NationStates Jolt Archive

hey NO CUrSING THE KORAN!!!!!!!!!, how is it my fault theyre complete retards who dont pay attention to the KoraN!!!!!!!!!!!

Your the one that says defensive jihad was ok. Your "defensive jihad" is killing innocent people. You seem to be condoning that.

That phrase pre-dates the British I'm afraid.

oh bullocks;)

Your the one that says defensive jihad was ok. Your "defensive jihad" is killing innocent people. You seem to be condoning that.

i said defensive jihad was ok, i did not say killing innocent people is:confused:

And how about the fact that Hezbollah hides themselves within civilian buildings, so that Israel is forced to strike those areas, killing civilians? Cowardly? I think so. They put their own civilians in danger for their own cause. Israel protects their citizens. Key difference right there.


listen did you hear me say thats ok did you?

Umm... what?

i said defensive jihad was ok, i did not say killing innocent people is:confused:

Define a defensive jihad.

Define a defensive jihad.

well, i suppose in this day and age a defensive jihad would be one in your own turf in defense of a weak muslim people and if you attack another country they should be limited

well, i suppose in this day and age a defensive jihad would be one in your own turf in defense of a weak muslim people and if you attack another country they should be limited

Right. That would explain the rockets fired into Israel, in retaliation to ...nothing. In a time of peace.


Oh wait...

I doubt the Syrians seriously want to destroy Israel, they're too good of a scapegoat. They probably want to strong arm them into giving back some of the territory they lost in 67 though.

Didn't say Syria. I said Arab Nations some of which have publicly said that they are working to the eventual destruction of the Israeli State.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1101/p01s02-wome.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/y/yasseraraf178961.html
I guess I should have been more exact.

I think that what is going on here is that we are looking at a small picture instead of the big one. The attack on the buildings in question was a symptom of the tension that is growing in the Middle East. The tension is not unstoppable though it can be relieved. My personal opinion of the matter is that Israel should be allowed to exist. I'm not going to explain why because thats not what i wish to talk about. However one of the ways that we could put an end to the animosity in the Middle East is that as a major power in the world the United States needs to step in and deal with some major civil rights issues happening inside of Israel. Arabs in the Gaza strip are being treated as sub-humans, and are being denied some Unalienable Rights. Another thing that can be done is the formation of an independent Palestinian Nation. I think that some of the Arab nations in the area and Israel could come to an agreement and give land to the formation of Palestine. If both groups have a stake in the success of an independent nation tensions will subside. Basically Israel needs to address Civil Rights issues and the Islamic Nations and Israel need a common goal.

Feel free to shoot my opinions apart because they are just that opinions. I simply think that peace in the middle east is a viable scenario and I have given my opinions on effective means to obtain it. If you feel you have a better idea id love to hear it.

And how about the fact that Hezbollah hides themselves within civilian buildings, so that Israel is forced to strike those areas, killing civilians?
Fail.

Nobody 'forced' the IDF to do squat. The commanders and leaders saw the scenario, saw the potential civilian casualties, weighed up the pros and cons of such strikes, and took the informed decision to hit a civilian area. Nobody 'forced' the military to act in the way it did.

The "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" excuse doesn't work with adults.

Lots of groups use civilian areas to melt into. Always have, always will. That's what asymmetric warfare is about. The IRA/IRB did it to perfection against the British Empire. The IRA/IRB didn't get blamed for the resulting punitive casualties - nobody 'forced' the British to act in the way they did. They chose to. Like the IDF.

Cowardly? I think so.
Actually, it's smart when you think about it from a Realist perspective.

They put their own civilians in danger for their own cause.
Such is war I guess.

Israel protects their citizens. Key difference right there.
Protects 'some' citizens. Others, not so much.

The commanders and leaders saw the scenario, saw the potential civilian casualties, weighed up the pros and cons of such strikes, and took the informed decision to hit a civilian area.

