source you trust.

(numbers from Wikipedia).

FYI majority of Israel's casualties were *military personnel* (44 dead civilians vs 119 dead soldiers). Interestingly 18 of the civilian casualties were allegedly Israeli arabs...


Only because Hez rockets suck. It sure as hell wasnt for not trying.

exactamente.. they did nothing to the OPer.

900.. that's the last 30 days.

yes, very member of hezz they killed is an innocent civilian. 450 documented hezz members out of 900 dead is a 1-1 civilian to army ration. you try to find
another army that can be this precise.

yes, very member of hezz they killed is an innocent civilian. 450 documented hezz members out of 900 dead is a 1-1 civilian to army ration. you try to find
another army that can be this precise.
1. Your numbers seem to be off (Lebanese government reports 1300-1600 civilian casualties (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060823.MIDDLE23E/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/)).
1b. I wouldn't trust Hizbollah or IDF to give anywhere near the correct figures of Hizbollah casualties
2. AFAIK not all Hizbollah members are part of the military wing
3. Also, Hizbollah managed a better ratio when it comes to military/civilian casualties...

If Israel would've really wanted to uproot Hizbollah they would've done it on ground instead of ultimately ineffective, even in short term, bombings that are potentially dangerous for the future stability of region and worldwide threat of terror - A large scale ground operation would've had similar repercussions and even more dangerous side-effects though, which makes it a no-no solution....for now.

1. Your numbers seem to be off (Lebanese government reports 1300-1600 civilian casualties (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060823.MIDDLE23E/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/)).
1b. I wouldn't trust Hizbollah or IDF to give anywhere near the correct figures of Hizbollah casualties
2. AFAIK not all Hizbollah members are part of the military wing
3. Also, Hizbollah managed a better ratio when it comes to military/civilian casualties...

If Israel would've really wanted to uproot Hizbollah they would've done it on ground instead of ultimately ineffective, even in short term, bombings that are potentially dangerous for the future stability of region and worldwide threat of terror - A large scale ground operation would've had similar repercussions and even more dangerous side-effects though, which makes it a no-no solution....for now.

Even if that's true (and these number are not documented -- so they are likely to be exagerated), Israel has dropped leaflets all over Lebanon with the NAMES of all the Hezz members killed. So the ~450 Hezz members dead is
well-documented number now. That makes it approximately 1 soldier dead
for every 2.5 civilians. These numbers are still very low compare to any
war ever fought in modern times. If you factor in the fact Hezz was hiding
behind children, Israel is still by far the most precise and the most
humanitarian-needs-conscious army in the world. Being stronger does not
make them evil. They are fighting for survival.
Hezz member killed in the war all over

Even if that's true (and these number are not documented -- so they are likely to be exagerated), Israel has dropped leaflets all over Lebanon with the NAMES of all the Hezz members killed. So the ~450 Hezz members dead is
well-documented number

Cite? How could Israelis know the names of people they kill on a lebanon city block from artillery from 20 miles away?

Even if that's true (and these number are not documented -- so they are likely to be exagerated), Israel has dropped leaflets all over Lebanon with the NAMES of all the Hezz members killed. So the ~450 Hezz members dead is
well-documented number now. That makes it approximately 1 soldier dead
for every 2.5 civilians. These numbers are still very low compare to any
war ever fought in modern times. If you factor in the fact Hezz was hiding
behind children, Israel is still by far the most precise and the most
humanitarian-needs-conscious army in the world. Being stronger does not
make them evil. They are fighting for survival.
Hezz member killed in the war all over

Source?

Anyway it still doesn't excuse the fact that Israel put Beirut back about a decade. What used to be the Paris of the Middle East is now a smouldering ruin. The way I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong) Hezbollah captured 2 IDF soldiers, Israel bombed Beirut, so Hezzbollah fires rockets at N Israel, well dead hostages are useless to hezzbollah they weren't about to execute them. What Israel should have done is invaded lebanon with the help of either the U.N. or N.A.T.O. and simply destroyed Hezzbollah.

What Israel should have done is invaded lebanon with the help of either the U.N. or N.A.T.O. and simply destroyed Hezzbollah.

LMAO your kidding right? The Salvation Army could beat the UN in a fight. NATO attacking Hez? Youd have a bettter chance raising your own army of cloned flying monkeys.

LMAO your kidding right?

no, a ground invasion would have done much less damage to the Lebanese infrastructure than indisciminate bombing, would have had less civilians killed because they woul have had time to evacuate, and would have served better to eliminate hezzbollah. If you think Israel suffers from a lack of allies your dead wrong, almost all of europe support Israels right to exist, and it has the support of the only superpower in the world, the United States of America

The Salvation Army could beat the UN in a fight.

They did well enough in Kuwait/Iraq.... or Korea....

it confuses me on the reasons why people continue to listen or even support the UN

its corrupted and has obvious evidence of nations within it using it to continue their nations agenda.

it confuses me on the reasons why people continue to listen or even support the UN

its corrupted and has obvious evidence of nations within it using it to continue their nations agenda.

Like America, for instance.

Like America, for instance.

Or Russia. Or France. Or the UK. Or China.

You don't have to pass a single resolution in order to manipulate the UN - you just have to be obsequious, and prevent it from doing something you don't approve of that would mess up your plans.

They did well enough in Kuwait/Iraq.... or Korea....

Yeah, with the US backing them up.

They did well enough in Kuwait/Iraq.... or Korea....

US led actions. Otherwise, the UN seems to be a recipe for "we'll stand around in our blue helmets and watch you all slaughter each other's civilian populations and run a whorehouse using your civilian women".

You don't have to pass a single resolution in order to manipulate the UN - you just have to be obsequious, and prevent it from doing something you don't approve of that would mess up your plans.


