The Middle East spirals out of control!
 

Big news as of late. As a result of several Israeli soldiers being killed, and two taken prisoner by Hizbullah militants in Israel, the IDF has launched attacks against Lebanon, which constitutes Hizbullah's base of operations, as well as attacks on the Gaza and Palestine's Hamas-led government, which Israel claims is partially responsible for the kidnappings.

Exciting stuff, wouldn't you say? There's some speculation that since Israel and Hizbullah act as proxies for the United States and Iran, respectively, that they could precipitate a conflict between the two powers in the region. Especially if Israel launches attacks on Syria.

I think 5 years down the line, we'll all be screwed. :(


I mean the stock exchange is falling like mad because of this war, although I feel it's a pussy reason (if I don't know what I'm talking about in this regard, please feel free to put me in my place), who knows what kind of madness might begin if this war prompts us to start fighting seriously again, especially with Iraq and North Korea still being concerns.

If the past is any indication, that stuff never really lasts long. Israel usually blows up a number of old Soviet tanks, kill a few soldiers and civilians, perhaps down a few MiGs, then things settle down after a while. I'm not saying that those deaths aren't a tragedy, but for the time at hand it hasn't even officially been turned in a war, and if it does, it won't last long.

I'm not sure what exactly could really make the shit hit the fan. As long as a nuke doesn't explode somewhere, I don't think it'll degenerate.

I just hope the US can sit back and go to a temporary "sleeping giant" sort of state. This mess in the Middle East and the tensions in Asia culminating will make things quite intriguing.

But like Butchere says, these little wars pop out quite frequently in the Middle East. We'll have to wait and see on the duration.

I wouldn't be sure about that; most of the Arab powers have gotten stronger militarily since the last Arab-Israeli war. While this isn't likely to come into play so long as the Israelis stick to beating up on Lebanon and the Palestinians, if they attack Syria, it'd be likely that the Syrians could hold them off, as well as bring Russia into the war on Syria's side.

I am curious why kidnapping Israeli soldiers and holding them hostage has suddenly become popular, though; it doesn't serve any logical purpose and results in sustained Israeli attacks. It certainly doesn't help the Palestinians with their problems.

The only possible reason I can imagine for such actions would be to attempt to use the captives as bartering tools to get their own members out of Israeli prisons.
Of course this is shortsighted foolishness, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect any advanced political understanding from these turds.

Source.
Basically, they won't negotiate it seems.

Yeah, I suspect the reason they took those soldiers is that after the capture of that first guy a month or so ago, they noticed it produced an unusually strong reaction with Israel. They probably thought that while Israel had gone with a substantial strike force in Palestine, they wouldn't do the same in Lebanon, a fully independent country. Seems like they were wrong.

Now the thing is, those hostages are something they'd probably want to get rid of after seeing what happened. The problem is that returning them wouldn't be seen too well by the more radical people associated to the kidnappers' cause, if they're not the ones behind it. Killing them is no good: if they don't present proof that the hostages are dead, Israel will continue their operations, and if they do, by sending a few severed heads back to Israel or whatever else, well, no good can come out of that either. Seems like those hostages have become a liability.

The worst case scenario here, baring a nuke going off as I said earlier, is probably something like what Styphon said. If they move the hostages in Syria then it might become a bigger problem. I suppose it's not entirely out of question; if their initial plan was to use Lebanon as a shield, and that failed, they might seek a bigger shield. What happens then is unclear. Of course it's not limited to Syria, the initial article mentioned something about the potential transfer of the hostages in Iran. That would be particularly... entertaining. It likely wouldn't take long for a "stray" squad of israeli aircrafts to "accidentally" open fire on Iran's nuclear facilities. I mean, if Israel is already there, might has well take advantage of it, and that might just please the EU enough that there isn't too much condemnation from them. But that's pretty much just speculation for now.

Do you really think Russia would risk getting involved, especially against Israel? I mean, wouldn't that have some major repercussions? And is Russia even in any state to be flexing that sort of muscle?

Russia and Syria (as well as Iran) have developed closer relations in recent years. These have taken the form of arms sales (in the form of new a air defense system, among other things), training, and diplomatic assistance against the United States if need be. The Russian Navy is also reestablishing its Mediterranean Squadron, and reestablishing bases in Syrian ports to support it.

If Russia has been willing to risk angering the United States for years now, as well as Israel, I fail to see why they wouldn't involve themselves if Israel attacks a country that they have considerable interest in defending.

This pretty much is an open war already and its only profiteers are Hezbollah, Hamas and their supporters in Damascus and Teheran.

Russia intervening on Syria's behalf is ludicrous. Nuclear relations between us and the Russians still operate on MAD. So unless the Russians are perfectly fine engaging Americans in a limited conflict (which they'll lose) they'll be sending off a nuclear tripwire.

George Bush has no grounds upon which to criticise any nation who bring down the government of another country. Not without indulging in flagrant hypocrisy. In fact, unless he offers U.S. support to Israel, I think that he would be guilty of hypocrisy.

I'm not saying that I think that the U.S. should support Israel in this matter, but there isn't one rule for America, and one for the rest of the world.

My neighbors are stuck in Lebanon. :( They were supposed to fly back the day that the airport got bombed.

That's why I'd never travel to that part of the world. It's so insane over there. Those people are just nuts. I'm not a political buff at all, but I do know that Israel has a very strong army and nuclear program, and can more than hold it's own.

I just hope no US soldiers that are stationed anywhere in this mess get killed or else we have no choice but to get involved.

If U.S. soldiers are anywhere nearby, the Israelis will probably take great care NOT to do anything stupid. If Israel loses the backing of the United States, it'll be toast.

This war is not acceptable. The Lebanese people shouldn't have to suffer because of the actions of Hezbollah.

What kind of nonsense is this? How can they be "the only profiteers"? How can they be "profiteers" in any way???
They wage the war because they hate Israel's presence, no profit gained, physical or psychological, if you were camping in my backyard and i pick a fight with you how the hell can that fight be profitable to me?

Truth is, Israel's refusal to negotiate is correct politics towards that sort of threatening. I wouldn't say it was a dumb move by Hezbullah, they're desperate, what else can they do but act randomly like this?
The bombing is sheer idiocy on Israel's part, like Onyx said, why should the Lebanese suffer for Hezbullah's actions?

((Full Article))

Didn't Lebanon start this in the first place?

Well, to go back to the start, Hamas militants did by kidnapping that Israeli corporal, and then Hizbullah escalated the conflict by killing eight and capturing two more.

Hizbullah doesn't necessarily represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but they are, however, a legitimate part of Palestinian society. They have a political wing and their own media network, as well as having seats in the Lebanese parliament. The Israelis are attacking Lebanese infrastructure, because it is that very infrastructure that is used by Hizbullah to further its own ends.

One could argue from the Israeli standpoint, that the Lebanese haven't done enough to reign in Hizbullah, which isn't exactly fair since in many respects Hizbullah is stronger than the Lebanese government. However, one could argue that Israel needs to step into the region to retrieve their soldiers and severely damage the capabilities of Hizbullah in the Lebanese's stead.

What'll be most important about this situation is whether or not the conflict will spread into Syria. If Hizbullah's aim was to start a regional conflict, then releasing information that the captured soldiers are in Syria would be a good way to do it.

That's only a fair analogy if there's some kind of genuine dispute as to whose backyard it really is.

I think the best thing to come out of this war was the complaint that the Israeli bombing of the airport in Beirut was done to destroy the Lebanese tourism industry. Is that actually serious.

Releasing the information? If a bunch of nerds on an internet forum know that information, shouldn't Israeli military officials?

Or is the idea of the soldiers being in Syria just hypothetical?

Also, why would Hizbullah start a regional conflict they can't win?

Quite simply, they didn't anticipiate that it would escalate this way. They figured Israel would just bargain for some more prisoners, now they've started some real shit.

On top of that, Syria and Iran are already supporting Hezbollah and at least Syria is threatening to join the conflict if it's attacked. And yes, the idea that the soldiers are in Syria IS hypothetical, why would you need clear clarification on that?

Perhaps the reasoning behind the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers had no altruistic reasons for the Palestinian peoples to begin with.


I think Israel feels that the peoples of Lebanon shouldn't be haboring Hezbollah, an organization which has, and will continue to cause, death and destruction for the Israeli people. Therefore, to the Israeli government, the lives of Israeli citizens are worth more to the peoples of Israel than the lives of the people of Lebanon, and certainly far more than the lives of Hezbollah.

The reason they kidnapped Israeli soldiers in the first place is because a couple years ago, Hamas was able to negotiate the release of 400 prisoners for two soldiers and a handful of corpses.

There obviously is. Remember, might indeed does make right. Those with the power to do so do and those without the power to do so do what the people in power tell them to do.

America works to topple elected government of third-world country

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America expects world's resources to fall into her lap

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

Guantanamo Bay declared morally reprehensible, illegal

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America supports apartheid government of Middle Eastern nation'

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog + Israel is merely defending herself! Racially!'

Bush needs to finally come up with a definite stance on the subject. He's urging Israel to stop bombing Lebanon back to the middle ages while at the same time justifying their actions in 'defending' their country (on foreign soil).

I'm also irritated that kidnapping a few people now serves as a legitimate reason to wage war on a sovereign country. Israel might think otherwise, but most Lebanese people don't even support Hezbollah and yet, they are the ones suffering for their actions while the Hezbollah is happily firing their Katjusha rockets towards Israel with a comprehensible reason. It's such a tragedy.

Well, when a major part of the Lebanese government is PART of Hezbollah, who actively try to exteriminate Israel, then you can't say that there isn't a problem. They are terrorists, and thus, the Lebanese government should also be held accountable. They haven't done a thing about Hezbollah. Their president complained that nobody is making Israel stop. Yeah ok. :rolleyes:

Also, this isn't the first time Israeli soldiers have been kidnapped. In the past, they would kidnap soldiers, and then exchange them for some prisoners. Quite frankly, this was a very bad policy Israel had. It gave the terrorists a sort of leverage, and let them think it's just FINE to go and kidnap soldiers anytime (even GOING INTO Israel to do it). It's NOT ok, and now they're feeling the pressure because Israel didn't cave into their demands this time.

Bush has taken a definitive stance. He blames Hezbollah, as well as Syria (??)

Source

Exactly.

Just my 2 cents on the matter, but in all honesty, I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. Palestine has been constantly pissing Israel off, not a good idea. It's like a little kid on an airplane poking you repeatedly, and you don't do anything back because you know they are almost helpless. Plus you would get a huge backlash from everyone else on the plane....well, now it's finally tipped over, and I have to say, Palestine got what they were asking for.

Now don't get me wrong - I would certainly prefer for Israel to not have done all this, and them to sit down and talk things out like civilized people, but I can't say I blame Israel for taking the action it did.

I have a question for comparison to this situation:

If, hypothetically, a state milita were to attack another soveriegn nation, should that be considered an act of war?
It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the militant branches of Hezbolla are similar to an independent militia.

All the people I have asked this question to so far have unanimously answered "no." :/

No, they are not. Mainly because the Hezbollah nowadays isn't just a military organization anymore (it was actually founded to repell the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982), but a political one with strong (inofficial) ties to the Lebanese government in Beirut.

So they hold 23 seats in Lebanese Parliament unofficially? :edgartpg:

Well, just for the sake of argument, say the hypothetical militia is one which flies the Republican banner, and in has had support from and associations in the past with Republican politicians.

Of course this is not a direct 1:1 comparison, but I'm just throwing out related questions that come to mind.

You could argue that their influence goes well beyond these 23 seats. Unofficially. ;-)

Still, I doubt that the Lebanese government is to be directly blamed for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The majority of seats in the Lebanese Parliament is still held by moderate Christians opposing the Hezbollah, btw.

Not at all what you claimed in your previous post. And yes, the government isn't completely responsible, yet they are responsible for not doing anything to stop a terrorist organization from operating openly within their country. Now all they've done is piss of Israel, while the Lebanese President tries to ward off criticism by saying but why does no one bother Israel?!

So if the California National Guard were to start attacking Mexico the US government would not be at fault? Our state Militia can just come in and invade and the rest of the US would not be held accountable?

That is what you are saying.

One thing that everyone needs to keep in perspective that the Lebanese government is not saying - SORRY ABOUT HEZBOLLAH. WE WANT TO STOP THEM BUT WE CAN'T. CAN WE PLEASE GET ASSISTENCE IN CRACKING DOWN ON THEM?

Well, I'm not saying anything. I'm just asking mostly.
However, I do like to be the counterpoint to many conversations, just for the sake of well-roundedness.

Anyways, although the US government might be held responsible in a way for its citizen's actions, does it necessarily follow that what they did is an act of war on behalf of the entire US government?

EDIT:
By the way, I think the California National Guard is a branch of the US Military.
I am talking about a militia, like the Michigan Militia for example, which is an assemblage of military-minded citizens who are separate from the US government.

i am from isreal and is a great place we try to live in this horror
ok

So what's your stance on the attacks on Lebanon? The civilians there sure have to live in horror just as well.
ok

The California National Guard is a STATE Militia. Not under federal control.

The United States has private Militias that operate in our country. I'm sure if one of those Militia's decided to up and attack Mexico or any other nation of that matter the United States Government would deal with that problem quite swiftly for that matter. The case with hezbulah is that the Lebonese government isn't doing anything to curb or control Hezbulah.. So someone else has to deal with them in this story it's Isreal.

This conflict could show wheter iran is serious about its threats to annihilate Israel or just full of shit. What better opprtunity could the Iranians want to show Muslim solidarity and help their Hezbollah puppets that to strike Israel now. If they don't act it will show them to be weak in the eyes of other Islamic nations, if they do act, it could widen the war to huge proportions. It has already been stated that the Israeli korvette that was hit wasn't hit by a drone, but by a more sophisticated Iranian supplied missile. Some sources say it was a Silkworm anit ship missile. The Isreali SAAR 5 korvette has a very good anit missile system and its hard to believe it was struck by a primitve slow flying drone aircraft. If Iran is supplying Hezbollah with Silkworm missiles this escalates things quite a bit.

No. There really isn't. Just because the American government is capable of justifying its actions to the satisfaction of their own people doesn't mean that they are capable of justifying their actions to the international community.

The fact that America could probably bomb the rest of the world back into the stone age doesn't give them any moral rectitude whatsoever. Might doesn't make right, it simply confers the ability to silence those who say that you're wrong.

I'm not stating that I find America's recent actions reprehensible, nor their stance on the current conflict, but there is an international community to answer to. In truth I find America's recent actions more ill-advised than reprehensible, and of course they are bound to support their long-term ally in this conflict, but when you say that might makes right, I find that an entirely curious statement. If you do endorse that sentiment fully, then whomever decides to rob you at gunpoint is entirely justified.

Right. And if nobody's around to say that you are wrong, then you are right.

Might makes right becuase it forces the acceptance of a certain point of view or policy. The government is always right because we'll get thrown in a Federal penitentiary if we break the law. That doesn't necessarily make laws morally sound, it just means that it's impossible to dissent.

Morality really has nothing to do with it. For instance, let's use something silly, like the zombie apocalypse. If people die from a zombie bite, then they will return as a zombie. Is it wrong, then, to shoot them in the head before they turn? It eliminates the risk to the group, but the concept of killing another human being despite the knowlege that they will become a zombie might offend somebody's moral sensibilities, despite the fact that it's a necessary action.

The Lebanese can't be faulted for their impotence, but this is what happens when you let terrorists develop a stronger military than your own, and your immediate neighbor would sooner recognize their sovereignty than yours.

Is it tragic that innocent Lebanese are dying because Hezbollah crossed the line? Absolutely, but Hezbollah's decades of terror have also been a severe tragedy. If Israel is taking this opportunity to end the global threat that Hezbollah represents, then by all means we should be supporting their actions.