Well, as you said:

Such is war I guess.

Also, this was a war. In war, your aim, among other, is to cut your enemy from his ammunition supply. When that enemy uses the homes of other people in order to "protect" the supplies, he shouldn't be surprised that the building gets bombed.

Besides, accidents do happen, and sometimes intelligence reports can be wrong, and state that a building is empty while it isn't. Nobody is perfect, and in war, that can result in harming civilians. Yet, Hizballah, for some reason, did nothing to prevent it, and even launched rockets from the rooftops of buildings. What was the IDF supposed to do? Wait for them to choose a more comfortable place to fire from?

One of your sentences was "weighed up the pros and cons of such strikes", and that's absolutely correct. They didn't indiscriminately lowered every building, unlike Hizballah which used a doctrine of "The more, the merrier", regarding civilian casualties.

Protects 'some' citizens. Others, not so much.

Their own citizens. That's their job. Besides, IDF operations were actually aborted many times due to a presence of many civilians in the area.

Well, as you said:

Quite true. Although what that has to do with the point of the military being 'forced' to do something, is beyond me.

Also, this was a war. In war, your aim, among other, is to cut your enemy from his ammunition supply. When that enemy uses the homes of other people in order to "protect" the supplies, he shouldn't be surprised that the building gets bombed.
And you shouldn't be surprised when you get called up on war crimes then either. War is war. And war has rules that States have to play by.

Besides, accidents do happen, and sometimes intelligence reports can be wrong, and state that a building is empty while it isn't.
Building, yes. Apartment blocks... eh, not so much.

Yet, Hizballah, for some reason, did nothing to prevent it,
Prevent it? Hell, they relished another crack at the IDF again and sparked the bloody thing.

What was the IDF supposed to do? Wait for them to choose a more comfortable place to fire from?
How about... not... level residential areas and adhere to the laws of war?

One of your sentences was "weighed up the pros and cons of such strikes", and that's absolutely correct. They didn't indiscriminately lowered every building, unlike Hizballah which used a doctrine of "The more, the merrier", regarding civilian casualties.
Why people insist on morally equating the actions of a State with a milita group is beyond me.

Their own citizens. That's their job.
Actually, I wasn't referring to the Lebanese. I meant "its better if they're Jewish".

Besides, IDF operations were actually aborted many times due to a presence of many civilians in the area.
Goody gumdrops. Lets pass out medals for doing the right thing sometimes.

Building, yes. Apartment blocks... eh, not so much.

I'm talking about buildings. The only a "Apartment" blocks lowered were of the Da'hia area in Beirut, a known HQ of the Hizballah.

How about... not... level residential areas and adhere to the laws of war?

The option was either to abandon the citizens of Israel and leave them to die from rocket attacks, or to be judged later by the international community. I always thought a military of a nation is supposed to protect its citizens.

I wasn't referring to the Lebanese. I meant "its better if they're Jewish".

What? Israel protects its citizens. all of them.


Why people insist on morally equating the actions of a State with a milita group is beyond me.

You make it sound as if this militia fires across the border with an AK-47 and three guns. Let me remind you that they fired thousands of rockets in order to harm as many civilians as possible. The IDF can't just sit and say "Oh, they're among civilians, so we'll wait until they come out while they're killing ours."

Also, Hizballah controls south Lebanon de-facto, and the Lebanese government never actually tried to get them out of there. So there you have a trained "militia" with enough rockets that can cover all of northern Israel, with its own territory, supported by Syria and sitting on Israel's border, pounding towns and kidnapping people.

Yeah, let's wait for them, we have time.:rolleyes:

Why people insist that a nation should allow its citizens to be pounded by others and not respond is beyond me.

Right. That would explain the rockets fired into Israel, in retaliation to ...nothing. In a time of peace.