Or withold funding, undermine comitees, buy votes, threaten, and of course, veto. Like the US.

US led actions. Otherwise, the UN seems to be a recipe for "we'll stand around in our blue helmets and watch you all slaughter each other's civilian populations and run a whorehouse using your civilian women".

Unlike the US in the Phillipines, of course.....

Or withold funding, undermine comitees, buy votes, threaten, and of course, veto. Like the US.

Let's be honest - like any permanent member of the Security Council.

It's why they designed it that way in the first place.

Unlike the US in the Phillipines, of course.....

The people in the Phillipines seemed quite able to run their own whorehouses at Subic Bay without US assistance.

On the other hand, the UN seems to want to have a hand in actually running them.

For one thing..

Maybe the Lebanese law.. UNLIKE THE ISRAELI law.. says innocent until proven guilty.

either way you killed the civileans? its up to you to prove they deserved to die.
Isreal killed 10 times more civileans?.. Israel is 10 times more criminal.

The IDF also happens to be way more than ten times more lethal than Hiz'bo'allah, what a shocker that more civvies died as the result of Israeli actions. If anything, this shows restraint, while, Hiz'bo'allah threw their full force at Israel, the IDF didn't even toss a quarter of their strength at Hiz'bo'allah.

Source?

Anyway it still doesn't excuse the fact that Israel put Beirut back about a decade. What used to be the Paris of the Middle East is now a smouldering ruin. The way I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong) Hezbollah captured 2 IDF soldiers, Israel bombed Beirut, so Hezzbollah fires rockets at N Israel, well dead hostages are useless to hezzbollah they weren't about to execute them. What Israel should have done is invaded lebanon with the help of either the U.N. or N.A.T.O. and simply destroyed Hezzbollah.

UN was already there. It was doing nothing. This "help" was simply not offered.
Israel tried negotiating with Hezz before. There was a previous abduction and they negotiated a release in which Israel gave up hundreds of Hezz members. As a reward they got another attack. How dare anyone to tell them how much force to use to defend themselves. If they have to level all of Lebanon to defended themselves against attacks they have every right to do it. When the guilt is so clear -- Hezz attacked Israel, killed soldiers inside of Israel and then kidnapped Israelli soldiers -- the responsibility for the dead is completely on the attackers' hands.

Here's a quote from a Lebanese newspaper
http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/0FC50D78C7E5A986C22571C7003B0A5F?OpenDocument
search for "Haifa". You'll clearly see that Hizbullah was targeting Haifa. Haifa
is a civilian town with no military installation in it. This is clear targeting of
civilian inftrastructure. Does anyone seriously doubt that Hezz claims to
represent interests of Lebanon while in reality just tryint to use terror to
serve interests of Iran? I mean you may not like Israel, but really? Can you
really belive yourself when you claim that Hezz is anything but a terrorist
organization that infiltrated Lebanon and now essentially runs the south of
Lebanon?
This is a joke.

The IDF also happens to be way more than ten times more lethal than Hiz'bo'allah, what a shocker that more civvies died as the result of Israeli actions. If anything, this shows restraint, while, Hiz'bo'allah threw their full force at Israel, the IDF didn't even toss a quarter of their strength at Hiz'bo'allah.

Explain how more dead civilians shows restraint. 'Cause I'm dying to hear your explanation.

Explain how more dead civilians shows restraint. 'Cause I'm dying to hear your explanation.

I think he meant that if Israel wanted too ALL of Lebanon would be a smoking crateor right now, instead of just the southern area and the Hezabollah run areas in Beirut. Despite what everyone says ALL of Beirut is not destroyed.

I think he meant that if Israel wanted too ALL of Lebanon would be a smoking crateor right now, instead of just the southern area and the Hezabollah run areas in Beirut. Despite what everyone says ALL of Beirut is not destroyed.

Thank god they destroyed only half a country and killed around a thousand civilians instead of all the country and 3000 civilians!

And thank god we don't bomb them for their disregard of human lives.

Thank god they destroyed only half a country and killed around a thousand civilians instead of all the country and 3000 civilians!

And thank god we don't bomb them for their disregard of human lives.

I doubt that half the country is destroyed. In fact, having seen several hundred photos from Getty and other photo sources, a lot of the "damage" has been faked or exaggerated.

Without going there for some direct, first-hand bomb damage assessment by experts (instead of Hezbollah propagandists or Reuters reporters), you can't say "half the country".

So, by your logic, so long as Hezbollah operates amongst the civilian populace, they have the moral high ground and Israel should just let them get on with it? I think not.

I was unaware that the IRA launched missiles at Britain with the sole aim of killing as many civilians as possible?

No. So long as Hezbollah operate amongst civilian populace, Israel cannot shell and bomb the hell out of them and still maintain the moral highground because that means they are using state sanctioned terror tactics.

The IRA has a long history of bombing civilian targets. What the IRA used is a lot more lethal than anything Hezzbollah was using up until the point it started escalating, even then IRA bombings are more effective (read also - kill more people in one go) than a World War 2 Katushya.

Sorry Hez killed 900 civilians. Stop invading other countries and killing and kidnapping soldiers.

Zing. It would be good if Israel could do the same thing. Their list of actions in countries such as, I dunno, Palestine isn't the best. And as has been mentioned earlier, the side of the border that the troops were captured on was ambiguous. It's equally possible that the Israeli troops were in Lebanon at the time, which would be an act of war, which would mean Israel caused the entire conflict.

That makes it approximately 1 soldier dead
for every 2.5 civilians. These numbers are still very low compare to any
war ever fought in modern times.

This is a war against a supposedly terrorist organisation. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. So why is this even a war in the first place?

Israel is still by far the most precise and the most humanitarian-needs-conscious army in the world.