The buck stops, though, if Israel attacks Syria.

I disagree. Just because I get thrown in prison for breaking the law, that doesn't make the government right, and it doesn't stop me from breaking the law if I feel it is warranted. I'm not sweeping the rest of your points aside, but there's always a moral consideration, even if it's academic given the circumstances.

While moral considerations are nice and everything, just how far do they go? Some people may stand up and tell the government it's wrong, but they're a minority, and the government will do everything it can (which is a great amount) to weaken and neutralize them. Most people lack the will to stand up in the face of that, and will give up their position to get the pressure off their back. Those that don't give in will be of no concern; everyone else either agrees or is keeping quiet, making the government right by default.

That's perfectly correct, but let's not forget the fact that the Hezbollah is a home-made threat created by Israel. If it wasn't for the occupation of Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah would probably never have gained the support and influence it has today. If anything, the deliberate invasion of Lebanon serves as the ultimate reason for Hezbollah's existence and will even help it in gaining momentum.

Yeah, the short answer is "not very damn far."

The long answer is that it's better to at least consider whether or not something's wrong, even if there's nothing you can do to change it. Otherwise we'd all end up accepting everything that our government throw at us, no matter how outrageous. The answer to "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is "Every one of us - if we don't want to live in a world we can't accept."

Its nice to consider if something is morally wrong or not, but if you keep quiet about it, who's gonna point out the huge elephant in the room? Really there is an elephant, but according to the government, there is none. Something like 1984 where if you believe you're flying and I believe you're flying, then you are flying... even if it objectively is false. Even if the people in the USA were disgusted by their government's action, they sit in the corner twiddling their thumbs... perhaps watching some good'ole television. Most people don't even care though, or they simply go along with anything the government or media will present to them. Its a great illusion how the media presents stories and how the government words what they say, and works great in trapping people who somewhat care about what's going on in the world.

Another great tactic is diversion, divide & conquer. Republican/Democrat, abortion/anti-abortion, one sports team/another freaking sports team. Morals like to go out the window when you are trying to win, and also promote a distrust between people. Who can speak their morals when the country is constantly divided between issues? As Styphon said, any small group that is likely to form will be neutralized. So, just because there is a elephant in the room doesn't mean there is. If you are forced to hold your tongue, or no one will listen to you, that elephant doesn't exist at all.


As for Israel/Lebanon, I don't think its a matter of IF Lebanon wants to stop Hizbollah, but really a matter of CAN they stop them. It is an unfortunate consequence that all parties involved are being so stubborn and pretty stupid. Israel has traded captives for the release of prisoners before, but they seem completely unwilling now. Two years ago they did it, and even further back it has occured, so this isn't some sort of new event that no one could have expected. Hizbollah probably doesn't know what to do after Israel said they would not barter for the prisoners. Either way, the stubborness is overwelming... this conflict is so pointless and could have been stopped instantly had either side REALLY wanted to avoid a war. Now that it has gone on this long however, I don't see either Israel or Hizbollah letting up.

A war is precisely what Hezbollah wanted. Keep in mind that the Israelis were attacking Gaza two weeks before the kidnappings along the border because Hamas kidnapped that Israeli corporal. It was clear from the get go that Israel wasn't going to tolerate another soldier abduction.

Hezbollah knew that Israel had no choice but to retaliate, which means that ultimately Hezbollah's goal was to start another war and gain local political influence by resisting everybody's favorite badguy.

I totally see where you're coming from but I have to peacefully disagree. Hezbollah has caused terror for innocent people, but they probably wouldn't be around if it weren't for Israel's presence in Lebanon in the first place. And regardless of how ruthless Hezbollah has been in the last 20 years, Israel has been worse. They have possibly the worst human rights crime in history (right after South Africa, and of course, the US). Hezbollah and the PLO pale in comparison.

It's tragic that innocent Israelis and Lebanese are being killed, but this is going to continue to happen if Israel keeps occupying other countries. And it won't get any better if the UNITED STATES keeps supporting Israel with money and weapons to do this.

God forbid if Syria and Iran get involved in this conflict, both Israel and the United States are going to be in serious trouble.

I don't doubt that Hezbollah wanted to start trouble. Their main objective is the complete destruction of Israel. But the few Israeli captives that Hamas had didn't even come close to the 8,000 to 9,000 prisoners (some being Lebanese) that the Israelis were holding.

I'll assume your last sentence is sarcasm Onyx, neither Iran nor Syria can handle the US as an adversary, let alone have Israel added to the equation.

But you got it all right and i totally agree with you about Hezbullah, they're NOT terrorists per se, they just terrorise Israelis who in my opinion are just getting some of what they deserve. I'm talking military and not innocent civilians, of course.

It's a war and always has been, civilians will be lost, and that stands correct for Lebanese and Israelis (Contrary to what i posted here b4 =D)
It's all a vicious selective process in action in my view, the strong/most fit will survive. Like it or not deep down we are still very much animals... =/

What the fuck is this shit? Worst in History? Apartheid was pretty bad, but not even the Afrikaners could touch Kim Jong, the Khmer Rhouge, Stalin, etc., etc., etc. Even if you're speaking in modern terms there are a myriad of worse human rights offenders than Israel and the United States.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon at the turn of the millenium. Hezbollah has no reason to exist anymore other than to serve the regional goals of the Syrians and Iranians, and the reason this war started was because Hezbollah needs to re-assert the need for its existence lest the Lebanese government starts a crackdown.

If you honestly want to go back in time to play the blame game we can start this whole mess with Britain and the UN for founding Israel.

Saying that the Israelis are the "badguys" is ludicrous. Israelis aren't blowing up cafes and busses. Israelis aren't going into other countries and abducting their soldiers. Israelis don't launch rockets unprovoked into neighboring nations.

Israel has always acted in a reactionary measure, and comparing the Israeli government to Apartheid is ludicrous. Arabs in Israel have the same basic rights as Jews, and if the Palestinians desire independance while also harboring and electing elements hostile to Israel then how can Israel act in any other way? You think that if Israel stops reacting to terror that the attacks will stop? You think that if they make a total withdrawal from Palestine that Hamas will just call it a day and go back to doing something constructive?

In a word Bradylama : Yes

They want nothing but Israel away from the Holy Mosque and no abuse.

You are very misinformed if you think otherwise. I speak to you from the middle east and i have been to Palestine.

Then why is it that despite Mashal's claim that Hamas would stop armed resistance that the 1988 charter is still in effect? Keep in mind also that Hamas has threatened to start beheadings if attempts are made to arrest members of their cabinet, regardless of however many crimes they've commited.

Why would Mashal tell the Egyptians that Hamas would never change, then tell the Russians a week later that they would stop armed resistance?

It's all a bunch of bullshit. A gradual reduction of intimidation since the offer of humda in 2004 (a ten-year truce). You're pretty fucking gullible for swallowing that trite.

Yes, okay, it's objectionable that Hamas officials say one thing to one administration and something else to another.

I guess that must make them some sort of political party or something. More than just degenerate towelheads with a rudimentary geopolitical understanding at best.

So long as Hamas maintains its militant wing, they are a terrorist organization. Does Labor have its own militia there in aussie land? Do they have turf wars with the Conservatives or kidnap New Zealanders?

Horseshit..

Why does Israel have a military force then? It's only essential for a country's government. And since Hamas made government it aint unjustifieable to consider their "militia" part of the government's forces.

Them making office disvalidates any "terrorist" claims, not by definition.
And certainly not by action.

Except that you are comparing the governent controlled military of a soveriegn nation to the military of a ideological, non-governmentally-controlled political faction. Its like saying that Kadima can have a military of its own because the US government does, and Kadima has seats in the Israeli government.

Yes it is. The Palestinian government and Hamas are seperate entities, and the military wing of Hamas answers to the Hamas leadership, not the Palestinian government. Similarly, Fatah militias answer to the Fatah leadership, not the Palestinian government.

The Israeli Defense Forces, on the other hand, report to the Israeli government, regardless of whether Labor, Likud or Kadima controls it. The Palestinian Authority security forces, which are distinct from militias answer to the Palestinian government, regardless of whether Fatah or Hamas control it.

Sinn Fein had had electoral success for decades. Did that make them stop being a terrorist organization, even while their military wing continued to conduct terrorist actions?

Actually, I'd say the only thing holding back certain Sydney electorates are the firearms laws. Guns or not (and indeed an entire sea or not), the science of landgrabbing will never leave humanity, but just get cleaner. Our constitution still provides for New Zeleand's becoming a seventh state.

I don't really follow the A-I conflict, mainly because of its homogeneity, but I think the Israeli government's obliged to accord Hamas many of the same courtesies it would the governing bodies of Jordan, Canada or the UN, despite its militant wing. It's not an easy juggle, no, but that's what the circumstances dictate. Shit, it's in Israel's best interests to take care of Palestine. Extremist organisations die when their recruitment pool realises it's not worth saddling up for a remote grudge of history when they've a home that they know will stand for more than six months, central heating, clean water, a secondary school and a decent soccer ground.

That is true, styphon, very true, but that's just a technicality considering that the palestinian government has no (effective) millitary force, so this kinda replaces it in role by , how should i say this; Heirarchy (?)


Again true, and i concede that i was mistaken saying it like that, what i meant was that by definition a "terrorist" is someone working without 'attachment' to anything of authority and mostly are 'ghost' organizations/systems that have no clear head, not the act of "causing terror to people", because if it was the act of causing terror then Israel most certainly fits that bill.
If you are informed of both sides' work you will probably agree that none of them can't be blamed much, we have more news sources here (Not including the stupidly biased AL-Jazeera or the ignorant CNN) these sources report horrible stuff done by both parties, and seeing as the very presence of Israel is disputable (I know the propaganda demands it be seen as a given, remember they were declared by war and deliberate "take-over", that isn't a good foundation for a country, and that goes for any other country that's done the same) the scales kinda tip towards Hamas being a lot more on the "reaction" based side.

Who the hell said Israel only reacts? Every single daily advance Israel makes is pure provokation, if for examplei flick you in the nose then kick you in the crotch, and you punch me in the face and i scream out loud i'm ALWAYS gonna seem like the good guy. That's what Israel does. You have to be there to judge, and i've been there, Israelis aren't reacting to anything, there's alot of "out-of the blue" scenarios.

That's clever. Twist the meaning of terrorist to make Israel look like a terrorist state! :rolleyes:

That's just beyond stupidity. First of all, Hezbollah has been declared a terrorist organization by the US, EU, and the UN. Israel has not. And honestly, comparing Israel to terrorists? Are you serious? Israel has done NOTHING to these people short of existing, but now you cry foul when they attack after being provoked. Israel IS reactionary, but not after every single attack as you'd want to believe. Do you think Israel would be attacking Lebenon by now had Hezbollah not kidnapped their soldiers? Of course not.

Alright, let's pretend for a second here that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization. That they're a legitimate governing body, and that their actions reflect directly upon the Palestinian government.

Does the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier not then constitute an act of war? If Hamas is no longer a fringe element, and is the recognized authority in Palestine, then doesn't that mean that they must be held accountable for their actions as a governing body?

Way to kill eight Canadians, Israel.

Of course if we were America we would have nuked them for that. Sigh, can the world just step in already.

http://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gifhttp://imagesocket.com/images/emot_canada6a5.gif

How do you expect anyone but "rogue countries" to step in with all the support Israel gets from the U.S.?

If you measure human rights in the number of lives lost, yes, there are a myriad of countries that are worse than Israel…and maybe worse than the United States. We could argue all day about who is worse, but the government of Israel has been just as bad as Kim Jong, the Khmer Rouge, and Stalin. Maybe not in the number of lives lost, but in everything else. Israelis are guilty of many of the same human rights crimes.

I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all. Maybe they don’t bomb cafes or abduct other countries’ soldiers. But they do intentionally bomb civilian districts and abduct/kill innocent civilians instead. Which is worse?

Yes, but a “reactionary manner” isn’t invading a country, abusing human rights, and then attempting to occupy that country. It’s not like Israel is just sitting around baking cookies and doing good. It’s constantly stirring up shit with the Arab world and the Israeli government knows that the Arabs will attack them. They then use that as an excuse to “respond in a reactionary manner.” In this case, it’s the “removal of Hezbollah”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel sticks around. Just by looking at Israel’s last two invasions of Lebanon, their intentions are clear.

And comparing Israel to Apartheid isn’t ludicrous at all. Not from a human rights perspective. You don’t have to look very hard to see the comparison. The Israelis took the Palestinians’ land, built a huge fence around them, and robbed them of their humanity. From a human-rights perspective, Israel and South Africa aren’t so different. Sure, the Israelis aren’t fueled by the super-racist ideology that the Afrikaners are, but essentially, it’s the same thing.

No. Sure, Arabs and Jews have equal rights, but that doesn’t mean anything, really. Whether or not they HAVE rights is not the question. Everyone has equal rights under international law. The real question is whether or not these rights are being upheld. And the reality is that Israel continues to abuse these rights. We can get technical if you want, but we’re talking about quite a few international laws and regulations that Israel has purposely been broken in the name of “retaliation.”

I wasn’t being sarcastic. A war with Iran and Syria is going to have serious political, economical, and social consequences. See what happens if Iran sets up a blockade or disrupts the Straits of Hormuz (which is south of them, and where much of the world’s oil is transported). Think about what will happen to the American morale if we go to another war. We’re already stretched out pretty thin militarily. What if other countries get involved and begin to re-evaluate their partnership with the United States? I don’t have to spell it out anymore for you, do I?

I’m not going to attack your claims, because I think your reasoning is flawed. Israel is an ally of the United States. Just because it doesn’t meet the US’s standards for terrorism doesn’t mean that it can’t be a terrorist government. It’s strictly political. Also, please name a big incident where the Israelis did not react with military might. I’m just curious.

Maybe, but it didn’t help that Israel was already holding hundreds of Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah’s not entirely to blame for this conflict. After all, in Israel, hostage-taking is legal. Just remember that Israel has been in Lebanon long before Hezbollah. This isn't the first time this has happened.

If you read the Prospect of Peace in the Middle East Thread:

You would understand that Israel's original invasin of Lebanon was based on terrorist shelling Israel. They did not invade for the hell of it back then and did not attack for the hell of it today.

Double Post:
Not really. Israel is capable of handling the majority of the Middle East as they had demonstrated n their war of indepedence (more like war for right to exist) and the 6-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War. If their existence came into question again, they have atomics that they can use.

If you want to go even furthur back in time, blame Abraham for not listening to God. ;)

Brady and I do not live in the Middle East but there is substantial evidence that points to the fact that Israel would still be under assault if they withdrew from Palestine entirely. The PLO charter who ironically is much much more moderate than Hamas states that their goal is to keep fighting until the "Zionist" nation no longer exist.

Israel takes better care of Palestinian refuges than Palestine would if the role situations were reversed. No matter what Israel does, as long as school textbooks and the Imams and the Mosques continue to preach death to Israel - nothing can be done. It's really kill or be killed and the military action is precipitated from the Palestinian/Hezbollah end.

At some point though, you must see things the way they are and move on with your lives. Over two generations has passed since the founding of Israel. Why are 16 year old's blowing themselves up for events that happened in that happened 60 years ago? Israel exists now and will continue to exist.
The arab nations need to get off Israel's back. Were not giving America back to the indians, or california back to mexico, or paying reperations to the Blacks.

People in a warzone die regardless of nationality. And yes the word has tried to intervene. The world's terms are "Return Israel's soldiers and stop shelling them". Very cut and dry.

It's not even CLOSE the ratio of restraint exercised by Israel versus it's relative military might. They ARE dropping leaflets warning of impending attack zones. Think Hamas has that courtesy? Hezbollah? You think if Hezbollah had a nuke, they wouldn't of used it on Israel already and be picky of military targets?
Thank you.