Oh wait...
meh

I'm talking about buildings. The only a "Apartment" blocks lowered were of the Da'hia area in Beirut, a known HQ of the Hizballah.
Ok, I'll widen my definition from apartment blocks to 'places where large numbers of civilians are living and are known to be living, in urban environments'. My point remains the same.

The option was either to abandon the citizens of Israel and leave them to die from rocket attacks, or to be judged later by the international community. I always thought a military of a nation is supposed to protect its citizens.
...within reason. Protecting its citizens via war crimes is a 'no-no'.


What? Israel protects its citizens. all of them.
You're right, sorry. I meant 'subjects', those living in the occupied territories. But that another story for another time I guess.

You make it sound as if this militia fires across the border with an AK-47 and three guns. Let me remind you that they fired thousands of rockets in order to harm as many civilians as possible.
Yup, sounds like what Hezb'allah do alright. Does it sound like I'm defending their actions in this case?

The IDF can't just sit and say "Oh, they're among civilians, so we'll wait until they come out while they're killing ours."
What's your point? They must do 'something'? Yeh, I agree. However, my agreement diverges when it strains and then breaks moral and legal boundaries.

Also, Hizballah controls south Lebanon de-facto, and the Lebanese government never actually tried to get them out of there. So there you have a trained "militia" with enough rockets that can cover all of northern Israel, with its own territory, supported by Syria and sitting on Israel's border, pounding towns and kidnapping people.
I know exactly who and what Hezb'allah are thank you very much. I've also been indirectly affected by them and Amal and various PLO type groups.

I also know I don't hold them to the same moral standards as the army of a supposedly free and democratic Western state. I tend to hold the latter to a higher set of standards and when they lower themselves to the level of militias without morals, I will gladly round on them.

Yeah, let's wait for them, we have time.:rolleyes:
You do that. Because all they want is for the IDF to roll back across the Litani river, so they can hit them again.

Why people insist that a nation should allow its citizens to be pounded by others and not respond is beyond me.
Because I hold the values my nation stands for to be higher than the morals of militas. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I don't sing from the treetops when my nation lowers itself to their level.

meh

Is that all you have to say?

Protecting its citizens via war crimes is a 'no-no'.

So you're saying it's better to wait and watch people get killed, right?

What's your point? They must do 'something'? Yeh, I agree. However, my agreement diverges when it strains and then breaks moral and legal boundaries.

So what do you think they should have done? I really want to know.

I also know I don't hold them to the same moral standards as the army of a supposedly free and democratic Western state.

It doesn't matter what you hold them to, when civilians get killed. When a person fires up a rocket, and kills people intentionally, I don't give a fuck whether he is a militia member or a military soldier.

Because I hold the values my nation stands for to be higher than the morals of militas. Maybe I'm alone in that, but I don't sing from the treetops when my nation lowers itself to their level.

No one asks you to sing from treetops. But expecting a sovereign nation to restrain in those conditions is childish and ridiculous. Hizballah pounded Israeli towns for years, yet Israel didn't respond. The July 2006 attack was the last straw.

Are you the kind of person who'd tolerate what Israel did for years, watch your fellow countrymen die, and still say "let's wait"?

So you're saying it's better to wait and watch people get killed, right?
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Congratulations on passing reading comprehension.



So what do you think they should have done? I really want to know.
Well, not wading in like a drunken, angry elephant would have been a good start don't you think? Unless you feel their actions have actually resolved anything this time?


It doesn't matter what you hold them to, when civilians get killed. When a person fires up a rocket, and kills people intentionally, I don't give a fuck whether he is a militia member or a military soldier.
Yeah, it kinda does matter. I'd really prefer if the army acting in my name doesn't commit war crimes in my name.


No one asks you to sing from treetops. But expecting a sovereign nation to restrain in those conditions is childish and ridiculous. Hizballah pounded Israeli towns for years, yet Israel didn't respond. The July 2006 attack was the last straw.
You do realise that in other parts of the world sovereign nations have dealt with exactly the same situations before, right? And they didn't go in guns blazing. Or if they did, after the found it didn't work the first time, they changed their tactics. They didn't so the same thing three, four, five, six times after that and get exactly the same results.