Maybe you've had your head buried throughout the entire conflict, but Beirut isn't in South Lebanon and it's not a Hezbollah stronghold, so why did they bomb the hell out of it? Why did they attack civilian docks and airports? Why did they destroy thousands of miles of road? Why did they take out bridges? Why did they make it impractical for people to flee, why did they kill them as they fleed, why did they attack the cities that the people had fleed to?

Most precise? Most humanitarian-needs-concious? That's bullshit and you know it. Observe the awesome humanitarian acts of Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1842167,00.html

Being stronger does not make them evil.

No, I rather thought the whole bombing of fleeing refugees, rocketing a Reuters jeep and shelling a UN listening post kinda covered the whole "evil" thing pretty well.

They are fighting for survival.

And why? Because their country was founded out of zionist terrorism, and when it was established they did little to nothing when it came to trying to get along with the locals. If Israelis are "fighting for survival", does that make Palestinians dead? Because their conditions are a whole lot worse.

If anything, this shows restraint, while, Hiz'bo'allah threw their full force at Israel, the IDF didn't even toss a quarter of their strength at Hiz'bo'allah.

Restraint would be using sane tactics that don't lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved (which actually sounds a lot like what Israel does in Palestine). Hezbollah are not representatives of any nation or state. Their policy was not elected by the locals in an unbiased show of democracy. The IDF on the other hand is acting on the orders of a sovereign nation the leadership of which was democratically elected. Who would you think it more feasible for us to hold to respectable standards?

How dare anyone to tell them how much force to use to defend themselves. If they have to level all of Lebanon to defended themselves against attacks they have every right to do it. When the guilt is so clear --

Death by association, collective punishment. Isn't this what Hitler did? Oops, kicked your cat. Sorry.

Hezz attacked Israel, killed soldiers inside of Israel and then kidnapped Israelli soldiers --

Or inside Lebanon, as sources suggest, which makes the Israeli position a wholelot stickier. Do you think they'd gone for the cheap absynthe or just the lovely women?

the responsibility for the dead is completely on the attackers' hands.

Good to see you hold Israel responsible for attacking and butchering civilians. I was beginning to fear you lacked a moral backbone.

You'll clearly see that Hizbullah was targeting Haifa.

Not the mighty Qassam! Oh woe is use, for their mighty barrage of weaponry is demolishing out homes!

Oh crap, I was forgetting that Israel has Patriot Missiles ... slight unbalance in effectiveness there. You can launch a hundred Qassams and be lucky to kill a single person. You can launch a Patriot and be amazed if you don't kill 10.

This is clear targeting of civilian inftrastructure.

Yes. But is it on the same scale as the IDF? No.

serve interests of Iran?

I see. A Middle East conspiracy. If it's in the interest of Iran to keep Israel out of Lebanon, then yes Hezbollah serve the interests of Iran.

Can you really belive yourself when you claim that Hezz is anything but a terrorist organization that infiltrated Lebanon and now essentially runs the south of Lebanon?

Hezbollah was sat up in the '80s as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. They are a combative force trained in guerilla tactics (owing to imbalance of arsenal available) with the intent of getting and keeping Israel out of Lebanon. They use unsavoury tactics, but their actions are far more palatable when you compare them with things like the shelling of Beirut. However, they are not selected by the people of Lebanon to rule their affairs, and even if they were that wouldn't make Lebanese fair game during combat operations. You kill a guy who wasn't holding a gun and you're a murderer, it doesn't matter if someone behind them did have a gun.


Without going there for some direct, first-hand bomb damage assessment by experts (instead of Hezbollah propagandists or Reuters reporters), you can't say "half the country".

Damn you Reuters! Damn you for reporting events as you see them! Damn you for not mimicking IDF propaganda! Reuters aren't the only people there. We have the BBC and Channel 4 too! And they say pretty similar things. Ok, so they're not bastions of truth to the same level as, I dunno, Fox News ... but it's something.

I doubt that half the country is destroyed. In fact, having seen several hundred photos from Getty and other photo sources, a lot of the "damage" has been faked or exaggerated.

Without going there for some direct, first-hand bomb damage assessment by experts (instead of Hezbollah propagandists or Reuters reporters), you can't say "half the country".

What about the ecological devestation the IDF visited upon the Lebanese shoreline, DK?

Israel's Ecological Devastation of Palestine and Lebanon: Eco-War

Mark Lynas, The New Statesman - Tuesday, 15 August 2006, 14:23

It is a measure of the scale of 'Israels atrocities against the Lebanese that the worst environmental disaster in Lebanon's history has gone largely unreported in the midst of all the death and destruction. "Chances are our whole marine ecosystem facing the Lebanese shoreline is already dead," laments the country's environment minister, Yacub Sarraf. "What is at stake is all marine life in the eastern Mediterranean."

More than 15,000 tonnes of fuel oil has leaked from Lebanon's Jiyye power plant since it was attacked by Israeli warplanes on 13 July. As if deliberately to hamper any attempts to staunch the flow of oil, Israel then bombed the power plant again two days later, preventing emergency workers from gaining access to the site. An indication of the scale of the disaster comes from satellite photos showing a 3,000-square-kilometre slick along two-thirds of 's coastline. The oil has now begun to wash up in Syria.

None of this will come as a surprise to the Palestinians, who have suffered the environmental consequences of Israel's scorched-earth policies for decades. The water supply to nearly a million Gazans was cut off by bombing last month. Untreated sewage lies in pools on the beach, thanks to Israeli shelling of the Gaza City waste-water treatment plant in 2002. Landfill sites are overflowing and on fire, and two pilot composting plants - constructed with outside help as an alternative to landfill - lie idle, having also been damaged by Israeli bullets.