What did Israel do to precipitate the attack by Hezbollah? The Arab countries didnt HAVE to attack Israel. But Israel HAS to respond. See the difference?

I can sum that entire debate in one question.
Would you rather be an arab living in Israel or be a jew living in Palestine?
Thank you.

I would say that targeting civilians as opposed to killing them due to circumstance would be the worse of the two. Or do you think that the rockets Hezbollah are firing have any kind of guidance system?

Israel's defensive intentions have always been to provide a buffer against Arab aggression. Israel didn't even occupy the West Bank until 1967, and until then, Tel-Aviv was a stone's throw from a hostile border. Decades of aggression that ended when Israel got the bomb haven't exactly cooled passions in the Arab world. Or have you forgotten that Hamas and Hezbollah are Syrian and Iranian proxies?

Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was at the time launching attacks along its southern border, and they withdrew from Haifa to the security zone after the PLO withdrew its combatants from the region. Israel remained in the zone to keep the PLO from operating within Lebanon, and also keep the newly formed Hezbollah from attacking Israeli territory. Yet despite the purpose of Hezbollah, which was to end the Israeli occupation, they deployed themselves along the Blue Line after Israel's withdrawal in 2000. Why then would Hezbollah not dissolve itself when the threat from Israel had ended?

Hezbollah is now a Lebanese power, and their immediate aim is to gain political power in Lebanon. What better way to do that than to stir up the hornet's nest and create a need for their initial existence?

Give me an example of Arab Israelis that have been denied their rights afforded to them by the Israeli constitution. International Laws have nothing to do with rights violations in an Apartheid-esque government, because Apartheid, in case you've forgotten, was a government which oppressed its own nationals.

Not in the Middle East. If Iran attempts to cut off the world's oil because of Israeli escalation, then the global community would be behind us in ending an Iranian blockade. People the world over would be clamoring for the resignation of President Ahmedinejad.

Well, the recent hostage negotiations in which Israel exchanged 400 political prisoners for two of their soldiers and the remains of several others, for one. The one that was mentioned in this thread?

Israel was in Lebanon starting in 1978, which is a 4 year difference between the Israeli presence and the founding of Hezbollah. Nevermind either, that when the Civil War ended, Israel released several of their detainees after militias dissolved themselves. The only Civil War militia that hasn't been disolved is the one belonging to Hezbollah, and the prisoners Israel continues to detain are members of that organization.

Are you joking? The US nuke Israel? And which "world" should step in? If you're talking about that corrupt peace of trash the UN, then it'll take them 2 years to decide there's even a problem. If not the UN, then you must be talking about the US, because no other nation (besides maybe Britian and Australia) would lend their military. I know you love to hate the US, but get your head out of your ass this time. Israel can more then take this type of opposition on its own.

Bradylama you show no backing data that prove your defence, your obvious ly blindly in defence of Israel.

To whomever:
I never said Israel is a terrorist state by the way, they just commit acts that can very well be defined as terrorism, again i speak of experience, what do you have to counter that?

I would only judge Styphon's words as logic in countering what i say, i still hate the bastard though, but he's right, your argument however, brady, is not logical in any way.
How can one give you an example of the everyday disregard of arab rights in israel, wether they are Palestinian or Israeli? It happens, take my word for it.

Obviously you're implying that Israel is committing acts of terrorism. Fact is, they are a legitimate soverign government, and are only defending their interests. Collateral damage happens, and it's unfortunate, but your arbitrary definition of terrorism is definately implying something.

On the other hand, Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians with their attacks. They don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses and shopping malls. That is clear cut terrorism.

Were all the hippies and Cronkite right, and the US military wrong, on Vietnam? What about that time Castro got the better of the US government? You're ideology's black and white so neither of these should be too tough of a pigeonhole.

I'm talking about everyday living standards, not who does incarceration better. Militant ideological twists of Islam are proselytised by one generation of Palestinians onto younger generations in order that they fight Dad's war. You can only cut if off generationally, and one side is infinitely more equipped to achieve that than the other.

But of course we can look at independent states as corporations and go 'why should Israel, Inc. put charity before profitability?' Giving Palestinians a future IS Israeli profit. In fact it's the best security initiative Israel could ever hope to implement.

Has Israel and/or the Atlantic Community (I don't like 'International') even given Hamas an incentive worth the bother, as in something positive? Offer to them that they'll be recognised as a proper government and removed from the terrorist list if they can capture the loyalty of all the factions and keep them together, if they can legitimate themselves by independent criteria. Palestine has to compromise first, but Israel has to compromise the most if anyone will ever see the remotest semblance of this occuring.

Triggering a proper Palestinian infrastructure also means that Syria and Iran lose their proxies, or at least a significant amount of authority.

Aren't you part of the camp that said his government's likely working toward the bomb last time? Surely he's cluey enough to know what comes after what.

Which is why the idea of Iran actually doing anything in response to Israeli aggression is laughable. They can't reach Syria with a US controlled Iraq. They couldn't reach Syria before with a Saddam controlled Iraq. If they launched missiles into Israel, it'd have to go over Iraqi airspace. If they attack shipping in the Gulf with their Silkworms, then they've started a war with the US and everybody that likes oil.

I'm not saying Ahmedinejad is stupid, I'm saying that it's dumb to think that Iran would actually make good on their threats.

Might isn't simply measured in physical force. All political interests have to have a certain amount of clout behind them to get anywhere, and in the case of Vietnam, the anti-war crowd had gained a greater political force than the warhawks.

Might makes right, even in politics.

Also, Cal, the US and the UN did offer to recognize Hamas as the ruling party in Palestine if they gave up their goal of eradicating the state of Israel.

The Canadian deaths are tragic. This is probably the best time for the US to pressure Israel to back off and delegitimize Hezbollah. Now is the best time to send the message to the Palestinians: "Look where Hezbollah has gotten you. They've dragged you into a war that you cannot win and for what?"

The Lebanese government would be willing to accept anything right now. If the IDF and the Lebanese military threatened joint operations against Hezbollah how long would they remain armed?

In what way? What is my argument?

Well I dunno Mr. Knowitall, you claim to be there, apparently you should be the fucking authority on the subject.

You're some guy on the internet. Why should I take your word for it? So far you've given me no reason to believe that you've even set foot in the Middle East. You make vague statements about stuff that's happening over there, without providing any examples of it. You speak in generalities with no specific umph behind your statements other than the baseless claim that you've been there, we should take your word for it.

Fuck your experience. I don't care if the IDF drove a Merkava through your house. You've given us no reason to believe you've been there.

Of course they're committing acts of terror. Terror is a necessary tool in the waging of any war. What makes the IDF different from Hezbollah, is that the IDF is considered the military branch of a recognized nation, and its actions are then legitimized in a diplomatic environment. Whether or not people agree with those actions is a part of diplomacy.

Brady you idiot, i'm egyptian and i live in egypt, check my posting ips..

And yes i have been there multiple times, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Besides, how the hell can i provide any so-called "umph" when you question my credibility?
Remember if i mention a single incident/experience it can be labeled as an individual act and so i'd have to mention more and more, we're not going to make any situation changing decisions here so the importance of providing THAT solid of an argument isn't justified. Take my word for it or turn your head away and shut up. I won't die if you don't believe me, besides, i have no reason to lie as i am unaffected by either case "winning".

And before you get this into religion i'm an Aethiest, so i'm as neutral as they come.

My friendly foreign minister said this about Al-Queda a while backa nd I couldn't help but think how much it applies to Israel too.

I'm not going to bother joining this debate though as Brady, Night Pheonix, Robo Jesus, Lord Styphon and the rest of the nationalist crowd is just running the "what's right for Israel is right for America is right for me" line. There's no point in trying to show these guys an ethical or emotional standpoint on the issue because they all left their integrity along with their moral fibre in the bin before entering.

Oh and a mate of mine is currently stranded in Lebanon. Bombing roads and airports can fuck right off.

If you're not going to join in the debate, why bother posting?

Also, could you please remind me where I took the "what's right for Israel is right for American is right for me line", as you put it? Looking over the four posts I made in this thread, I can't find it. I can only assume my eyes are going, and that I'm making posts expressing more support for Israel than I usually show in dicussions about Israel.

You seem to have only posted in this thread to not read what has been said, tell us that you're not going to participate in the debate, and launch unprovoked flames against me and others.

Here, have an official warning.

Yeah, I'd also like to know where I was riding Israel's nutsack.

Hell, I could see this going into WWIII. Everyone's totally on edge. But really, what should Isreal have done when their troops were captured? Negotiated? The way I see it is, if they do that, then they're just going to keep on kidnapping people.
Why are those palestinians in the jails anyways?

Edit: I just remembered this point I heard:
Is it that Lebannon doesn't want to disarm Hezbolah (sorry for my spelling) or is it that they aren't able to?

Probably both.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I am disturbed by the amount of support shown for the concept of "might makes right". I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how it is that armed robbers aren't entirely justified by this philosophy. Oh wait, is it because the Police have a greater might? I get it now. The armed robber is right, his victim is wrong, but the police are MORE right.

I don't care where you live. You still don't get the fact that you haven't given us anything better to go off of other than saying you having been there.

I also don't care what you think about whether or not I believe you. Who are you to expect us to just take your word for you? If you want people to take your word for it you need them to trust you, and in case you haven't noticed, the internet is a collective of strangers. I don't know anything about you other than you live in Egypt and get boners for Thor, and I don't know anything about your moral fibre or credibility.

Taking your word for it is not enough.

Though, it is justified if you want people to believe you. I'm not questioning what goes on in Palestine, though what you're not getting is that I'm asking you about Arab Israelis.

I also don't give a shit if you're Aetheist or worship Osiris. You're just some guy on the internet.

I'd still like to know what's so illogical about my argument, please.

Israel is no friend of the US. For certain we'd probably be a lot better off in the region without a "Zionist body" in the Middle East. The Israelis have the bomb, though, so supporting them becomes a necessity even in a post-Cold War environment. If the nation of Israel is threatened with destruction you think they're going to just sit on those nukes?

Fuck it, though, if you can't take in the big picture of this situation, or come up with a better argument to delegitimize Israel's aggression other than your mate is stuck in Lebanon.

Styphon's already said it, but allow me to put some more emphasis on it. If you think you can come into Palace threads and troll them, you can fuck off. Clearly us "nationalists" are so Godawful, why do you even post here?


The thief was never right to begin with, because the government says he's wrong. Since the thief has no chance of defying the government, then the government defaults as being in the right.

You don't have to like Might Makes Right, it's a fact.

A government that openly dictates in its charter that it is "by the people, for the people" needs the support of its citizens in order to carry out the business of might makes right. We went to war and had a majority in favor of it. We went to war again, and people balked. The president's approval ratings are in the shitter right now because he doesn't have the agreement of his populace.

Might makes right works only as long as the people will tolerate it. French revolution, anyone?

This is because the people are the ones which dictate what is right. The citizens are the ones that hold most of the cards in a democratic society. The principle hasn't changed, it just means that voters acting as a collective are mightier than their elected representatives.

Yes, you're right, that's true for the French Revolution, but I wonder if the same rules apply when there's a bureaucracy that needs be met before action can be taken. An election, for example, could be viewed as might makes right, or it could be seen as having to bow to the needs of an institution, rather than the people.

Hey dudes,

Hopefully this may cool things down, but I can also see this being outright rejected.

Sure. Let’s argue the facts. This is taken from the Basic Laws of Israel (there is no Israeli constitution as of yet) from the Human Dignity and Liberty section:

Section 3 Protection of property
There shall be no violation of the property of a person.

I got this from B’Tselem. To sum it up for you, the Israelis have been sealing off caves that Palestinians have been living in for hundreds of years. They say its for “imperative military needs,” (as always)… not because these Palestinians there are suspected terrorists. The Israelis have stolen sheep, threatened settlers, injured innocents, and worst of all, prevented access to the farmer’s fields, which is their livelihood. Feel free to read the report. I’ve linked you to a summary but the full 84-page report is available too. I can produce more incidents if you wish, as there are plenty of them.

By “nationals,” you aren’t referring to Afrikaners, are you? Please briefly explain yourself some more, and also explain why any member of the United Nations doesn’t have to adhere to its laws.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if it weren’t for Israel’s invading Lebanon, Hezbollah wouldn’t be what it is today. You are correct on the 4 year difference, and I’ll admit, I was incorrect on my facts. But in regards to the Lebanese prisoners, how can you prove that Israel is only holding members of Hezbollah? Keep in mind that before this current crisis started, the Israelis were kidnapping shepherds and farmers in Lebanon. It’s like asking the U.S. government to prove that every person who goes into a Black Ops prison is a suspected insurgency member.

Let me ask you this: was Israel targeting Hezbollah members when they attacked the Rafik Hariri airport? Was there as a Hezbollah meeting somewhere on the roads between Beirut and Syria when Israel destroyed them? Airports and roads are strategic targets, but they are also civilian targets, as are residential districts. The difference between Israel and Hezbollah is that Israel has no choice but to attack civilian targets, because Hezbollah is not a visible entity. Every action on both side (IDF and Hezbollah) is in fact very deliberate.

Wow, you completely missed the point. Look at the number of civilians that have been killed by Israelis compared to those killed by Palestinians. “Restraint” included. Thank you.

You didn’t sum anything up at all. And if you want to find the honest answer to your question, all you have to do is check the human rights organizations. You’ll find that your chances of survival are much higher if you’re an Jew living in Palestine. You can argue, but let’s at least argue the facts.

And I have another topic that I’d like to bring up: much of the shells and artillery being used has American names on it. How do you think that’s going to affect the U.S. and innocent Lebanese in the future when yet another organization against Israel and the United States forms in Lebanon? I’d like to hear your guys’ takes on this.

If it is rejected, though, then it will be Hezbollah that has decided to extend hostilities.

Would the Lebanese be so willing to live with them then when Hezbollah had a chance to end the killing? If Hezbollah accepts, though, they'll be isolated inside Lebanon in the southeast. If they don't accept, they risk losing support, and if they do, then they'll become marginalised as a regional power.


I don't think you're getting it, Onyx. I'm not asking you about Palestinians, I'm asking about Arab Israelis. If Palestinians were Israelis, then it sort of delegitimizes their claim to independence, doesn't it?

Afrikaners were technically nationals, sure, in the sense that they were Dutch descendants that held the power in South Africa. I'm talking about the indigenous peoples of South Africa. The ones that felt the stamp of Apartheid's boot. I suppose in a sense, the blacks could've been seen as non-nationals from an Afrikaner perspective, since South Africa is a Western construct as opposed to an African born national body.

It's pretty complicated, now that I think about it.

UN members don't actually have to follow its laws because the UN doesn't really pass laws. It passes resolutions. The UN functions on the basis of primitive law and the whims of the Security Council. Member states don't have to follow resolutions if the Security council can't agree to enforce them. So long as you have one friend on the security council (in Israel's case, the US, and NK's China and Russia) who can cast a vetoe, then you're pretty much in the clear. What's even more hilarious, is that if you're a member of the security council, then you can simply vetoe any measure of enforcing a resolution upon your state.

It's a charming organization, sure, but when UN interests don't meet those of a single Security Council member, the whole process becomes meaningless.

Quite simply, I can't. It was a statement made based on conjecture, and was really a stab in the dark.

I can tell you, though, that considering the nature of reward incentives for locals turning in "terrorists" there's going to be a large number of innocent men in our Black Ops prisons. I can't really comment on Israel's detainees, though.

The importance then, becomes intent. Like you said, Israel pretty much has to target civilian districts because Hezbollah isn't a standing army. It's seriously doubtful that the IDF intended to kill those Canadians, for instance.

Israel does lack any appreciable amount of restraint, short of a ground invasion. Dropping leaflets isn't a forewarning so much as the IDF is telling Lebanese "Your lives or your livelihoods." A lot of Lebanese probably think they have no choice but to stay with their possessions. Even if they do live in the basement of a Hezbollah broadcasting station.