Well, not wading in like a drunken, angry elephant would have been a good start don't you think?

I asked what you think they should have done, not what they shouldn't have.

Yeah, it kinda does matter. I'd really prefer if the army acting in my name doesn't commit war crimes in my name.

I think a military's first priority is to prevent it's nation's citizens from getting killed. We disagree then. Oh well.

And they didn't go in guns blazing. Or if they did, after the found it didn't work the first time, they changed their tactics. They didn't so the same thing three, four, five, six times after that and get exactly the same results.

What? When did we do the same thing? it was the first time we fought against Hizballah, and that's after years of not doing anything. Besides, Hizballah got a serious blow last year, and Nasrallah already said the abduction was a mistake. If the war resulted in Hizballah realizing that abducting soldiers would cost what it did, it means at least one goal was accomplished.

Fail.

Nobody 'forced' the IDF to do squat. The commanders and leaders saw the scenario, saw the potential civilian casualties, weighed up the pros and cons of such strikes, and took the informed decision to hit a civilian area. Nobody 'forced' the military to act in the way it did.
When they're striking the Israeili military, as well as other areas within Israel, through rockets, do you honestly think they're just going to sit back and let it happen? They have to strike back.



Lots of groups use civilian areas to melt into. Always have, always will. That's what asymmetric warfare is about. The IRA/IRB did it to perfection against the British Empire. The IRA/IRB didn't get blamed for the resulting punitive casualties - nobody 'forced' the British to act in the way they did. They chose to. Like the IDF.
All of that is irrelevent in the fact that it's still cowardly to do so. That changes nothing.


Actually, it's smart when you think about it from a Realist perspective.

Yes, it's perfectly smart and logical... not to mention very humanly to have others suffer for your supposed war.


Protects 'some' citizens. Others, not so much.

Pretty bland statement there. Perhaps you could clarify? At least Israel doesn't purposely throw it's military in civilian areas, to have them killed instead.

I asked what you think they should have done, not what they shouldn't have.
Take it this way - I'm not in the IDF High Command or military planning department, yet looking back 20 years I could see that the same thing won't work again. They thought differently, history repeated itself.


I think a military's first priority is to prevent it's nation's citizens from getting killed. We disagree then. Oh well.
I guess we do. I feel my military is bound by the norms of war.


What? When did we do the same thing? it was the first time we fought against Hizballah, and that's after years of not doing anything. Besides, Hizballah got a serious blow last year, and Nasrallah already said the abduction was a mistake. If the war resulted in Hizballah realizing that abducting soldiers would cost what it did, it means at least one goal was accomplished.
1978 for one. Then there was pretty much from the mid-1980's through to 2000. And not Hezb'allah per se, but them and others almost identical to them.

When they're striking the Israeili military, as well as other areas within Israel, through rockets, do you honestly think they're just going to sit back and let it happen? They have to strike back. Sure they do. And it worked fantastically didn't it. I mean, Hezb'allah was destroyed wasn't it.


All of that is irrelevent in the fact that it's still cowardly to do so. That changes nothing.
Asymmetric war is 'cowardly'. Gee, sounds like what the British said when fighting the colonists initally, the Boers in South Africa, the Irish several times, the Americans fighting the Vietnamese.... "Hey, they ain't playin' fair! They're not standing still and letting us shoot them like they're supposed to!"

"Cowardly" is a personal definiton. Archers are cowardly to cavalry. Tanks are cowardly to cavalry. Aircraft are cowardly to tanks. Etc etc.

Yes, it's perfectly smart and logical... not to mention very humanly to have others suffer for your supposed war.
That's Realism for you. Sucks doesn't it?


Pretty bland statement there. Perhaps you could clarify? At least Israel doesn't purposely throw it's military in civilian areas, to have them killed instead.
Sure. Every non- Jew living in the occupied territories.