Israel will no doubt deny all of this or construe it as "accidental" (and I will be accused of anti-Semitism for daring to write it). No such claim can be made for the 50,000 tonnes of hazardous waste that the UN Environment Programme discovered in 2003, buried by on Gaza's beach. Nor can the impact of West Bank settlements be so easily dismissed: untreated sewage pours down from their army-protected hilltop fortresses, contaminating what remains of Palestinian agricultural land in the valleys. Aluminium and electronics factories avoid domestic Israeli pollution controls by relocating to the occupied territories, where hazardous waste is simply dumped on Palestinian land.

In areas where 's segregation wall has been completed, whole communities are cut off from their farmlands and water supplies. Construction of the barrier, known to its Palestinian victims as the "apartheid wall", continues apace with support, despite a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague declaring it illegal and immoral. As I write, Israeli soldiers have stopped Palestinians from venturing on to their own land near Jenin, so that troops can begin the uprooting of hundreds of olive trees in advance of the wall.

In March last year, according to the Israeli peace campaigner Ethan Ganor, shepherds from Palestinian villages near Hebron found their livestock killed by poison pellets scattered in their fields by Jewish settlers. This might be dismissed as the action of a few fanatics, but it is consistent with reports about settlers targeting Palestinian resources. In 2003, the Guardian journalist Chris McGreal reported how settlers had hacked down Palestinian olive trees in a night attack. More than 250 trees, some dating from Roman times, were damaged or destroyed.

Violence against the land and its inhabitants has become part of the same matrix of aggression. Perhaps most revealing was Israel's destruction of a solar power project in Gaza in an air strike on 28 June. That environmentally friendly technology which could deliver a better future for Palestinians is not part of Tel Aviv's plan. As far as is concerned, the Palestinians have no future - except as a dispossessed underclass, deprived of land and identity, segregated by a four-metre-high wall into a network of South African-style bantustans. This is not a future any people can or should accept, not in South Africa, nor in Palestine. And so, the war goes on.

Or does this somehow not count, in light of the glamour of exploding phallic symbols?

What about the ecological devestation the IDF visited upon the Lebanese shoreline, DK?

Or does this somehow not count, in light of the glamour of exploding phallic symbols?
Apparently, you missed out on the Lebanese retraction.

Apparently, you missed out on the Lebanese retraction.

Well, apparently I did. So what part of the Israeli ecological devastation of the Lebanese shoreline did the Lebanese retract, DK?

Illuminate me.

Well, apparently I did. So what part of the Israeli ecological devastation of the Lebanese shoreline did the Lebanese retract, DK?

Illuminate me.

Apparently, the oil spill was nowhere near as large as they initially stated. So they took it back.
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=3906&CategoryID=2

Apparently, EU officials say you can't say how large the spill is - not all of the oil has leaked out.

Yes, if all of it leaked out, it would rival the Exxon Valdez accident. But it hasn't. And since people are already working on cleanup and stopped the oil, it won't.

Nice hyperbole on your account. Read al-Jazeera?

Just to mention it:
The spill has polluted about 200 kilometers of the Lebanese and Syrian coasts, the EU said.
in comparison:
Lebanese Coastline according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Lebanon): 210 km.

Just to mention it:

in comparison:
Lebanese Coastline according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Lebanon): 210 km.

clearly a minor spill :rolleyes:

Just to mention it:

in comparison:
Lebanese Coastline according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Lebanon): 210 km.

Well it's a good thing it hit the Syrian coast as well.

Gotham City State;11609766']Well it's a good thing it hit the Syrian coast as well.

Yeah, that makes it sooooo much better :rolleyes: :D

Gotham City State;11609007']

Zing. It would be good if Israel could do the same thing. Their list of actions in countries such as, I dunno, Palestine isn't the best. And as has been mentioned earlier, the side of the border that the troops were captured on was ambiguous. It's equally possible that the Israeli troops were in Lebanon at the time, which would be an act of war, which would mean Israel caused the entire conflict.


LMAO what WONT you do to try to twist situations to shift blame on Israel? The leader of Hezbolla ORDERED an attack on Israeli soilders in ADVANCE that was FULLY preplanned and with full knowledge of its implications. He ADMITTED that had he known of Israels responce to it he wouldnt have done it. This WASNT an example of some sneaky Israelis sneaking across some line to cause mischief in Lebanon and its was the wonderful Hezbolla that happened to be patrolling the area and captured them. It was a preplanned attack from the highest levels of hezbolla leadership with nothing but evil and manipulative intent behind it. Dont even TRY to insinuate otherwise.

Gotham City State;11609007']

If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved (which actually sounds a lot like what Israel does in Palestine). .

Oh wait, it turns out your insane and delusional. I refuse to debate insane people so i withdraw my debate.

Explain how more dead civilians shows restraint. 'Cause I'm dying to hear your explanation.

If they hadn't shown restraint, there'd be a lot more people dead. It's like this, if Germany and Luxembourg get into a war, which side will suffer more civilian casualties? Obviously Luxembourg, because they have a fraction of the military capacity of Germany.

Gotham City State;11609007']No. So long as Hezbollah operate amongst civilian populace, Israel cannot shell and bomb the hell out of them and still maintain the moral highground because that means they are using state sanctioned terror tactics.
So they are supposed to sit there and let THEIR people die instead...

Gotham City State;11609007']This is a war against a supposedly terrorist organisation. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. So why is this even a war in the first place? Terrorism by an organized group that is sponsered by a state (Or funded...) is an act of war. (And to keep to my point people had the moral high ground to declare war on the US for supporting the Gerullia operations in South America.)


Gotham City State;11609007']Maybe you've had your head buried throughout the entire conflict, but Beirut isn't in South Lebanon and it's not a Hezbollah stronghold, so why did they bomb the hell out of it? It IS a Hezbollah stronghold. That's where they have their offices and it's also where the higher ups live. The Hezbollah political HQ is in Beirut I think.