It won't make much of a difference. Hezbollah has already been anti-American. It was bad enough that the international community got itself involved in the civil war back in the 80's.

If Israel doesn't present a threat to Lebanon, though, there won't even be a need for militias. Hezbollah was founded, after all, when Israel's second occupation became more permanent in 1982. Israel's reluctance to send ground troops into Lebanon probably reflects a policy of delegitimizing the need for militias to protect Lebanese lands from Israeli aggression.

Like I said before, Israel needs to try and delegitimize the need for Hezbollah in Lebanon. This offer of a cease-fire is a great step in that direction. Now Israel and the US need to start making inroads with the Lebanese government towards moving against Hezbollah jointly.

Is that going to really happen though? If Lebanon has been inactive against Hezbollah due to fear, what are the chances of that changing? Oh, Israel's army moving into Lebanon scares the fuck out of them, of that I have no doubt. What I doubt is whether they fear Israel more than Hezbollah, and whether or not they're going to do anything when they have a history of doing nothing, and hoping for the best outcome.

Arab-Israelis tend to be Palestinians, though. Not in nationality but by genetics. And much the same, Arab-Israelis do not have the same rights that Israelis do. If they did, then Palestinians who were kicked from their homes in 1947 could apply for citizenship in Israel. They can do so only if they are Jewish, which the majority of Palestinians are not.

And again, blacks in South Africa did not have the same rights as whites. We all know that. The distinction you are trying to make doesn’t really exist, as the original “mandate” of Palestine was a Western construct as well. If anything, that makes them more similar than different.

Israel doesn’t have to follow international resolutions, but the U.N. does also try to enforce the Geneva Conventions as well, which are international law. And it’s no secret even to the U.N. that Israel has violated the conventions many times. Whether or not the U.N. is a circus is certainly important, but that’s whole other topic altogether. Despite how ridiculous the organization can be, its laws have to be followed, especially if its member countries agree to them.

Okay, then we can agree that it is “possible” that some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons aren’t affiliated with Hezbollah at all, but civilians instead?

And I read that Israeli troops have already entered Lebanon today.

Let's put it this way. Israel has killed ten times as many Lebanese as Hezbollah have killed Israelis. Israel is tearing up the Lebanese infrastructure. Beirut should have plenty to fear from Israel.

Alternatively, going to war with Hezbollah risks another civil war and Syrian intervention. Though, if the Israelis and Lebanese military can work together to drive Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, Syria can't intervene, and the likelihood of a civil war springing up becomes severely reduced so long as Israeli troops stay south of the border while providing air support.

US support will be key, though. If the US can help send arms to the Lebanese, then their effectiveness becomes increased considerably, and the US's position regarding Lebanon is no longer questionable.

The question comes in, though, on wether that hardware would be for lease or on loan. Perhaps we could send an expeditionary force?

Sure, it's entirely possible that the Israelis are holding civilians.

As for Israeli troops in Lebanon, didn't they go across the border to attack Hezbollan positions before going right back across, or is this a full-blown invasion that I haven't heard about?

That's just the thing, though. It's laws don't have to be followed. There's no real definite enforcement of the laws, they only apply to the losers. It's not like Civilization or Alpha Centauri where you can't trade anymore if you're kicked out of the UN.

Kind of. There wasn't a seperate state that was to be created inside South Africa. Black South Africans were South African all the same.

Bradylama continues to show useless contradicting arguments, are you supporting Israel's aggression or not? Are you supporting Israel as a political body or not? Do you know anything about what goes on there beside what you see in ignorant ol' CNN? or Fox news?
Before you ask for us to negate your statements and back up our negation provide anything that validates them. For all anyone knows media is very controllable (I'm not considering conspiracy theories here, just think of someone who runs of infront of a camera holding his eyes and screaming, i bet he's gonna get more sympathy than the guy who hit him, regardless of what made him hit him in the first place, which could be anything the "eye-holder" has done). In that respect i certainly am much more credible by the sheer one-dimensioned advantage of proximity. Let alone personal experience.

I do worship Osiris, stfu.. How come you didn't get the point, why did i say it, Brady? Ask yourself that and answer intelligently.

You said it because you thought I'd assume that you'd have a religious bias against Israel being a Muslim. I don't care if you're Muslim. Hell, your proximity to the region only serves to give you bias. Or did you not think that one through?

How much do you know about this that hasn't been presented to you through Arab media?

I can ask you all of these same questions, and what can you do? You still haven't provided any examples of your experience. That implies to me that you don't actually have any experience, and don't want to be exposed as a liar, and a troll.

I support Israel's actions, though I think they could go about doing this better if they started backing off and engaging with the Lebanese diplomatically, which may just be the case.

Israel can't act with restraint, because they can't help but attack civilian targets if they want to fight Hezbollah, which they have to. The most important measure of restraint they've practiced has been keeping their troops on the other side of the border, which is very commendable, and implies a desire to avoid another Hezbollah, or increase support for Hezbollah.

Also, please tell me which of my statements need proving, and what it is about my argument that lacks logic.

Edit : Broswer problems, i posted the same shit again here :(

Double Post:
Don't wave the troll card in my face Brady, that's beyond lame, as long as i am trying to say something objectively i don't think i qualify as a troll. Shove it back where it came from.

Ok here's what lacks logic in my opinion: You considering Israel to be a soveriegn state, your disregard for its inhuman acts, and refusal to admit that Israel is a terrorist nation.

The proximity thing surely does suggest bias on my part, i can only say that it's not there, but i admit i didn't think of it in that way.

Brady i was objecting to your blind-support for Israel, it doesn't seem blind now, but can you really say that 100% of what you or i know is what really happens?
Fuck my experience there, for all anyone knows i'm just another individual, how about the Sabra and Shatila massacres? How about more of the same calibur? Those were totally uncalled for and believe me they happened. So i weasled out of stating what i saw and know, there are reasons i'd rather not dive into that well of memories, my mention of them existing was to say that i speak out of some experience not that i will use them as proof, since even if i did, how can anyone know i'm not making it up?
So with that in mind what happened is what really matters, regardless of who it happened to. Look more into the history of the area and the conflict. Believe me when i say, a country 'growing' into another country like a tumor is enough reason to consider it a paradise, read into the circumstances that "Israel" has risen in. Read into what they've done, then come back and tell me they are 'reactionaries'.

What happened is what matters, not what you or i say, and if you look closely into it you'll discover alot of stuff you didn't know. I don't know a lot of trustworthy resources you can find online, how about reading into what the europeans in Palestine write, those weren't biased before they came into Israel and they have alot to say now.

Whatever it's like i just want people to consider more sources other than CNN, please.

Brady, from what I read it was hard to discern whether or not it they returned or if it was full-blown, as it was breaking news on Democracy Now. And aside from the mind-numbing reports from CNN and and CBS, I don't know much else. But I suspect we'll find out a lot more tomorrow.

As far as online sources, human rights organizations like B'Tselem and Amnesty International are good places to start. Their publications are listed on the website. But you probably know that considering you live in the region, anyways. :) Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Norman G. Finkelstein aren't bad writers on the topic, either.

Maybe i'm being a bit doomsday, but WWI and WWII became a world war because the US were helping(intercontinental, to be politically correct :-P). So if the US, and maybe Europe wil have to get in between again if things get outta hand, wouldn't that be a third world war?

I hope that we can get this whole Iraq so we are out of the Middle East ASAP, the longer we stay the longer i feel we are just getting into more and more trouble and less and less gain for victory. So help our nation for it :(

WWII involved a fairly large chunk of the world before America were drawn into the conflict. I admit that the attack on Pearl Harbor and the resultant American involvement did escalate the scale of the conflict, not to mention that it provided desperately needed additional allied forces, but I think that the Second World War could justifiably have been called a World War even before America had a stake in it.


The conflict already encompassed most of Europe, and parts of Asia, North Africa, and it should be noted that America had a financial stake in the war for some time before they had any military assets at stake, due the Lend-Lease Act.

Certainly it should be said that American involvment was instrumental, and increased the overall scale of warfare, but I don't know if I'd support the notion that it wasn't a "World War" until they became directly involved. I also feel compelled to note that while the US did indeed help, and greatly so, that was not their primary purpose. They were simply retaliating against an attack on their own troops, and defending their own interests against an agressor. The fact that they got drawn into the war as a whole was something of an unintentional byproduct from the American viewpoint.

I don't feel qualified to comment on the First World War, but I will close by saying that despite this objection, it seems eminently likely to me that the Middle East will be the theater of operations for the next conflict that history will term a "World War".

I find it hard to imagine that there will be the same degree of co-operation and mutual support in a future "World War" as there has been in the past, though.

Define "victory", as it pertains to Iraq, please. Whatever the reasons for entering into that conflict, and I'm not about to discuss their validity, the US military hav found themselves a no-win situation. Even if we accept as a basis for discussion that the position taken by the US administration was entirely justified, and that starting this war was an entirely justified thing to to, there's no way to win, and that is in no way the fault of the troops, the commanders, or anyone else.

It wasn't a war that could be won from the start.

You have a very poor understanding of World Wars.

And yet, you still don't want to provide any examples of your experience. Whatever, though, I think people understand who is right here. (heh, might makes right :D ) Most mods wouldn't be so lenient regarding a spurning of a warning, but whatever, you're just another hothead, no loss.

Well what do you want me to do, go over there and ask them very nicely to stop being such big meanies? I understand that Israel isn't exactly playing Mr. Nice Guy, but then they don't really care. Israel does what it does for the sake of its national defense. If Israel blows up Palestinian caves, it's probably because they had the very reasonable fear of them being used as weapons caches. Why would people even want to live in caves in the first place?

Israel isn't the hottest property on the globe, but I would sooner side with the Israelis than a bunch of wackos that think blowing up civilians will destroy their neighbor, or an organization that carries out assaults on a sovereign nation as a means of garnering political power.

Also, are you implying that Israel isn't a sovereign state?

If we go based on that logic, though, nothing we think really matters, and we should just act as if nothing is happening. (this is actually what happens, but for the sake of argument it doesn't hold water)

Which were commited by Christian militias. Though Israel was personally responsible for requesting their involvement, and then doing nothing as the massacre was perpetrated. Of course, Israeli involvement was actually confirmed by an Israeli inquiry, and it was found that Ariel Sharon beared personal responsibility in the massacre, and he lost his job as the minister of defence. Of course, he'd later become Prime Minister despite the inquiry's suggestions.

It's too controversial a subject to debate in this thread, but what we do know is that Israeli troops reported the massacre to their superiors, and were then told not to intervene as they provided logistical support to the Phalangists. We also know, due to investigations by Mossad, that there were no PLO members in Sabra, despite Sharon's claim that there were still 2,000 PLO members in the camp. The need for sending in the Phalangists in the first place. Israelis also kept the refugees from leaving the camps, despite the knowlege that the Phalangists were perpetrating a massacre.

Of course, a lot of this wouldn't have been known in the first place if 300,000 Israelis hadn't demonstrated in Tel-Aviv to begin with.

Israel has definitely been a part of some foul stuff in the past. Though, Israel has always acted from the standpoint of protection against aggression. That still doesn't mean, however, that they are above criticism, even internally.

Interestingly enough, I've learned that there may have been a Syrian involvement in the massacre, if even indirectly. The reason the Israelis invaded Western Beirut in the first place was as a response to the assasination of President Bachir Gemayel by a man who was a member of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, and who claimed to be an agent of Syrian intelligence. In addition to that, Elie Hoboka, who was the commander of the Phalangists that perpetrated the massacre, was reported by Mossad to be maintaining his Syrian contacts, and in fact later openly switched sides to the Syrians.

The Israelis are reactionaries.

Militias like the Haganah would have never existed in the first place had it not been for the Arab riots in 1921 that killed more than a hundred Jews. Arab attacks following World War 2 led to Jewish reprisals and a civil war following British withdrawal. At the founding of Israel, all of its surrounding neighbors attacked it without provocation. While the Israelis gained 10% of the land originally afforded to them, the Jordanians came away with the West Bank, and the Egyptians the Gaza Strip. Egypt nationalized the Suez canal while Nasser expanded his military ambitions and encouraged Fedayeen based in Egypt to attack Israel. In 1967, Egypt expelled peacekeepers from Gaza and cut off shipping at the Straights of Tiran, while they, Jordan, and Syria threatened war with Israel, prompting Israel to pre-emptively attack Egypt, while subsequently repelling the Jordanians and the Syrians, capturing the Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights in the 6 Day War. Border skirmishes with the Egyptians and Syrians led to the surprise attack on Israel in Yom-Kippur, and following Israel's success, they got the bomb.

No more Arab-Israeli wars.

Why so much hostility towards the Jews? Number of reasons. Starting in the 19th Century, Jews were buying up lands in Palestine from the Ottomans in order to escape pogroms and as a measure to eventually establish a Jewish state. This led to understandable consternation among Arab palestinians, however, they were never guaranteed their own nation until they assisted the British in helping fight the Ottomans in WW1. Then Britain stabbed Palestinians in the back with the Balfour Declaration, which declared that the Jews would eventually gain their own nation in Palestinian territory.

You claim that Israel was like a growing tumor in another nation, but that nation never existed. It wasn't even intended to be founded until the British made promises to Palestinians that they couldn't keep, knowing full well the land legitimately owned by Zionist organizations.

So ultimately the problem with Israel is that it exists. Palestinians don't think it should, despite its legitimacy, and in the beginning Israel's arab neighbors saw it as an excuse to divide up Palestine between themselves.

The one time Israel acted aggressively was during Operation Suzannah, when the Israelis tried to keep the British in the Suez by starting low-key bombings in Gaza and Egypt. An event that took years for Israel to patch up relations with the US, and gave Egypt the excuse to persecute Egyptian Jews after its failure.

Hell, if we consider Isreal a terrorist state, then any nation in a war is one as well. The fact is that the Isreali soldiers are clearly marked that they are soliders, they aren't plainclothed so that they get an advantage.

Honestly it's all about perspective. Like what people said before, "Your freedom fighters are our terrorists." Maybe I haven't heard both sides of the arguement, but I can't see the reason why Palestine or Hezobolah can't recognize Isreal as a nation. Yes, it was made from land given by the British Government, but at that time, it was their land to give. Really, please, someone tell me why Isreal shouldn't exist.

The problem with that is that someone will always question the legitimacy of that claim. I suppose you could say that it belonged to the British by right of conquest, but I'm not sure if I believe that really makes it OK to drive people away from their homes.

The Israelis have a claim to that land that dates back to biblical times, but it has been the subject of constant dispute that makes it hard to say who has the superior claim. Obviously the State of Israel has the superior claim, de jure, but is that the only aspect which you're willing to look at?

I don't support the Palestinian objectives, but I do feel that it is worth at least trying to consider the causes of this present conflict on a deeper level than just saying that the British had every right to do what they did.

Brady you're making much more sense the more you speak. I actually agree with most of your last post. Interesting.

But for now can i state that both us and Israel failed once or twice at war? We've been on and off for long, so no, Egypt persecuted the Jews due to regional stuff, don't tread on this issue, my (second?) grandfather was a judge in the courts that banished the local jews, if you wanna discuss that issue (about egyptian jews) i don't mind, though, i'm pretty well informed about it , so be warned =D.
But i think we should discuss it elsewhere, how about in chat? this is interesting..

Double Post:
Oh and considering that you just said Palestinians were stabbed in the back, and you admit that palestine did exist, Israel DID grow like a tumor in an already existant nation and land.

Now i'm not saying it is a cancerous tumor (forgive the medical anology(sp?) ) i just think that its very existance's legitimacy is disputable because of the awkward way it "poped" into the world.