Sure they do. And it worked fantastically didn't it. I mean, Hezb'allah was destroyed wasn't it.
My argument has nothing to do with how successful or how much of a failure it was. That's irrelevent. You missed my point entirely.


Asymmetric war is 'cowardly'. Gee, sounds like what the British said when fighting the colonists initally, the Boers in South Africa, the Irish several times, the Americans fighting the Vietnamese.... "Hey, they ain't playin' fair! They're not standing still and letting us shoot them like they're supposed to!"

"Cowardly" is a personal definiton. Archers are cowardly to cavalry. Tanks are cowardly to cavalry. Aircraft are cowardly to tanks. Etc etc.


Sure, the rebel "Americans" used dirty tactics, such as suprise attacks and ambushes, but they did so against the British military. They didn't do such a thing against civilians. There's a large difference. Not once was I comparing the Hezbollah tactics against others. I've never defended the ones you've mentioned as well. I don't see the point of comparison.


That's Realism for you. Sucks doesn't it?

It sucks even worse that you're arguing for Hezbollah's tactics, and against the civilians that it's throwing in the way of attacks.




Sure. Every non- Jew living in the occupied territories.
Proof of obvious mistreatment please. Non-bias articles.

My argument has nothing to do with how successful or how much of a failure it was. That's irrelevent. You missed my point entirely.
Not it's not irrelevant. What did their action resolve? Are you saying something should be done for the sake of it? In international politics and cross border disputes, that is the most reckless mindset to have.


Sure, the rebel "Americans" used dirty tactics, such as suprise attacks and ambushes, but they did so against the British military. They didn't do such a thing against civilians. There's a large difference.
To the Redcoats at the time, that was abhorrent. There was no honour in it, there was no gentlemanly combat to be had. It was sheer cowardice. And it was a cowardly way to fight a war. Wasn't that your point here: All of that is irrelevent in the fact that it's still cowardly to do so. That changes nothing. or do you want to address the morality of asymmetric warfare?


It sucks even worse that you're arguing for Hezbollah's tactics, and against the civilians that it's throwing in the way of attacks.
Yes, I'm defending Hezb'allah because I'm pointing out a Realist perspective on the conflict. Well done.


Proof of obvious mistreatment please. Non-bias articles.
Well, define a non-bias article. Obviously I'm not going to come up with some anti-semite or white power article. But I'd like to know what you constitute as a 'neutral' source?

1978 for one. Then there was pretty much from the mid-1980's through to 2000. And not Hezb'allah per se, but them and others almost identical to them.

Actually, not identical at all. In 1978 it was against the Palestinians, and back then it actually worked - They were forced to retreat beyond the Litani river. After many more terrorist attacks by the PLO, we went further inside in 1982, and even then it did work - The PLO left Lebanon and never used it as thier homebase again. Since then we kept south Lebanon as a security strip for strategic depth, and when Hizballah made it some sort of a Vietnam for us, we left it with our tail between our legs. Then we tolerated 6 years of pounding.

So no, that was the first time we tried what we did, and as I said: If by doing so, Hizballah realized that abductions and border raids are intolerable and won't be ignored, then it's good we did.

Actually, not identical at all.
It was for my point - which is why I said 'almost'. Small militia groups who like to attack Israel, I thought I was covering a multitude of groups with one common thread - a strong dislike of Israel, or a strong attraction to attacking Israel.
*snip history*

If by doing so, Hizballah realized that abductions and border raids are intolerable and won't be ignored, then it's good we did.
You realise Hezb'allah want the IDF to attack again? They want to provoke a fight. They're looking to give them another bloody nose. Suck them into another protracted war.

There are other long term solutions out there that don't result in incursions, strikes, punitive measures and deaths.

Small militia groups who like to attack Israel.