Gotham City State;11609007'] Why did they attack civilian docks and airports? Why did they destroy thousands of miles of road? Why did they take out bridges? Shipments from their sponsers Iran and Syria.

Gotham City State;11609007'] Why did they make it impractical for people to flee, why did they kill them as they fleed,
Wait you mean they killed EVERY SINGLE person that fled??? Wait you are just pulling stuff from nowhere. Mainly vehicles actually, Vans and Ambulences that could be used by Hezbollah as transports.



Gotham City State;11609007']Most precise? Most humanitarian-needs-concious? That's bullshit and you know it. Observe the awesome humanitarian acts of Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1842167,00.html
See that Hezbollah didn't do squat either.


Gotham City State;11609007']No, I rather thought the whole bombing of fleeing refugees, rocketing a Reuters jeep and shelling a UN listening post kinda covered the whole "evil" thing pretty well.
How many times refugees were bombed? One twice? Reuter's jeep is wrong. (I think it's a revenge attack) The UN listening post did have enemies inside it, after all the UN basicly couldn't even tell Hezbollah to leave.

Gotham City State;11609007']Restraint would be using sane tactics that don't lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved (which actually sounds a lot like what Israel does in Palestine).
..Ha Ha hahahaha, Like that could happen, besides see my earlier rant about what Israel would do if it lost.
Like I said before: Israel Loses=Middle East Glassed.
I find your lack of reality disturbing.

Gotham City State;11609007'] Hezbollah are not representatives of any nation or state. Their policy was not elected by the locals in an unbiased show of democracy. The IDF on the other hand is acting on the orders of a sovereign nation the leadership of which was democratically elected. Who would you think it more feasible for us to hold to respectable standards?
Either both or None. Besides war isn't respectable.

Gotham City State;11609007']Death by association, collective punishment. Isn't this what Hitler did? Oops, kicked your cat.
Nope called within the line of fire. Horrible Horrible stuff like that happens in war. Did I mention Horrible?

Gotham City State;11609007']Good to see you hold Israel responsible for attacking and butchering civilians. I was beginning to fear you lacked a moral backbone. 'Butchering?' I didn't know they stabbed civilians?

Gotham City State;11609007']
Not the mighty Qassam! Oh woe is use, for their mighty barrage of weaponry is demolishing out homes! No it's the ball berrings inside that turn you to swiss cheese that's bad.

Gotham City State;11609007']Oh crap, I was forgetting that Israel has Patriot Missiles Which are nearly useless and not designed for small low flying rocekts..

Gotham City State;11609007']You can launch a hundred Qassams and be lucky to kill a single person. You can launch a Patriot and be amazed if you don't kill 10. The Patriot is a SURFACE TO AIR missile. Don't talk about military hardware until you know what it is.

Gotham City State;11609007']I see. A Middle East conspiracy. If it's in the interest of Iran to keep Israel out of Lebanon, then yes Hezbollah serve the interests of Iran. No it is the interests of Iran to keep the UN busy while they continue to make their nuclear material.

Gotham City State;11609007']
Hezbollah was sat up in the '80s as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. They are a combative force trained in guerilla tactics (owing to imbalance of arsenal available) with the intent of getting and keeping Israel out of Lebanon. Israel has been out of Lebanon for years, it's just the fact that Hezbollah, even behind all their good will, still only know how to kill.

Gotham City State;11609007'] They use unsavoury tactics, but their actions are far more palatable when you compare them with things like the shelling of Beirut. You mean the part of Beirut that had the Hezbollah political stronghold in the Shitte area?

Gotham City State;11609007'] However, they are not selected by the people of Lebanon to rule their affairs, Then why was their political branch allowed any elected positions? Someone in Lebanon must like them

Gotham City State;11609007'] and even if they were that wouldn't make Lebanese fair game during combat operations. You still think that they just went. "Hmm there's a house, blow it up to make Lebanon suffer?"

Gotham City State;11609007']You kill a guy who wasn't holding a gun and you're a murderer, it doesn't matter if someone behind them did have a gun. And if the guy starts killing everyone else in the room you're still supposed to stand there because he's holding one person hostage...

Gotham City State;11609007']Damn you Reuters! Damn you for reporting events as you see them! Even if they're wrong!

Edit: Having said that, I don't agree with the my2cents at the bottom of the OP.
It's because OceanDrive believes that the Party of God is right to fire missiles into Israel.

Just to mention it:
The spill has polluted about 200 kilometers of the Lebanese and Syrian coasts, the EU said.
in comparison:
Lebanese Coastline according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Lebanon): 210 km.

Thanks, Gravlen. And up yours, Kimchi.

Downplay much?

Gotham City State;11609007']
Restraint would be using sane tactics that don't lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved (which actually sounds a lot like what Israel does in Palestine).

Something tells me that that's an unlikely scenario, even if Hiz'bo'allah had been able to break the Israeli lines and swing into their rear, the IDF would make use of their option of last resort: Tactical nuclear strikes all along the breakthrough. Such a scenario nearly happened during the Yom Kippur War, and only luck, chance and and a bit of pressure from the Americans (more like panic, actually) stopped them from blasting the Syrians with nuclear weapons.

Yes, about 900 civilians died, what makes you think all, or even most, of those were innocents?
Other than you own feelings there is no proof that most of them were Hezbollah members, unless they've been employing women and children now.

Gotham City State;11609007']
If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved

Ohhhhhhhhh i GET it your Role Playing!! Ok ill be the leader of Hezbolla and im going to send my 1st and second division Hezbolla paratrooppers into the Prime Minsiters headquarters in Tel Aviv. The super glider force is equipped with the finest bed sheets for parachutes and glider wings. At LEAST a 200 thread count. Nothing is too good for my troops!!! Then after we assasinate the leadership then we will run rampant thru Tel Aviv unopposed

. Sorry i didnt realize you were just playing fantasy and i took you seriously for a second my bad.