BUT i as a person know that they weren't being so fiercely objected-to and hated because they existed, no, it's all because of the Aqsa, and no matter how silly that may sound look at the religious agendas (i mean plans, correct me if i used the wrong term) most Zionists have it sure seems they are walking in that direction.

Jews have a dream of the promised land; it's written as : from River Nile to River Furat (Euphrates). (1).
The third temple shall be constructed where the Aqsa mosque stands(2)

Are you familiar with the diggings and tunnels being done under Al Aqsa? Let's just ignore the regional conflicts for a moment and consider how infuriated you would be (if you were religious) if someone was to dig tunnels under the Vatikan in such a manner that when all tunnels are complete, the whole structure would collaps at even a small bomb dropped near?
That's the biggest thing, here's one more, settlements.. I've stood there, 20 metres away while the bastards were dozering down a house while pulling everyone inside to the outside. Now that's the single incident i saw, watch the news and you'll see hundreds more, how would you like having your house mowed down ten minutes after you woke up, right before breakfast? What are they supposed to do, not blow them all up?
I doubt it, considering that one guy who destroyed a whole town with an armoured dozer and everyone here aplauded him (Search for the thread). It's easy to ask people to 'pipe down' when you're sitting on your easy chair typing. Were it the opposite i bet anyone would do alot worse, then some idiots beautifully label them as terrorists and bam, every one on the Internet plays along.. Wow, what horrendous acts of terrorism to fight back.

Now you all know there's a big Zionist lobby in the US, right?
Ok ponder this, points (1) and (2) up there add up with the Iraqi invasion don't they? After all the river's in Iraq. Oh but LOOK! [color=red]It also goes through Syria[/b] and turkey. Wow, consider the threats the US keeps making to Syria (Which remind me very much of Iraq's past)..

Anyone else see a silly connection here?

It would be insanely idiotic to ignore this correlation, it's no proof, i admit, and i hate conspiracy theory, but this fits too well to be just a coincidence.

Now tell me, if you think they're moving along with that plan, wouldn't the Aqsa being in jeopardy shine much more? If jews was promised a home, don't you think they will be given a proper one, given that they were already situated where they wanted to? They want it in full, they want the 'whole deal' if you will. Now in my opinion if this goes on to get more and more suspicious that makes them my enemy, i don't wanna keep saying that they're just defending themselves when all i see is advancement.

I think that makes enough sense for us to be more than doubtful of Israel's real intentions.

Remember what i said about plowing down homes, that's enough reason to retaliate, do you know that Hamas is mostly people who've eaten shit because of Israel, and so's Hezbullah? Did you know that most bombers aren't rerlated to any organization and are just retaliating for such horrors?

I can't say much more, if that doesn't make sense i don't know what will.

Double Post:
More :

People in prisons (The reason the kidnappings were made in the first place) are there for no other reason but to break them before they get any chance to avenge themselves for the humiliation they got. That still makes Israelis the bad guys in my book.

It's more than "big." Most of this country is a part of that lobby in some way...and it usually involves Holocaust Remembrance. But god, that's a whole different topic altogether.

Since you're the one who responded to that quote, I figure I might as well ask you. This question isn't loaded in any way, and I don't have anything up my sleeve, so to speak. I just want to know.

What exactly does the Zionist movement want, these days? I was under the impression that the primary objective of said movement had already been achieved... about 50 years ago.

Nile to Furat, soluzar, it still hasn't been, do you see the third temple?
No.
Do you see a country spanning from Nile to Euphrates called Israel?
No.

The goals have yet to be fulfilled. At least as far as Zionists are concerned.

Like I said, I don't get it. I think I get a slightly clearer picture now, but until your post, I had no idea there was anything more to it than getting back into the "Promised Land", which I understood to be Israel. Hence, I thought it had been done. Sorry for the stupid meme that I just edited out. This isn't the place.

And here I was thinking the majority of the population being labeled as "zionists" just want to live and work without having people shoot at them, bomb them, or kidnap their soilders.

Palestine exists in the sense that the Romans renamed Judea, Syria Palaestina in an effort to dissasociate the land with Jews following their forced expulsion after the Bar Kochba Revolt. Palestinian national identity didn't even develop until after the 6 Day War, when the Israelis didn't take to calling Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank Israelis, like the Egyptians and the Jordanians insisted they were members of their states before.

People only recognize the existence of Palestine because of the commonality between Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza and their mutual interests.

Palestine itself popped in very awkwardly as a result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and Great Britain being granted its administration. If you're referring to the UN's plan for the seperate Jewish and Arab states, then yeah, that is pretty awkward.

Well, first of all I'm not Catholic, so I couldn't really give a shit. I guess Catholics would be kinda upset, sure, but I don't think they'd be as particularly angry about it as Muslims would be about Al Aqsa. Christianity, despite the efforts of the Catholic church, still retains a lot of metaphysical conotations. The church itself isn't so much important as it is the congregation of Christian brothers.

But then, I'm not Catholic, and I don't kiss the remains of dead dudes.

Well, yeah. How's about we not blow ourselves up and take other innocent people with us? Why aren't there suicide bombings of the construction firms that lease out these dozers?

How about this one. Are you ready for it? Why not attack the forced expulsion operations themselves?

Yes. Very silly. You're implying that the US invasion of Iraq is a part of a grand Zionist conspiracy to establish a Jewish State across the central Middle East. What. The. Fuck.

If this is honestly the Honest-To-God Truth, then why haven't we made aggressions towards Egypt? Why did Israel cede the Sinai back to the Egyptians?

That's a doozy. If all you've seen from Israel is advancement, why cede the biggest buffer against Egyptian aggression they could have?

Also, where are you getting this description of the Promised Land?

Also, isn't the tunneling under the Al Aqsa being performed for the sake of archeological curiosity?

I'm willing to bet that Hamas is populated by dudes with plenty of love lost for Israel, but where do you get the independance of bombers? Wasn't one of the two female suicide bombers coerced into killing herself under threat of an honor killing?

And where did you get this?

So are you suggesting we should watch Fox News instead? Keep in mind that CNN is one of the rather liberal networks in the U.S. and I've found their reporting to be neutral, fair and honest.

Very reliable sources, Lama, my cousin is one of them. He's been out for 3 years now, you would never believe the horrors they face in those prisons. But to be fair the treatment inside isn't as bad as the worst countries in the world, the reason he got in there is the main concern, he did nothing except protest with his friends against his friend's house being torn down.
That's why it seems like the only example i state, it's cuz it's one of the most severe things i witnessed personally or was told about directly. It really pisses me off, and really warrants me going crazy because of it.

Silly as my conspiracy theory may sound, you'd be surprised at what the camp david peace treaty contained to support my claims, besides, since when did Israel respect any pact or treaty?

The only reason they respect theirs with us is that Egypt isn't like Syria or Lebanon, we have (Well, had) a much harder and more severe policy when it comes to foriegn aggression, you can say we got touchy because of the multiple take-overs, you should read into the '73 war's complications to get an idea of what can be done with so little supplies/equipment and money, as long as an egyptian's involved. Yes of that i'm very proud.

That's not to say our treaty with Israel's safe, anytime the Israelis need to make a move they'll break it just like that, for now it gives them time to work on other plans, your argument that their negativity towards us is against my claim of a "master plan" is thus negated. Time will tell, them not doing anything is no proof they will not.

In turn, you should bear in mind that to some, "liberal" is a dirty word in America. A significant percentage of the population are convinced that it means that you're an unpatriotic communist who hates America, was glad about 9/11 and supports terrorism. Even those who take a more moderate right-wing stance may still believe that the "liberal media" are unreliable at best, and dishonest at worst.

I've been told in the past, by an American who seemed to be otherwise quite intelligent that "liberalism is a mental illness". There's something quite utterly obscene about the degree of hatred that each side of the American political spectrum has for their counterpart. It's all the more disturbing when you consider that both American parties represent only a small subset of the total political spectrum. They have come together in recent years, on many issues. How modern American politics would react to a genuine extremist, I have no idea. They would either declare him the new messiah, or burn him at the stake. Very possibly both.

I don't know, even Al Jazeera is too biased to be trusted.

The best practice would be to view whatever news you're interested in from multiple main-stream sources (With different biases) so you can at least gather whatever's common to all of them and you'd end up with at least a base of (somewhat) certains.

I'd watch Al-Jazeera before I watch CNN. And that's the truth. And no, I'm not a terrorist. But watching CNN is like being stuck in a time warp.

I would argue that the remains of the Zionist movement has been adopted by right-wing Jews who are trying now to "protect" Israel and Jews everywhere from the so-called "New Anti-Semitism" which of course doesn't exist. If you so call even mention the Holocaust in a dirty light, they'll rip your throat out and assume that you support Nazism, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Why? Holocaust revenue in this country is extremely profitable and easy to bring in (although ironically, none of it goes to survivors). You can thank Elie Wiesel, the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, and right-wing politicians. It's all about the money nowadays.

You are so right it hurts. I wouldn't have believed you either if I hadn't read a chapter from Ann Coulter's new book that accuses Liberalism of being its own religion. Craziest shit I've ever read.

The part about the Holocaust is very true.

Am I still the only one who thinks the Zionist conspiracy working through the United States is crazy as fuck?

Yes Brady, read about the Zionist lobby and you will see it's very well plausible.

Look at the contradictions : Most of the US officials support bombing Lebanon and Hillary Skank Clinton announced a lame "We will stick by Israel" Sure who the hell is she to count, but that reflects a politically biased view from a country that supposedly keeps urging others like Hamas and Iran to "Control themselves" when stuff much more outrageous is done against them.

Not just the 'conspiracy' Bradylama, the sheer stupidity of weighing with two scales that occurs all the time. Do you think it's the free US's fault, or the politicians with strong jewish and/or Zionist biases?

Furthermore, who is the *ahem* that removed my Signature? It was 46 KB, i shrunk it, now what's the problem??

Edit : 48 KB, that is, what the hell, that's still under 50 KB...

Edited again for niceness's sake.

People haven't been "doing" much to Iran. For the past decade it's mostly been Iran doing things to others.

I'm not denying that there is a pro-Israeli lobby in the US, but the idea that the United States invaded Iraq due to an unfounded expansionist agenda by Zionist hardliners is laughable. It discounts the involvement of a myriad of other interests, including huge Arab Oil lobbies, oil interests foreign and domestic, not to mention the oil interests of our President and his cronies, as well as the overall strategic position of Iraq in the War on Terror, the protection of the American Petrodollar against the Euro, and the preservation of Middle Eastern regimes that are at least cordial when it comes to relations with the United States.

I don't buy for a second that it's a means for Israel to expand to the Euphrates, because doing so is logistically and politically impossible for Israel to accomplish. Even assuming that you're right, and that Israeli policy is dictated by expansionistic Zionists, it'd be impossible to maintain an Israeli force across the desert and into western Iraq without first neutralizing Israel's immediate neighbors. Even then, such a huge expansion would not only raise the wrath of the entirety of the Arab League, but invite intervention by an international body, and cause opinion of Israel in the US to drop like a stone, if not cause US intervention against Israel.

Gotta watch those Israelis, though. Just because it doesn't look like they're making any overtures towards major territorial expansion and express no interest in doing so doesn't mean they couldn't be secretly plotting to accomplish the impossible!

It's insane. Absolutely insane.

It's also not hard for pro-Israeli interests to drum up support for Israel when they remain a reactionary force in the region. Discounting who "started it," Israel hasn't initiated violent conflict in decades. At the worst, Israel's invasion of Lebanon is akin to the US's Vietnam and Iraq, and the USSR's Afghanistan. The invasion was made under false pretenses (the attempted assasination of an Israeli diplomat was performed by a Palestinian terrorist unaffiliated with the PLO and reports of Palestinian aggression from Lebanon the year before the invasion were grossly exaggerated by the Likud) which while serving in the immediate terms the eradication of the PLO as an effective fighting force, only gave rise to new enemies in the form of Hezbollah, and a domination of Lebanese society by the Syrians that would cripple stability in Lebanon for a decade.

You can say that Israel creates a lot of it's own problems, and you'd be absolutely right, but the only organizations with any legitimacy for aggression against Israel are Palestinian. Nations like Syria and Iran have no right to use Palestine as an excuse to further their own regional agendas, megalomaniacs like Bin Laden have no real ties to Palestine, or even an interest in their freedom, and Hezbollah hasn't had any reason to maintain aggression towards Israel since they withdrew across the Blue Line in 2000.

I have to disagree with only Palestinian organizations having any legitimacy for aggression against Israel. Syria has its own reasons, since Israel still occupies Syrian territory in the Golan Heights.

Iran presently lacks truly legitimate reasons of its own, though.

I'd like to think that Bin Laden is using a Che Guevara school of thought when he acted upon being angered by the situation in Israel and how the US supports her no matter what. I still think that coming from the view of "Every war must have its casualties" he wasn't so bad doing what he did afterall. If only for the sake of those whose lives were crushed by Israel's inhuman acts.
You might have a good background about Guevara's principles so review that before you overrule this possibility.


I see that somehow your stance has shifted a bit, at least from what i originally thought you were thinking, which is a good thing because open-mindedness is always a plus.

Don't consider the Nile to Euphrates thing impossible. You said yourself it would provoke many a party, too many for a clean accomplishment, and here my friend is where Israelis (at least dedicated ones) are very good.
The real challenge is for them to avoid all those obstacles and 'landmines' if you will, and still reach whatever goal they want.
The fact that they grow closer to it by such acts as the Iraq war without them being directly the reason is a good thing in that respect. No fingers pointed, (barely-)enough reasons to warrant war and the result would still be an easier target (Iraqi land). This sounds all crazy but you should read into Zionist views to make sure of the "Nile to Euphrates" part. It's going too conveniently and the Arabs are the only ones who keep shouting conspiracy, why? Because we read into Zionist beliefs, or rather; Jewish beliefs. It's crazy, but it's what they want, and it's all going too conveniently to ignore. They will take their time with it, but never forget about it. Even if they didn't start the war, who can underestimate the power of suggestion? It's enough for a moron like Bush that one would keep whispering "they'll get america with WMDs" for him to go nuts and shout "OMG they WILL, i must destroy Iraq!".
He might be a cog in that wheel without even knowing, this only serves to make it a bit closer to ponder that's all.

I said MIGHT, note that. After all, what do i know? I'm just a random guy online, i'm serious, there might be millions of variables involved that i don't know about, and there probably is.

How does anything that the Israelis do to the Palestinians threaten Iran?

The Israelis can be as good as they want at it, but the task you're saying is possible isn't. They simply don't have the manpower needed (even before the casualties they'd suffer) to take everything from the Nile to the Euphrates without turning it into glass first.

Nah, not everything needs manpower, Styphon. You'd be surprised at what people would do to keep their lives. A simple weapon advantage could easily make that possible, let alone the fact that it won't be just Israel's occupants doing the fighting.

Besides religious stuff is always rediculously impossible, yet some idiots will fight against all odds to accomplish them (I love the word "idiots", fits everywhere) ..

Military conquest, especially on the scale you're talking about, requires manpower. Taking all of the land involved would require plenty of numbers, and holding it would require even more. The fact of the matter is, even if the Israelis wanted to take everything from the Nile to the Euphrates, the size of their population means they can't, even if they call up every single reservist and shut down their economy in the process. Period.

What I meant was that I disagree with only Palestinian groups having a legitimate reason for attacking Israel. Clearly, they do, and they're not the only ones, since I went into Syria and the reasons it has.

I must have cut it out when rewording the sentence. Whoops.

So are you implying a kind of proxy enforcement, as was the case with the Nazi occupation of Europe? Good luck with that. Getting arab agencies to oppress other arabs for the sake of Israel wouldn't last very long at all.

I was focusing more on the Palestinian side of things, which Havoc is focusing on. Syria has no claim to represent the interests of a people they attempted to conquer in 1948 and two subsequent wars, though they do have a claim to the Golan Heights, as you've mentioned.