Again, you're underestimating, intentionally or not, the strength of those groups. A 'small militia group' doesn't have a stock of more than ten thousand missiles with an ability to flame an entire region of a country. Since May 2000 Hizballah began to rebuild itself as some sort of a military. The fact that it is not the official military of Lebanon doesn't mean it should be treated as a 'small militia group'. It's a force based in south Lebanon, and allowing it to do what it wants is simply a crime.

You realise Hezb'allah the IDF to attack again? They to provoke a fight. They're looking to give them another bloody nose. Suck them into another protracted war.

Actually, no, they are not like Hamas in this issue. Their constant pounding is their way of getting moderate attention. Sort of "reminding" Israel they exist. They also like to abduct IDF soldiers in order to negotiate for prisoner exchange. They tend to flare up the entire border with rockets in order to distract the attention from the abdution site afterwards (in order to prevent the IDF from immediately pursuing the abductors into Lebanese territory). Nasrallah himself stated he never thought Israel would react they way it did.

There are other long term solutions out there that don't result in incursions, strikes, punitive measures and deaths.

Indeed, there are, and Israel tried them for years, but in order for any force to understand that some things are intolerable, sometimes a harsh response is needed.

Also:

...don't result in [...] deaths.

Wait, but they do result in deaths. Deaths of Israeli civilians. Again, you ask a nation's military to choose between the lives of its own citizens, and maybe the lives of an enemy nation's citizens.


EDIT - Words of Nasrallah:

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping? I would say no, definitely not."

That's enough for me to justify the war. I do think it should've been handled differently, but it indeed should've taken place.

Again, you're underestimating, intentionally or not, the strength of those groups. A 'small militia group' doesn't have a stock of more than ten thousand missiles with an ability to flame an entire region of a country. Since May 2000 Hizballah began to rebuild itself as some sort of a military. The fact that it is not the official military of Lebanon doesn't mean it should be treated as a 'small militia group'. It's a force based in south Lebanon, and allowing it to do what it wants is simply a crime.
Ugh. Small militias. 1978. 1982. Small militias. Get it now? Amal, Murabitun, pissy little Communist parties, even Black Sept.



Actually, no, they are not like Hamas in this issue. Their constant pounding is their way of getting moderate attention. Sort of "reminding" Israel they exist. They also like to abduct IDF soldiers in order to negotiate for prisoner exchange. They tend to flare up the entire border with rockets in order to distract the attention from the abdution site afterwards (in order to prevent the IDF from immediately pursuing the abductors into Lebanese territory). Nasrallah himself stated he never thought Israel would react they way it did.
But Hezb'allah does want another face off. Their raison d'etre after the 2000 pullout is the Shebaa Farms (rightly or wrongly). Their niggly attacks on the north of Israel is, as you say, a reminder that they haven't gone away. But it's part of a larger internal Lebanese power struggle.

The biggest draw to Hezb'allah in the past 10 years has come from Israeli actions: the 2000 pullout - they portrayed themselves as 'victors'; the 2006 draw - they portrayed themselves as the 'victors'. In both cases they used the events to grow in support domestically. Another rash Israeli action will simply swell their ranks and push them further towards power in Lebanon.

The want to fight. That's why they've been restocking. Going on past actions, Israel will no doubt play into their hands.


Indeed, there are, and Israel tried them for years, but in order for any force to understand that some things are intolerable, sometimes a harsh response is needed.
Look around the planet. Solutions have been found to similar situations.


Wait, but they do result in deaths. Deaths of Israeli civilians. Again, you ask a nation's military to choose between the lives of its own citizens, and maybe the lives of an enemy nation's citizens.
The military is not the be all and end all. If you look around for examples, you would see that. Learn from history.

Proof of obvious mistreatment please. Non-bias articles.

Proof of the mistreatment of Palestinians in the OT?
Wherever would we find...O.......Wait.....

Link (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ISR.CO.13.doc)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4274400.stm

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/publications.asp?menu=7&submenu=1