Oh wait, it turns out your insane and delusional. I refuse to debate insane people so i withdraw my debate.

Then what the hell are you doing on NS general? :)

Then what the hell are you doing on NS general? :)

Most of us are either insane or delusional, rarely are we both at the same time.

Most of us are either insane or delusional, rarely are we both at the same time.

Ah, I failed to see that one. Thank you - I stand corrected :D

Most of us are either insane or delusional, rarely are we both at the same time.

True, Like me for instance, I must be insane for trying to convince these people when they're wrong.

And I stop your Patrooping terrorists by launching surface to air attack dogs!

US led actions. Otherwise, the UN seems to be a recipe for "we'll stand around in our blue helmets and watch you all slaughter each other's civilian populations and run a whorehouse using your civilian women".

I'll give you Korea on that. And being US led isn't that much of a shocker for Kuwait now was it- the U.S. at the time was the most powerful country in the world, of course any force would be U.S. led.

That shouldn't detract from the 118,000 Saudi troops, 100,000 Turkish troops, 43,000 U.K troops, 40,000 Egyptian troops, 40,000 UAE troops etc etc that took part all under the banner of the United Nations.

Does it really surprize any one that the Un is once again going to sit on it's hands and not enforce it's own resolutions??????

It's because OceanDrive believes that the Party of God is right to fire missiles into Israel.The Republicans fired missiles on Israel?? yes, I do know he is talking about Hezbollah ^^

Gotham City State;11609007']No. So long as Hezbollah operate amongst civilian populace, Israel cannot shell and bomb the hell out of them and still maintain the moral highground because that means they are using state sanctioned terror tactics.

The IRA has a long history of bombing civilian targets. What the IRA used is a lot more lethal than anything Hezzbollah was using up until the point it started escalating, even then IRA bombings are more effective (read also - kill more people in one go) than a World War 2 Katushya.



Zing. It would be good if Israel could do the same thing. Their list of actions in countries such as, I dunno, Palestine isn't the best. And as has been mentioned earlier, the side of the border that the troops were captured on was ambiguous. It's equally possible that the Israeli troops were in Lebanon at the time, which would be an act of war, which would mean Israel caused the entire conflict.



This is a war against a supposedly terrorist organisation. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. So why is this even a war in the first place?



Maybe you've had your head buried throughout the entire conflict, but Beirut isn't in South Lebanon and it's not a Hezbollah stronghold, so why did they bomb the hell out of it? Why did they attack civilian docks and airports? Why did they destroy thousands of miles of road? Why did they take out bridges? Why did they make it impractical for people to flee, why did they kill them as they fleed, why did they attack the cities that the people had fleed to?

Most precise? Most humanitarian-needs-concious? That's bullshit and you know it. Observe the awesome humanitarian acts of Israel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1842167,00.html



No, I rather thought the whole bombing of fleeing refugees, rocketing a Reuters jeep and shelling a UN listening post kinda covered the whole "evil" thing pretty well.



And why? Because their country was founded out of zionist terrorism, and when it was established they did little to nothing when it came to trying to get along with the locals. If Israelis are "fighting for survival", does that make Palestinians dead? Because their conditions are a whole lot worse.



Restraint would be using sane tactics that don't lead to unnecessary deaths of civilians. If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved (which actually sounds a lot like what Israel does in Palestine). Hezbollah are not representatives of any nation or state. Their policy was not elected by the locals in an unbiased show of democracy. The IDF on the other hand is acting on the orders of a sovereign nation the leadership of which was democratically elected. Who would you think it more feasible for us to hold to respectable standards?



Death by association, collective punishment. Isn't this what Hitler did? Oops, kicked your cat. Sorry.



Or inside Lebanon, as sources suggest, which makes the Israeli position a wholelot stickier. Do you think they'd gone for the cheap absynthe or just the lovely women?



Good to see you hold Israel responsible for attacking and butchering civilians. I was beginning to fear you lacked a moral backbone.



Not the mighty Qassam! Oh woe is use, for their mighty barrage of weaponry is demolishing out homes!

Oh crap, I was forgetting that Israel has Patriot Missiles ... slight unbalance in effectiveness there. You can launch a hundred Qassams and be lucky to kill a single person. You can launch a Patriot and be amazed if you don't kill 10.



Yes. But is it on the same scale as the IDF? No.



I see. A Middle East conspiracy. If it's in the interest of Iran to keep Israel out of Lebanon, then yes Hezbollah serve the interests of Iran.



Hezbollah was sat up in the '80s as a result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. They are a combative force trained in guerilla tactics (owing to imbalance of arsenal available) with the intent of getting and keeping Israel out of Lebanon. They use unsavoury tactics, but their actions are far more palatable when you compare them with things like the shelling of Beirut. However, they are not selected by the people of Lebanon to rule their affairs, and even if they were that wouldn't make Lebanese fair game during combat operations. You kill a guy who wasn't holding a gun and you're a murderer, it doesn't matter if someone behind them did have a gun.




Damn you Reuters! Damn you for reporting events as you see them! Damn you for not mimicking IDF propaganda! Reuters aren't the only people there. We have the BBC and Channel 4 too! And they say pretty similar things. Ok, so they're not bastions of truth to the same level as, I dunno, Fox News ... but it's something.

The sky must be very green in your world.

Israel does not own anyone the courtesy of not defending itself with all the force it can. Killing your attackers and those who live around them is not collective punishment -- it is war. If Lebanon didn't become a house for all these Iranian activities, it wouldn't have suffered.

Hezz has parliament seats in Lebanese government. That makes it an arm
of the Lebanese government. This discussion goes in circles. I am tempted to finish it with a big whatever. Lebanon started shooting. Israel shot back.
Big whoop. Next time I hope they do to Lebanon what Allies did to Nazi Germany.