The Palestinians have been shit on long enough to justify their aggression towards Israel, but the methods of these liberation organizations don't give them much credence.

If you mean that Bin Laden has attempted to foment pan-Arab sentiments in Palestine, then sure you may have a point. Doing so, though, doesn't actually serve his goals in any tangible way, since Palestinian nationalism is too strong a movement. It's a propaganda coup, in which Bin Laden uses the suffering of Palestinians to help justify murdering Americans, Europeans, Indonesians, and Africans. A fact that I think Palestinians are ashamed of. If Bin Laden was honestly interested in Palestinian liberation, then Al-Qaeda would be making a much stronger show of force in the Mediterranean than they are now.

My original position hasn't changed. I fully support Israel's practice of military reactionism, though it's been well past the time for the IDF to make its message clear. Now is the time Israel should back off unless they want to stir up more permanent resentment for Israel and support for Hezbollah. Hezbollah will only be exterminated with help from the Lebanese, and helping them establish their sovereignty is the only way Israel can hope to secure it's northern border, and maintain stable relations with Lebanon.

True Brady, regardless of what may be said about the strike, they should back off now, but i think they won't and will want to use this opertunity to lay their terms..

Well, the part about the Zionist lobby sending us to Iraq is a bunch of crap, but that's being spread about to confuse the issue, I think. We have a huge problem with the Israeli-lobby in this country.

This is a particularly good article on the subject.

Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have also written on the topic.

The power of suggestion, Onyx, not direct sending, remember that bush's a moron, it might add up.

Source: reuters.com

Pictures of destroyed residential areas in Beirut:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/519...8000wf0.th.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/170...8900wo0.th.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/276...9500eu2.th.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/605...0100hz6.th.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/907...0400xp3.th.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/833...0700ms8.th.jpg

I think the invasion of Lebanon is a big mistake. If anything, Hizbollah can't be crushed by these attacks. They have plenty of space to retreat. The Israeli army can't just sweep through the whole of Lebanon or even cross the border to Syria.

Can't is different from won't. So I advise you to never be certain of anything. It's a sign of weakness.

Oh make no mistake, the Israelis could easily sweep through Lebanon. The problem lies in the aftereffects of another Israeli-led invasion into Lebanon.

I think that maybe they (the Israel army) should have done this a long time ago. Actually I'm more than a bit mad that in the past they actually agreed to return 3 corpses & one captives, for so many people who has been willing to be terrorists once again!

If you're talking about destroying Lebanon, this is actually a repeat performance.

Well I actually think that the army they helped to build, the army of south Lebanon, they should have kept it.

On a side topic of this issue, yesterday I was watching ch news late at night and they were having a debate about the evacuation of Canadian citizens. Currently, the Canadian government states that they will evacuate all Canadian citizens and their family members. What some people on the debate were getting at is there Canadian citizens that are permantent residents of Lebannon and they aren't paying taxes or contributing to Canada. Should the government offer the same services of extracting as the tourists in Lebannon?
Issues were like that some permanent residents were getting out sooner than the tourists and being that the extraction prcoess for Canadian's is progressing really slowly and hecticly, who gets out first is a major issue.

I personally feel that all Canadians should be extradited, the government should send out their naval ships to help (theres 2 that are being prepped but they said they aren't being sent out yet). After Canadian citizen's have been extracted, the government should help lebanese civilians escape as well. Yes, Canadian tax payers are paying for it, but if we can help, we should do so.

I'm going to agree with BE here. I used to live overseas, and even though there's not a more stable place to live then the UAE nowadays (maybe Oman), I don't see any difference in extracting permanent residents then tourists. Just because we're not livng in Canada doesn't mean that isn't home anymore. People should come before money more often.

Please go to http://julywar.epetition.net and sign the Save the Lebanese Civilians Petition and forward this invitation to your friends.

Lebanese civilians have been under the constant attack of the state of Israel for several days. The State of Israel, in disregard to international law and the Geneva Convention, is launching a maritime and air siege targeting the entire population of the country. Innocent civilians are being collectively punished in Lebanon by the state of Israel in deliberate acts of terrorism as described in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.

http://julywar.epetition.net

SIGN THE PETITION FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN DIEING EVERYDAY!!!

Double Post:
And whoever has no soul, feel free to ask me for pictures about the butcheries the israeli warplanes are doing everyday! It'll make a rock lean!

It’s been a long time since I last entered this forum (I think my previous user has been deleted). I never felt like posting anything (guess I’m more interested in reading about other peoples’ thoughts). But being Israeli, I am interested in reading about other people’s opinions of the situation (and by other people, I don’t mean politicians or news-reporters), so I decided to check this forums up. After 6 pages of reading about everything from the fighting in Lebanon, to the philosophy behind the saying “might indeed does make right”, to reading about the hidden “agendas” and “schemes” of the “Zionists” to conquer all, I’ve finally “broken” and decided to post my thoughts.
I'd like to apologies in advance for any grammar or spelling mistake that I might make. English is not my native language.

First of all, in difference of some other people’s “neutral” and “non-biased” opinions about the situation, I don’t claim my opinions to be any such thing. And I don’t think anyone can rightfully claim that he-himself\she-herself is un-biased. Especially if they have personal connection to the conflict at hand.

In response to the claims that Israel need to back down now:
Don’t forget that Israel has retaliated for 2 main reasons that we have yet to accomplish: The safely return of the 2 abducted soldiers and the retreat of the Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon.
I honestly don’t think there is any reason to expand on the reasoning for these 2 goals. Any other country that would have been so unrighteously provoked by another terrorist organization, would undoubtedly done the same, if not much more. Besides, if we back down now, Hezbollah will see it as a victory, and it will only be a matter of time until it decides to act again. This is an opportunity that we didn’t seek, but rather, was forced onto us. And the fact is that according to all the major polls conducted by all the big newspapers in Israel, 88-90 percents of the Israelis, want to seize this opportunity to rid us of Hezbollah once and for all. Israelis are usually divided in opinions as to what’s the best thing to do, how to react, etc… Never in my 20 years of existence, have I seen such a consensus among the Israeli people. And can you really blame us?

Also, don’t go telling me that Israel is using excessive force. If your (yes, you reading this, your) country wouldn’t have done the same for your soldiers (and let us not forget the citizens that were bombarded by Hezbollah’s Katyusha rockets during that Wednesday morning, in order to cover the kidnapping of the soldiers), then the problem is with your country, not mine.

For all those who say that Israel is attacking civilian targets (and I won’t go into quotes here, cause it seems there’s a hefty bunch of them), all I can say, is that it’s war, and in war there are casualties. Believe me that no one in Israel is extremely happy at the death of innocent civilians, and it surely doesn’t serve our goals (on the contrary). But you can’t expect us to retaliate against a terrorist organization (militia, country, or whatever you wish to call them) without some casualties. That would be an unreasonable demand. In fact, IDF has actually warned the citizens that live in the areas that were bombarded beforehand, even though it also gave warning to the terrorists in those areas. If, for whatever reason, some citizens chose to stay in those areas, then that’s their choice, and you can’t hold us responsible for their lives. If someone would rather stay with his\her possessions than save their lives, maybe they aren’t that innocent…
The heads of Hezbollah know that Israel is reluctant to bombard civilian infrastructures, and that’s why they hide their ammunition in residential areas, in mosques and other such places.

The fact is that Israel is much more selective of its targets than most other countries (Russia and the Chechen Republic, and the U.S. and Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 examples). And if the situation was the other way around (with us and the Hezbollah) I probably wouldn’t be sitting here right now (not to mention, being able to sit at all, ever).

It’s very easy to condemn Israel and state that it should restrain its force, when you’re sitting miles away in your safe homes, in front of your computers. But if it was the U.K., the U.S., Germany, France, Australia or any other modern – liberal – peace-keeping country that would have been so brutally attacked by another country\organization-within-a-country, it would have retaliated with all its might.

Not only that, but even the Arab countries are suspiciously quiet about the Israeli retaliation. Else wise, why did the Arab summit fail. I for one, was expecting them to condemn Israel. I actually sat in disbelief when I heard that they didn’t reach an agreement. Not even the Arab countries condemn Israel’s actions. What other reasoning do you possibly need?

Finally, if you expect us to just sit quietly while constantly being threatened (verbally as well as physically) and provoked, then you’re just being naïve. No Israeli is extremely happy about sending our soldiers (sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, grand-children, spouses) to war, but sometimes, your enemies cross the line (literally) and leave you no choice.

Sorry for the long post...

I'll not go into a quote war with your post (although I'm sure others will), but I have this one question to ask:

Do you honestly think that this war will help improve your situation at all? Don't you think that the military actions in Lebanon serve as the ultimate justification for Hezbollah's very existence? Even if you choose to invade Lebanon with ground troops, Hezbollah has plenty of room to retreat. You won't crush the idea behind this organization with military power! Meanwhile, Israel's real problem - the Palaestininans - remains unsolved.

Don't get me wrong, the constant abductions are inexcusable, but making the Lebanese people suffer for Hezbollah is the worst thing you could probably do, because they will not forget. Israel's goal should have been to stabilize the Lebanese government and help them isolate Hezbollah. Obviously, they chose to tear the whole nation apart instead. And what are you going to gain from a country in ruins? People willing to fight their oppressors (= Hezbollah).

Good job, Israel.

I was actually thinking about how great it would be to get an Israeli perspective here. It's also great, because you're a lot more articulate than other Israelis I've seen.

I didn't mean to imply that Israel should stop attacking Hezbollah when I said that they should back off. What I was getting at was that Israel needs to lighten the pressure on the Lebanese so that inroads can be made between the Israelis and the Lebanese government. If Lebanon isn't an active player in the destruction of Hezbollah, then another organization will take its place even if you do destroy them.

War zone or not, the IDF is taking out civilian targets. This is an inescapeable fact, and no amount of excusing is going to change that. However, the IDF also can't be blamed for doing so, since, as you've pointed out, Hezbollah has made it an active policy to put the people of Lebanon in harm's way. A reporter from CNN was allowed into South Beirut several hours after the Israelis reported they dropped 26 tons of bombs on a Hezbollah headquarters (an earlier reporter was turned away, I wonder why?). It was indeed a mosque under construction that was hit, but despite the lack of any materiel, the reporter did note that it had an unusually large basement for a Mosque. It's nobody's fault but Hezbollah, and their supporters, that Lebanese have to be killed over this. Who do they intend to protect when they leave rocket stockpiles in neighborhoods?

This is also very true. At least so far, I haven't seen the IDF dropping White Phosphorous into southern Lebanese towns.

Attempting to excuse atrocity by comparison, though, doesn't really excuse anything. If Israel was on the receiving end of force equal to that of it's own, it'd be a moot point, since Israel would have been destroyed long ago. Offsetting accountability by association doesn't prove anything, it just proves that you're marginally less of a jerk, if you get what I'm saying.

People expect Israel to be the moral superior, and so far they've done so. The IDF says it's been holding back 1/5th of their operational capability, and I believe it. Southern Beirut would be nothing but rubble now if the IDF wasn't sensitive of collateral damage.

This is the nature of war, though. So long as you're the winner, there's no need to excuse yourself.

I like how the leader of Hezbollah claimed that the two Palestinian kids they killed with Katjusha rockets were Martyrs for Palestine. As if he had the right to declare it.

Not really. Hezbollah represents a large Shi'a contingent, and actively represents the interests of Iran and Syria. The Arab nations haven't forgotten how Iran was prepared to march the Basij across the Middle East in the 80's. If Israel is going to act as a buffer to their influence, then Israel's neighbors, and the other members of the Arab league aren't going to look to stop them.

Well, we really only have a few choices, don't we?
No military action at all, is unacceptable, since it will only encourage Hezbollah to continue. Negotiations for the exchange of prisoners are out of question, for the same reason.
The Lebanese government obviously, wasn't willing to do anything against Hezbollah. And approaching the international community is just a waste of time. Both of these routs lead to negotiations and prisoner exchanges.

On the other hand (and I know I didn't go through all the alternatives above). For the first time, the Lebanese government is starting to realize that the Hezbollah is just a liability, by hinting that the Hezbollah is somewhat to blame for the current situation (I don't remember the exact quote, but their PM has said that the Lebanese people are paying for the Hezbollah's actions). And honestly, if they want to govern Lebanon, they need to take some responsibility, the Hezbollah does have 23 seats in the parliament and an army of its own. No country can afford to have an army that is not directly controlled by the government.
Also, I do honestly think that Hezbollah was taken aback a bit by the Israeli reaction. I think they anticipated the situation would be more like after the kidnapping of the 3 Israeli soldiers awhile ago (right after the pull out from Lebanon). Maybe next time they'll hesitate a bit (if, god forbid, there will be a next time).

The Hezbollah may be able to retreat, but if the Lebanese government will decide to act against Hezbollah either by themselves, or by using international assistance, then we did made a difference. But they have to acknowledge that letting the Hezbollah be, is only going to damage themselves. They did manage to get Syria's troops out of Lebanon. And memory serve, Syria is much stronger than Hezbollah.

I think that most of the nations in the region (except for Syria and Iran, obviously), are all for the disarm of Hezbollah. The problem is that no one is actually doing anything. And if no one else take the initiative, then we have to defend ourselves. And that we did. Unfortunately, innocent civilians are getting harmed, on both sides.

The problem is that negotiating with terrorists is pointless and futile. It doesn't matter that we pulled out of Lebanon, now Hezbollah is "fighting for the Palestinians", even if we resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, there will always be other things to fight over. At some point, you have to make an end to this.
The Lebanese probably hate us right now, but if Hezbollah is destroyed, and we pull out of Lebanon (I don't think a single Israeli really wants to stay there for any longer than is absolutely necessary (too many bad memories)), there would be no reason to form another terrorists organization.
I know it's kinda optimistic, but if we do nothing, the next time is just going to be harder on both sides. With Hezbollah having a larger arsenal of more diverse weapons, longer range rockets and missiles, and maybe some other stuff the Iranians will decide to give them.

Maybe we won't be able to surrender the Hezbollah completely, but we are definitely making change. If we pull back now, the Hezbollah will see it as a victory (a tie with Israel, is victory enough for them). They obviously don't rely only on straight facts, when representing their arguments to the people. Thus, at the end of the day, it should be clear beyond any doubt, that the Hezbollah's actions are just undermining the Lebanese interests. And that the Hezbollah hasn't accomplished any of its goals in the attack. Any less of that, will just result in us having the same discussion in a few years.

As for the Palestinian problem, well, I don't really see the connection. Hezbollah has nothing to do with the Palestinians. If they're so into helping others, they should start with "their own" country and invest more money in the reconstruction of Lebanon, than in arming themselves.

As for aiding the Lebanese government. I don't think they'd take any assistance from Israel. Even before the fighting has began. Even if we did offer assistance (and we don't exactly have extra cash. Believe me, the budget in Israel is as tight as it gets. And even then, we're assisting the Palestinians: with electricity, water, health care, and even giving them money (at least before the Hamas was elected).
I think the aiding part should be left to the rest of the world. But you're right, a prosperous Lebanon is in our best interests. It's just that getting aid from Israel isn't going to look good to the Lebanese people, and definitely won't help their government with the public support.

Obviously, you're right. I was in no way trying to compare us to them. I only wanted to strengthen the fact that IDF is not just targeting civilian targets in order to cause as much damage as possible (as opposed to the Hezbollah, that would have gladly "wiped us all off the map"). If we wanted to do that, it wouldn't have taken 10 days (or is it 11, I'm losing the count).

Yeah, that was kinda insolent, to say the least.

Even Iran and Syria aren't as loud as they usually are. Nasrallah was very eager to deny any Iranian involvement in the current conflict...

It's probably because the Iranians didn't give them the go ahead for the kidnappings, which means that Hezbollah's command is acting without Iranian advice. Despite Iranian and Syrian support, Hezbollah is still a militia, and they'll act despite the influence put on them by Damascus and Tehran.