If Hezbollah threw their full force at Israel you'd have seen them marching the streets of Tel Aviv killing anyone that moved

Wait....what? Are you absolutly insane? First, let's talk about the idea that Hezbollah has virtually NO anti air capabilities, and virtually no heavy armor. israel on the other hand has a quite capable airforce, several bombers, a very capable intelligence force and scouting capabities, and shares intel with the United States, which has quite an extensive spy sattelite network.

For Hezbollah to ever make it a kilometer into Israel they'd first have to get all their troops massed. And once they do that, and get their nice little mass of troops, with no heavy armor and no anti air...they will be carpet bombed into oblivion by the Israeli air force.

And let's just say...I dunno, for some reason they decide NOT to just bomb them from the air with impunity. There's enough IDF to stretch across the border, at least holding up any troop surge long enough for the rest of the line to fold back, and hit them in the flank and rear. At which point they're put in the very akward position of being in the rapidly shrinking space between the hammer and the anvil.

And if somehow, by some god knows what miracle, an army with NO navy, NO airforce, and NO armor manages to overwhelm a military with superior numbers, and superior technology, in an offensive war, then let's not forget one thing. Israel is not about to let ANY country conquer it, under no circumstances. If it looked like Israel was actually about to lose a war with Hezbollah, and suffer invasion, the I promise you Beirut would disappear in a flash of white light, and take most of Lebanon along with it.

Does it really surprize any one that the Un is once again going to sit on it's hands and not enforce it's own resolutions??????

The resolution that says that the Lebanese government has to ask them before interveening? Or the resolution that says that weapons can come in if the Lebanese government approoves?

*snip*

In other words, the UN will not enforce any of their resolutions. Well we did see that one coming unfortunate.

Nice to see OD that you have no idea of the implications of this.

Israel does not own anyone the courtesy of not defending itself with all the force it can.
Then Israel cannot complain when it's neighbour use all the forces it can for defending themselves, which might involve pushing the Israeli invader back into their borders, and further to give them a bit of a buffer zone.

I know, they can't do it right now. But I don't want any of the Jew crew crying when it happens in the future. Your logic seem to excuse any kind of attack since it's clearly a defensive action because Israel invaded. And the circle goes on and on.

Killing your attackers and those who live around them is not collective punishment -- it is war. If Lebanon didn't become a house for all these Iranian activities, it wouldn't have suffered.
No, it's just the definition of what collective punishment is.

Hezz has parliament seats in Lebanese government. That makes it an arm of the Lebanese government. This discussion goes in circles. I am tempted to finish it with a big whatever. Lebanon started shooting. Israel shot back. Big whoop. Next time I hope they do to Lebanon what Allies did to Nazi Germany.
You seem to be woefully ignorant of the situation if you think that Hez = Lebanon.

I am obviously talking about War crimes.

in my book, killing noncombatans (unarmed civileans) is a War Crime.

Despite the fact that the nomcombatans were bing used as human shields? You have been taught this before that by doing so lays the deaths of those civilians at the deaths of Hezbollah.

Then again, you do not like Israel so this comes as no surprise at all.

Just curious, but if a terrorist organization operating in a country neighboring yours had been launching rockets into the city where you live, would you be happy that the UN refused to do anything to prevent said terrorists from getting more rockets?

Not me.

fine then there will be NO peace because Israel wiill do it ...and the UN will have proved itself worthless yet again .

Sad but unfortunately true :(

Using that logic, then Hizbollah didn't kill any Israeli civilians either - seeing as all Israelis need to do a period in the armed service.

That is not entirely correct. From my understanding, jews do and arabs don't. It also is not correct because once you are out of uniform, you are considered a civilian and thus protected under International Law.

Thus all Israelis are part of the army and there are no innocent civilians in that country. If you killed every single Israeli, everyone of them would be a member of the IDF.

Go back and read up on what a military target is and is not please. Seems you need a reality check.

UN was already there. It was doing nothing. This "help" was simply not offered.
Israel tried negotiating with Hezz before. There was a previous abduction and they negotiated a release in which Israel gave up hundreds of Hezz members. As a reward they got another attack. How dare anyone to tell them how much force to use to defend themselves. If they have to level all of Lebanon to defended themselves against attacks they have every right to do it. When the guilt is so clear -- Hezz attacked Israel, killed soldiers inside of Israel and then kidnapped Israelli soldiers -- the responsibility for the dead is completely on the attackers' hands.

Well said and accurate.

Explain how more dead civilians shows restraint. 'Cause I'm dying to hear your explanation.

Israel could have just leveled everything in sight and killed many more thousands in the process.

Israel could have just leveled everything in sight and killed many more thousands in the process.
Israel could have used nuclear weapons. And they didn't.

The Republicans fired missiles on Israel?? yes, I do know he is talking about Hezbollah ^^

Now I know you are being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

Then Israel cannot complain when it's neighbour use all the forces it can for defending themselves, which might involve pushing the Israeli invader back into their borders, and further to give them a bit of a buffer zone.

I know, they can't do it right now. But I don't want any of the Jew crew crying when it happens in the future. Your logic seem to excuse any kind of attack since it's clearly a defensive action because Israel invaded. And the circle goes on and on.


No, it's just the definition of what collective punishment is.


You seem to be woefully ignorant of the situation if you think that Hez = Lebanon.


You seem to be confusing the definition of collective punishment with the definition of collateral damage. These are not the same thing. They may be morally equivalent in your system of morals. But they are not same types of actions. They have their similarities, but they do also have their differences.
And don't even start on how this is my definition vs how it is your definition. These are legally defined terms for the purposes of the so-called international law (you know -- the one that only non-muslims can ever be guilty of violating). Collateral damage is, by definition, hittinng not only the intended target but also those in the proximity of the intended target. Collective punishment is harming a group of people (intentionally targeting everyone in the group that is) for the purposes of punishing another group of people that is somehow connected to the first group.