Then again, spokesmen for both nations speak in half-truths, plausible deniability, or have repeatedly dodged questions. The Syrian ambassador to the US has appeared on Larry King Live several times, and done a skillful job of blaming Israel for the problem without implicating Syria in any involvement.

That's because Hezbollah is more interested in garnering political support in Lebanon than actually accomplishing anything for the Palestinians, or even locally. Palestine is a popular cause, and that kind of rhetoric serves well when it comes to donation drives. The indiscriminate use of rockets by Hezbollah, however, indicate that they have no real consideration for the safety of Arabs in Palestine, as the death of those two kids has made clear. Bombs don't differentiate between Arabs or Jews.

This is what I was trying to get at before with CryHavoc by asking why Hamas wouldn't target the tools of oppression. Organizations like Hamas aren't actually interested in the liberation of the West Bank and Gaza, they're more interested in garnering power as regional and political forces. The charity organizations set up by Hamas and Hezbollah are proof enough of that. It basically comes down to warrior politics, and every now and then they need to flex their muscles with a cafe bombing or a soldier kidnapping to prove to irate Palestinians that they're still on the up-and-up. Buying votes with medicine and vindication.

I bet you the impending medical crisis in Lebanon created by the IDF's destruction of Lebanese infrastructure will receive a significant leg up from the friendly neighborhood Hezbollah.

This is true, the moderate government doesn't want another civil war on its hands by acting in league with Israel. I think the threat of assassination is also keeping Lebanese officials from speaking out more about Hezbollah, as well.

So if we can all agree on the fact that a stable Lebanon is in the best interest to all parties involved, why is it that the whole country's infrastructure has to be destroyed now?

I mean, wouldn't a somewhat closer diplomatic relationship and support to Beirut be a lot more productive than the bombing of roads, bridges, buildings and airports that will take years and decades to be rebuilt? After just merely recovering from the previous occupation and the ensuing civil war, the Lebanese people have their country in ruins yet again. What makes a sane person think that the atrocities will not be engraved in the collective mind of these people forever?

Let's just assume for a second here that Israel can actually wipe out the Hezbollah entirely: What makes you think that those witnessing all the carnage and destruction now aren't going to take up arms against Israel? There's always a new generation of terrorists just waiting around the corner, willing to risk their lives fighting against those who came into their country destroying their homes and killing their families. Do you honestly think they care about the reason for Israel's actions?

The whole infrastructure is NOT being destroyed. Remember that Israel posses enough conventional weapons (not counting Nuclear) to level the entire country. We are talking about areas that Hezbollah is operating out of.
You CAN NOT make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Why do people refuse to accept the fact that Israel is being courteous in comparasion to what Hamas, Hezbollah would be doing if they had access to equilivent arms?

What would a closer diplomatic relationship to Beirut accomplish in regards to dismantling Hezbollah. Beirut did nothing before the attacks, during the attacks and even now. Israel is determined to knock Hezbollah out of southern lebanon. Where is the cooperation?

Maybe there will be a new generation of terrorists, maybe not. Either case, a soverign nation must do what a soverign nation must do.

You bloody my nose, I will bloody your nose back (less I am willing to be your bitch). Do I really give a damn that me bloodying your nose back might result in you being "more upset" at me and result in you trying to kick me in the shins?

I'm just going to kick back and if you continue to attack, I'll just break your damn neck.

The moral of the story is to don't pick fights.

Second moral is there is always room for forgiveness. Apologize for punching me in the nose, return my 2 soldiers and stop shelling my citizens.

The ball is in Hezbollah's court when it comes to stopping this invasion.

Close diplomatic relationship with Beirut, and supporting the Lebanese government is kinda problematic right now. The Lebanese government (rightfully) doesn’t want any aid from Israel. Because, let’s be frank, Israel is not very popular in the Arab world (to say the least) and getting aid from Israel will only help Hezbollah get more momentum in the Lebanese political arena. They will illustrate the current Lebanese government as a supporter of Israel, maybe even as a puppet\proxy government, that gives in to Israel and the U.S. .
Any aid that the Lebanese government is going to get from Israel will only damage their image in the Lebanese public opinion. I’m all for the reconstruction of Lebanon, but the aid shouldn’t come from Israel, or we’ll risk the (oh so fragile) stability of the Lebanese government.

The bombardment of civilian infrastructures has a very real strategic purpose in the fighting against Hezbollah. If their roads are destroyed, the Hezbollah will find it that much harder to move its rockets to strategic launching positions. It will take them longer to move troops. The Hezbollah leaders will find it more difficult to move from one hideout to another. The bombardment of the air and sea ports, obviously serves the same purpose, with emphasis on the smuggling of weaponry from Iran. Moving the 2 Israeli soldiers to Syria or Iran, probably hasn’t gotten any easier, either.
Civilian buildings are used by the Hezbollah to hide ammunition and supplies. If we want to damage Hezbollah, we have to thin out its arsenal. If we don’t want them to launch rockets at our towns and cities, we have to take that ability from them.

As for the formation of other terrorist organizations after the fighting is done. If we just assume that whatever military action we take, will lead to more terror, then maybe we shouldn’t retaliate at all. Maybe we should just sit at our homes, scared to move a muscle, because we don’t want to offend the Lebanese people. I personally think that doing nothing, just waiting for the next unprovoked attack, will not only accomplish nothing, but will also encourage the Hezbollah to act again, and more boldly. Doing too little, will have the same effect.

Hezbollah is used by now to small and pointless counter attacks (destroying a few deserted terrorist camps in the middle of nowhere). Only a retaliation that will threaten the organization and its leaders’ very existence could serve.

The all point of this operation is the dismantle of Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army along its southern border. If the Lebanese government will gain control of its country, then I don’t see too great a threat of other terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, rising in Lebanon. They had 6 years to disarm Hezbollah with whatever means they would have chosen to. If it has had to come to that in order for them to realize the importance of getting rid of all terrorist organizations within their country (even risking fighting their own people), then… well... tough.

All I can say is wow...

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/0...comment-188040

You do realize that people are taking those photos completely out of context right? It's addressed to the leader of Hezbollah.

If you want to play propaganda games here's some info from Saudi Arabia - SUPPOSEDLY a MODERATE ARAB government.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804825/

I read the whole thing, and realize (I can also read the writing on the shells), that they are not addressed to children. You can clearly see Nasrallah written on them.

And nor did I ever say that these actions are not reciprocated on the Palestinian side, I just thought that these were images that would not be seen by many in the west.

By the way, you might want to read through: http://www.newprofile.org/data/uploa...rs/English.pdf

So what do Arabian textbooks have to do with this, exactly?

I also fail to see what significance Israeli recruitment of children has on this. Israelis must perform mandatory military service, and if everybody's going to be in the service, they should be familiar with the nature of it at a young age.

Kids taking up arms sucks, but that's how the Israelis feel they need to protect themselves.

Was it supposed to phase us? If kids could write messages on artillery shells here in the states they'd probably write something like "Osama is doo doo."

It doesn't matter to whom they are addressed. It's fucking wrong to have children sign artillery shells.

That was uncalled for, Brady, and kids writing on weapons sure is a disturbing thing, no matter what they write.

Sup Mid-East : Total war...

Yeah i bet they'd make one, what with all the warsims about Iraq and the likes..

It was called Medieval: Total War.
Filthy Turks

I also don't see what was uncalled for, since you didn't really specify.

Lol - US kids would probably steal the shells and bring them to school to shoot at each other.

"Billy, where are you going with a hammer and a cone-shaped object in your backpack?"

"I'm going to school, Dad, GODDAMN WHY YOU GOTTA BE ALL UP IN MY GRILL YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF IT."

"Be back by 5, Sport."

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/698...7214500vp2.jpg

o rly?

The fact is also that Israeli airstrikes have mostly hit civillians since the beginning of this war.

They may be civilian sites but they do have military value. They are selecting targets that are taught in very basic military tactic classes.

http://op-for.com/2006/07/prepping_the_battlespace.html

They are not hitting targets with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible unlike the rocket attacks that are coming out of Lebanon.

Just because they don't have the intent to do so doesn't mean it's perfectly justifiable to kill civilians. Of course, you might prefer to call the slaughter "prepping the battlespace" instead if you wish to.

I only meant to point out that Israel doesn't seem to be so "careful" or selective with their targeting as it's been stated here.

How can you say they aren't justified? You seem to ignore the fact that Israeli citizens are also dying and what is worse is the are being targeted indiscriminately. I think people have been spoiled by the way the US is able to conduct its wars and operations. The US has the luxury of being able to dictate the pace of their operations and take their time in carefully selecting targets all while trying to minimize civilian casualties.

Israel lacks this luxury. The more time they spend in logistics trying to pick targets with the least possible amount of civilian casualties means that many more innocent Israeli citizens are going to die from rocket/terrorist attacks. Not only that, but this type of enemy has adapted to blend into the civilian population. While the loss of innocent life is always a tragedy, I cannot understand how you don't think Israel isn't justified in civilian casualties when the person shooting at them and trying to kill them is hiding behind those civilians.

I'm not weighing these things up against each other. It's the worst thing you can do in a war. I'm not debating the Hezbollah attacks on Israel, I was just trying to argue that the airstrikes conducted by Israel aren't anywhere near as "precise" as they were made out to be. Keep in mind that out of the 500+ total casualties, only 50-100 were alleged Hezbollah fighters. And don't forget close to one million refugees and thousands of people reported missing in southern Lebanon.

And I was trying to argue this isn't true. Israel has been very precise and have hit the targets they have selected. I also pointed out that even though these are civilian targets, they were selected for their military value, not because Israel is out to kill as many civilians as they can. They aren't bombing every place just to kill Hezbollah either. Many of these are strategic bombings that will be used to help crush Hezbollah in the coming ground invasion as pointed out in the article I posted.

Are you arguing the other way because you believe civilian deaths equal an imprecise attack? That doesn't seem very logical to me if so.

I still stand by my claim. In war there are casualties, and some mistakes are made (some of these mistakes are hurting our own troops. Just a couple of days ago, some Israeli soldiers were hit by friendly fire from one of our own helicopters). It doesn't mean that we intentionally hit this ambulance and other civilians. We gain absolutely nothing from hitting civilians. Except for more political pressure to end the conflict, that is...
With over 4,000 sorties of our air crafts, some mistakes and some casualties are to be expected...

Also, you seem to forget that over 2,000 rockets have been shot by Hezbollah into Israeli territory. THESE rockets ARE aimed at civilians.
30% out of the 280,000 residents of Haifa have left their homes, and that's just Haifa. Are they not refugees? Many houses and businesses have been damaged in northern Israel. The difference is that the Israeli civilians are been targeted.

Yet it seems that you expect us to lay low and do nothing.
You can argue that the number of casualties in Israel is much lower than in Lebanon. But what did you expect? Do you want us to drop one bomb for every rocket they launch? Do you expect us to wait until we'll have enough casualties to justify the number of casualties on the other side? Did you think that our missiles will do the same damage as theirs?

It's impossible to fight terror without casualties. And as much as I'm sorry for every innocent civilian that's getting hurt (on either side). I still don't think that we are using any more force than any other country would have used in our stead, despite what they say when it's not them that is being attacked.

That's some nice bombin', Lou.

But seriously, red crosses provide such excellent and convenient aiming points, don't they?

I'm honestly not so sure about that. If this happened once or twice, maybe it could be wracked up to honest mistakes. But that isn't the case, and it keeps happening. Israeli forces have attacked numerous convoys of refugees as they fled southern Lebanon; these convoys existed to be attacked in the first place because the Israelis strongly advised them to leave the area lest they find themselves in the line of fire. Accidents that keep happening generally aren't unless the people having them are really incompetent. Of all the things Israel has been accused of, incompetence has never been one of them.

Israel's campaign also looks less and less like it is intended to simply fight Hezbollah. The airport has been bombed, the country is under a blockade, and among the various other Lebanese civilian infrastructure destroyed is a dairy factory, of all things. None of this hurts Hezbollah, unless they raise a significant amount of money through sales of dairy products (which is in the realm of possibility, I suppose). On the other hand, it does serve to very neatly strangle Lebanon.

This calls into question whether Israel considers a stable Lebanon to be in its interests as you have said, ofirov. Israel's current actions, however much damage they do to Hezbollah, ultimately do more to Lebanon. On the other hand, the other option presented would be just as bad for Lebanon; ordering the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah, by force if necessary, would serve to spark a new civil war, with the resulting instability it would bring.

At some point, the homeowner must take responsibility for bad tenents. I think that no one disagree's with the fact that Lebanese citizens are being harmed and Lebanon as a whole is paying for the war against Hezbollah.

If Israel remains comitted to it's campaign until the finish, Lebanon will have no choice but to disarm Hezbollah's military wing and stop electing its politcians for the sake of the rest of the country. If Israel pulls out now, NOTHING will have been accomplished other than furthur emboldening Hezbollah.

[quote]
Also..

In Chemotherapy, how many good cells are killed off compared to bad cells? If you want to deal with the cancer, you have no choice.

I don't expect you to lay low and do nothing. Some of us live in the real world where there ARE people out there willing to kill you just for religion or national identity.

In my book, the defender can use an unlimited amount of force to get the attacker off you. It's amazing how much crap Israel gets considering how many times your neighbors have tried to remove you from the world atlas.

Source: reuters.com

Comparing yourself to Hezbollah is futile. Do you honestly think the deliberate killing of civilians ist justified because Hezbollah does the same? By this logic, you are terrorists yourselves. There is no denying that Hezbollah's attacks are wrong, but they don't make your actions any more right!

On the other hand, if Israel doesn't go to war against Hezbollah, then they become victims, which still means that nobody is right.

No, but a solid, armed U.N. mission to southern Lebanon and supporting Beirut establish a stable and substantial government could have been an alternative worth considering. Isolating Lebanon and Syria only sparks the flames in this conflict.

And encouraging Lebanon to move against Hezbollah starts a new civil war, particularly since UN forces act under peacekeeping criteria. That kind of situation would require peacemakers, and there's no guarantee that such a mission would take place to begin with. It didn't happen last year when Hezbollah launched rocket attacks to cover an abduction attempt.

Then the U.N. needs to get their shit together and start an armed mission to southern Lebanon with the support from E.U., U.S., Israel, Lebanon and a solid mandate. Isn't this what's being discussed and planned right now? Didn't Israel sort of agree to a U.N. mission? I think we can all agree that Hezbollah needs to be disarmed now, but doing so by destroying the foundation of a prosperous and secure Lebanon isn't exactly a clever solution.

On the other hand, that is precisely the action that has forced the UN to deem it necessary to intervene.

Did anybody see Simon Peres' interview on CNN?

I loved when he said "The purpose of this mission is to destabilize Iran"

Then looked around, sorta made an "O-shit!" look, and then after being prompted, goes "err, Hezbollah, yeah."

Yay for freudian slips!

How many civilian casualties were there during the U.S. war against Afghanistan? How many innocent civilians, do you think, have lost their lives during the attack of NATO forces in Kosovo? In war, there are casualties. Nothing can change that. The finest army in the world, having as much time as it needs, choosing its targets as carefully as possible, will never be able to avoid casualties.

The bombing of the airport, and the blockade on Lebanon, serve to stop (or at least to thin) the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria. As for the dairy factory, I’m not familiar with this specific incident, but considering the fact that Hezbollah is hiding rockets and missiles in residential areas, mosques, and other innocent-looking places, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched that the Hezbollah is also using factories to hide weaponry and ammunition.