You seem to be confusing the definition of collective punishment with the definition of collateral damage. These are not the same thing. They may be morally equivalent in your system of morals. But they are not same types of actions. They have their similarities, but they do also have their differences.
And don't even start on how this is my definition vs how it is your definition. These are legally defined terms for the purposes of the so-called international law (you know -- the one that only non-muslims can ever be guilty of violating). Collateral damage is, by definition, hittinng not only the intended target but also those in the proximity of the intended target. Collective punishment is harming a group of people (intentionally targeting everyone in the group that is) for the purposes of punishing another group of people that is somehow connected to the first group.
Kidnapping two soldiers is not an act of war. Hez is not a standing military of a nation, so they cannot declare war for Lebanon. So there is no war.

All Israel did was collective punishment. Pure and simple. You can see it a collateral dammage to get the criminals, I see it a collective punishment. Collateral dammage can be part of collective punishment. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

And the bolded part is exactly what Israel did. They targetted south Lebanon to try and force the population to stop harboring Hez, nevermind the fact that the population has little choice in the matter.

Israel could have just leveled everything in sight and killed many more thousands in the process.

You do agree they could have done less damage as well, don't you? ;)

How dare anyone to tell them how much force to use to defend themselves. If they have to level all of Lebanon to defended themselves against attacks they have every right to do it. When the guilt is so clear -- Hezz attacked Israel, killed soldiers inside of Israel and then kidnapped Israelli soldiers -- the responsibility for the dead is completely on the attackers' hands.

Some of the responsibility indeed lies with Hizbu-llah

Yet, Israel has not got the right to level all or large parts of Lebanon. Since Israel had other, more limited policy choices, it can therefore be held responsible for the deaths caused in its attacks.

I would like to share a quote on guerilla warfare from Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Waltzer
If civilians had no rights at all, or were thought to have none, it would be a small benefit to hide among them. In a sense, then, the advantages the guerillas seek depend upon the scruples of their enemies-- thought there are other advantages to be had if their enemies are unscrupulous: that is why guerilla warfare is so difficult. […] It is always in the interest of the anti-guerilla forces to insist upon the soldier/civilian distinction, even when the guerillas act (as they always will if they can) so as to blur the line. All the handbooks on “counter-insurgency make the same argument: what is necessary is to isolate guerillas from the civilian population, to cut them of from their protection and at the same time shield them civilians from the fighting. The last point is more important in guerilla than in conventional war, for in conventional war one assumes the hostility of ‘enemy civilians”, while in guerilla struggle one must seek their sympathy and support.

Kidnapping two soldiers is not an act of war. Hez is not a standing military of a nation, so they cannot declare war for Lebanon. So there is no war.

All Israel did was collective punishment. Pure and simple. You can see it a collateral dammage to get the criminals, I see it a collective punishment. Collateral dammage can be part of collective punishment. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

And the bolded part is exactly what Israel did. They targetted south Lebanon to try and force the population to stop harboring Hez, nevermind the fact that the population has little choice in the matter.


They don't have a choice in who they tolerate, but they do have the choice in who they love. And so far they loved Hezz. The fact that they are not recognized by the important UN as an army does not mean they were not or are not an army. This is precisely why US invaded Mexico. There were mexican raiders crossing the border and harassing Americans. Not containing your own militant elments that are trying to attack your neighbors is, in fact, an act of war. This is how England fought against Spain -- by encouraging "privateers". The fact that Hezz was better armed than most armies in the world, maintained a structure of ranks and administrative control of south Lebanon made it a military (one could argue that it made a government of the semi-autonomous South Lebanon). A piece of paper is not what makes a duck a duck. The quacking does.

Kidnapping two soldiers is not an act of war. Hez is not a standing military of a nation, so they cannot declare war for Lebanon. So there is no war.

All Israel did was collective punishment. Pure and simple. You can see it a collateral dammage to get the criminals, I see it a collective punishment. Collateral dammage can be part of collective punishment. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

And the bolded part is exactly what Israel did. They targetted south Lebanon to try and force the population to stop harboring Hez, nevermind the fact that the population has little choice in the matter.

How conveniently we manipulate the facts. Kiddnapping soldiers is not an act of war? Soldiers on the territory of their own country? By a country with which you don't have a war? Really? Let's expect this insane premise. How about the killing of eight soldiers on the territory of their own country. During a period when no war exsits... Hezz killed 8 soldiers at the same time as they kidnapped 2. Surely, we can agree that killing people across the border is an act of war, can't we?

How conveniently we manipulate the facts. Kiddnapping soldiers is not an act of war? Soldiers on the territory of their own country? By a country with which you don't have a war? Really? Let's expect this insane premise. How about the killing of eight soldiers on the territory of their own country. During a period when no war exsits... Hezz killed 8 soldiers at the same time as they kidnapped 2. Surely, we can agree that killing people across the border is an act of war, can't we?
No. It takes more then simple cross-border killing to make a war.

No. It takes more then simple cross-border killing to make a war.

Even more than crossing the border and then killing? Repeatedly? And we
do know the difference between a war and an act of war, right? Or should
this be the homework for the class?

Nice to see OD that you have no idea of the implications of this.your post history clearly indicates how good you are (not) at proyecting implications about the M.E.,

You are just as good as Corneliu. :D

your post history clearly indicates how good you are (not) at proyecting implications about the M.E.,

You are just as good as Corneliu. :D

At least I weigh the pros and cons of such things. Allowing Hezbollah to keep their weapons will mean that Israel will go back in sooner or later and this time, they will not mess around. Do you want to see more dead civilians in a bigger and bloodier war?