I obviously wasn’t referring to you, TonyDaTigger. And I really do appreciate the support :) …

I wasn’t comparing our actions to the Hezbollah’s. I was saying that innocent civilians also suffer on this side of the border. Also, if you read carefully, you’ll see that I was clearly stating that the Hezbollah is targeting civilians IN CONTRAST to the IDF who does NOT target civilians. IDF targets Hezbollah terrorists and Hezbollah weaponry. The Hezbollah is using civilians as live shields, and that’s why innocent Lebanese are being hurt. Not because IDF specifically targets them.

The Hezbollah’s actions don’t make our actions right. The need to protect our citizens does.

If the UN or the Lebanese government would have done their job, none of this would have happened in the first place. And as Bradylama has stated, the only reason that the world is talking about sending an armed force (that is actually capable of doing something) to the region, is because of the Israeli retaliation. Though, you might understand our skepticism of the effectiveness of such a force, considering the recent (and not so recent) events.

So that's why those three civilian refugee convoys were attacked effectively at once; Hezbollah was using them to smuggle terrorists and weapons out of southern Lebanon, using actual refugees as human shields?

I'm further impressed by this statement. Taken in conjunction with the above comments about Lebanese civilians being used as human shields, it effectively serves to make everything in Lebanon a legitimate target, and let Israel say it isn't targeting civilians in the process.

You mean those refugee convoys that were using the main road to Tyre which which has been under constant bombardment by Israel? That's called walking under the bomb. The roads they were walking on were the targets of the attacks, not the refugees.

No they aren't directly attacking civilians. They aren't bombing these places with the intent of killing Lebanese civilians. Intent is everything here and it's time people start considering this fact rather than simply looking at the situation from such a black and white perspective.

I'm sick of hearing complaints but no solutions. These people ARE hiding weapons in civilian areas. These people ARE using civilians as human shields. These people have less regard for their own countrymen's lives than then the enemy does. Think about that for a moment.

Now, tell me what should Israel do? How can Israel possibly fight again such a tactic without taking civilian lives? I'll tell you what I think, they can't because it is an impossible situation. This outcry to protect innocent life won't solve the situation and it NEVER will. Israel is pursing the only workable option to them now. It's tragic that civilians are going to die because of the actions but it does not make Israel wrong or immoral because you cannot ignore the intentions of Israel. Their intentions are that of protection and survival, not genocide and imperialism.

And Israel decided to attack them while they were on them? Some people just have the worst sense of timing in the world. And are just dumb; I mean, using a road to drive out of a combat zone? Stupid civilians, they should have gone through the back country. It's all their fault they got killed.

Looking at it, it would appear that, at best, Israel and Hezbollah have the same regard for the lives of Lebanese civilians; they simply don't care if they get in the way. Hezbollah demonstrates this by hiding among among Lebanese civilians; Israel by attacking those civilians without remorse to kill Hezbollah.

On a different front, should this same disregard for civilian casualties be applied to Iraq? It certainly makes things easier.

If you'll read what I've said, I haven't been ignoring the intentions of Israel. Israel's intentions have been a very important part of what I've been saying. And Israel's intentions appear inconsistent with their actions.

Of course they are. And if that safety means destroying Lebanon, so be it.

It's hard to say honestly. But lets look at the situation. Plenty of refugees are safely crossing the boarder though side roads. We aren't hearing anything about refugees out in the middle of nowhere being bombed and killed. This road that they were using was a constant target of both shelling and bombing by Israel. And yeah it actually is the fault of the civilians. Walking into the path of a tornado is nobodies fault but your own.

And it's not just a road, but a MAIN ROAD that has been under attack and a one of the many roads Israel has been warning people not to use. So was the target the main road or the civilians? Looking at the situation I would guess the target was the road.



Israel isn't putting these people in a position of harm, Hezbollah is. Hezbollah is forcing Israels hand in this situation. Shooting the hostage the gun wielding manic is hiding behind while firing at you is not considered murder.

Well during the actual start of the operation things were actually very similar to the current situation in Lebanon. We hit many civilian targets of military value and a lot of civilians lost their lives. I don't know where else you think those casualty numbers in Iraq came from. This is the tragic reality that needs to be faced when dealing with an enemy that is willing to hide in the general population hoping it offers them a level of protection.


Can't say I can agree that their actions don't match their intentions. As I stated above, targets have been of military value including the refugees that were killed on a main road. No doubt some missiles have missed their intended targets but even the most precise weapon systems fail once and a while but these don't betray the intentions expressed by Israel.

Countries can be rebuilt. We did it with most of Europe, Japan and are in the process of doing it in Iraq. I already know the rebuttal coming for this one, so before you give it fulfill the 'simple' request that was contently ignored before. What else can Israel do to defeat an enemy that is highly integrated in civilian population of Lebanon? I'm not trying to say the loss of life is tragic or the destruction of the infrastructure in Lebanon is disturbing, but it is time to drop this idealistic bullshit or nothing will ever change. Israels options are limited and I think they are following the best solution available to them.

I can't help but notice that this reply doesn't address or refute the charge that I made at all. I said that Hezbollah didn't care about the lives of Lebanese civilians by hiding among them, and that Israel similarly didn't care about the lives of Lebanese civilians by shooting those same civilians to get at Hezbollah.

You essentially confirmed it for me.

Of course it was. Israel can do no wrong, afterall.

Roads, dairy and tissue paper factories, UN posts...

Again, you've turned to supporting assertions I've made, such as that according to the standards you and ofirov are using, everything in Lebanon is a legitimate target for attack.

Are you instead trying to say that the loss of life is not tragic, and that the destruction of the infratructure is not disturbing?

Which requires more questioning of Israel's intent here. It, and you, say that its purpose is to destroy Hezbollah; it's actions suggest it's intent is to destroy Lebanon. Which same you justify, saying that Hezbollah has integrated itself so highly in Lebanon's civilian population. Again, this supports the position that the standards you use make everything in Lebanon legitimate targets for Israeli attack.

Okay then…

Lord Styphon, what would you have done if you were in our place? How would you ensure the safety of your country's citizens? What’s your solution?

I'm really interested in knowing what would you have done if you were the decision maker in Israel.

UNTIL NOW, the stats are the following: among civilian deaths so far, and not soldiers on both sides:

600 dead civilian in lebanon
19 dead civilian in israel

now consider me stupid but if that isn't targeting civilians in lebanon, then this is not a war...THIS IS A BLOODY MASSACRE!!!!

How many conflicts have their been in the world where innocent people have been killed. It's a war, and the term is called collateral damage.

ofirov just wanted to say im all for israel here... Remember that there's almost no convincing the vastly liberal majority of gff'ers that muslim extremists pose a threat to our way of life. Extremist muslims can't be convinced diplomatically, and one of these days it's going to come down to us or them. I hope you dissarm hesbola enough to equal what it should have been like after the UN ordered it decades ago. (LOL the UN)

Has it occured to you that muslims in the Middle East may well become militant because organised foreign interests pose a threat to their way of life?

Is this some sort of Fox Newsish throwaway troll?

when muslims do the above they are called terrorists, but when it's the US or israel it's collateral damage.

No. When civilians die, those are war crimes. Especially when they are targeted in the first place. Make no mistake, this is a massacre.

No one's responded to this question yet.

There's a whole lot of condemming Israel but no one has presented a REAL and workable solution.

Remember that the ball is IN Hezbollah's and Lebanon's camp.

Hezbollah: We've had enough of Lebanese citizens dying. We will return the two soldiers and stop firing into Israel.

Lebanon: We've had enough of Lebanese citizens dying. Fuck Hezbollah. We have no choice but to shut them down. If necessary, we will ask for outside help in order to make it happen.

The UN has issued an order of cease of fire, an IMMEDIATE one, but the US f888ked it up and put a vito on it then came back afterwards and ordered a cease of fire. SO why put a vito in the first place? This shows you that the US doesn't care at all about Lebanon.

It's not there fault the war had clached. They gave israel 3 days of no firing back and offered an exchange for the lebanese who are old prisonners of war in Israel. But no, it seems that destroying all the bridges in lebanon seems to be the solution to get the soldiers back. And so i give you a proof that they don't give a shit about their soldiers, the 2 soldiers issue was not brought up in the solution gondaliza rice brought to lebanon.

So you are issueing another lebanese civil war right? Because last time someone asked something similar, we were down into a 15 years civil war.

And let me break it to you: Hezbollah is not only a military organisation. They have ministers in the goverment, they have a big part of the lebanese parlement and have 1/4th of the lebanese people with them which is 1 million lebanese citizen with them. So how easy is your solution?

Double Post:
When you tell people: you have until 8 pm to leave your cities, and then when they get in their cars and are ready to leave, you bomb their cars. That's collatoral damage right?

When you throw bombs and tear down homes under childrens heads and the paramedics have to search for the remains of the corpses all over the place that's collatoral damage right?

When they throw bombs that are FORBIDDEN internationally and that are making people die in the most horrifying ways and have corpses that are in a shape like never seen before that is collatoral damage right?

Like Onyx said, they ARE war crimes and they ARE massacres, and they ARE going to be suied for that once this war is done!!!

So if you suckerpunch me, I get up and start kicking your ass, is it really fair for me to not finish the fight?

What the hell? When was the last time Israel and Hezbollah were in direct conflict? 15, 20 years? You sucker punch Israel and then have the gall to ask for a prisoner exchange? Why not SIMPLY DO THE TWO FOLLOWING EASY STEPS?

1.) Return the two captured soldiers.
2.) Cease attacks on Israeel.

I mean, how hard is it to follow two incredibly easy ideas. Here's another one to consider. Don't attack Israel to begin with.

What Hezzbolah did was a declaration of war. Destroying the bridges is to ensure that those soldiers REMAIN in Lebanon.

I don't really care for what Condeleeza Rice is saying or not saying, it's not the US's war.

Well, make a choice. Civil war with yourselves to purge yourself of Hezzbollah or war with Israel? So if you choose to take no self-corrective action, then how can Israel be blamed for anything but self defense?

That only hurt's your case. So if Hezbollah is an elected and recognized government then does that make the people who elected Hezbollah responsible for it's actions?

So if Hezzbollah had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they would refrain using them on Israel due to being "forbidden internationally?"

I'm sorry but no one looks pretty after being hit by a rocket or 50mm shells. I'm sure the victims of rocket attacks in Israel don't look all that great either you know.

We're just the ones who will be paying for it.

The UN has also issued an order to disarm Hezbollah and deploy the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon. But obviously, only calls for Israel to back off should be implemented. I mean, it’s not like the Lebanese government has to follow UN resolutions, they can just blame Hezbollah for binding their hands. Convenient, isn't it?

I understand that you want the fire to cease on your side of the border. But the Israeli government’s first responsibility is for the safety of the Israeli citizens, not the Lebanese. If you want peace and security, you have to make sure that no one is attacking us from your side of the border. If not, then don’t blame Israel for trying to ensure its security by itself.

Oh, so it’s not the Hezbollah’s fault. Well, that’s definitely interesting. Is it not the Hezbollah’s fault that on the morning of the 12th of July 2006 they’ve unprovokedly started shelling Israeli military positions and villages as a diversion attack in order to abduct 2 Israeli soldiers. Enlighten me, how is it not their fault?

When did that happen? Hezbollah has shelled Israeli towns and cities since day one of the war. Not a single day has passed without Katyushas being fired into Israeli territory. They did ask for a cease fire, but that's just impudent of them. If they do want to give something, though, I’d start with the 2 soldiers.

The bombardment of bridges has some very strategic value, as was stated before. As for the 2 soldiers, the no negotiations policy is not just for their sake, it’s for the sake of every Israeli soldier and citizen that might be the subject of a similar abduction in the future. If the Hezbollah will gain nothing from abducting Israelis, then it won’t be so eager to abduct Israelis in the future.

It’s your choice. But if you do nothing, don’t act all surprised when someone else decides to.

Ignoring the fact that the your statement just re-affirmed my argument that the Lebanese government is very much responsible for the situation. The Lebanese government had 6 years to work a solution to the threat that Hezbollah poses to the stability of the region in whatever means they would have chosen to. They chose to do nothing, so they have only themselves to blame.

Israel is doing more than enough to avoid casualties on the Lebanese side. One might think that it’s the Hezbollah’s job to defend the Lebanese citizens, and not Israels’ (since they are a part of the government). Yet it seems that you’re one step short of praising the Hezbollah’s actions. As though it’s not Hezbollah’s own fault that Lebanese citizens are getting hurt. It’s Hezbollah which kills Lebanese by engaging a war against Israel, not Israel. If we wanted to kill citizens, we wouldn’t have warned them to leave in the first place. We could have just started bombarding with no warning.

Take Bint Jbeil for example. It would have been much more “cost effective” to level the entire town from the air before sending in the ground troops (and by that, saving Israeli soldiers’ lives). But IDF has decided against it, knowing that in many of the buildings in the town, Hezbollah terrorists were waiting for the Israeli forces.

It sure is easy enough to criticize. But when it comes to finding alternative solutions, silence befalls all.

I don't need to remind you about the order 425 that was issued 20 years ago asking israel to go out of Lebanon and until 2000, this order was not done. So don't let me start talking about who isn't doing what the UN says.

No body attacked you in the first place. the abduction was only for an exchange of the prisioners on your side. that was the plan but you started bombing us. you started this, and if it wasn't because of your goverment, this wouldn't have happened. this war could have been evited by doing a simple exchange like they always did in the past.


When did that happen? Hezbollah has shelled Israeli towns and cities since day one of the war. Not a single day has passed without Katyushas being fired into Israeli territory. They did ask for a cease fire, but that's just impudent of them. If they do want to give something, though, I’d start with the 2 soldiers.[/QUOTE]

WRONG! Hezbollah abducted the two soldiers and didn't fire anything. It was Israel who declared the war while Hezbollah had no intention but a simple exchange. They gave israel 3 days of destroying lebanon, and after these 3 days they declared war back. So the shelling started from your side and not from ours.


Oh so destroying every single bridge in Lebanon the first day where war was declared from your side only is strategic. So tell me now, was it not strategic that this war is so well organised, and it gets me wondering, wasn't it meant to happen because as i see it, your minister said 3 monthes ago that you have set 300 targets in Lebanon and waiting for the right time to get them. And abducting the soldiers was for one reason: get our prisonners back. It was Israel who declared war, not us, so the war is your fault.

Ignoring the fact that the your statement just re-affirmed my argument that the Lebanese government is very much responsible for the situation. The Lebanese government had 6 years to work a solution to the threat that Hezbollah poses to the stability of the region in whatever means they would have chosen to. They chose to do nothing, so they have only themselves to blame.[/QUOTE]

Just so you know, the goverment has said that Hezbollah is the only thing that is able to defend lebanon from israel since the US forbids the lebanese army from having tanks, war planes, rockets...I mean our army is forbiden to be a real army while Israel has every right to use anything the US gives her. How fair is that? So don't expect Lebanon to disarm the only thing that is defending him.

So more then enough for you is asking people to leave and then targeting them while leaving. It's targeting civilian houses where children and women are hiding and killing them all. That is avoiding casualty. If that is avoiding casualty, congratulation!!! And just so you know, you ARE targeting civilians without warning them.

The thing is that you did bomb 75% of the town and bring it down. And just so you know, since you are knowing a lot today, no Hezbollah fighter is hiding in any building, they have said that.

So stop war. Have a ceasefire. Exchange the soldiers for the prisonners. That was a choice from day one. You declared an IMMEDIATE war on us, so who isn't finding the solution?

You seem very eager to lessen the importance of Hezbollah's military incursion into Israeli territory to kidnap Israeli soldiers by calling it "a simple exchange." Unfortunately, several Israelis were also killed in the execution of this operation by what you seem to assert is essentially the official military force of Lebanon(and as such are representatives of the nation as a whole).

You seem to be trying to cheapen the impact of this whole affair by calling their intentions a "simple exchange." This is not a child's game of dodgeball or capture-the-flag, where when your teammates are captured, you can do something special to get them out of "jail," and everyone is still friends at the end of the game.

This is life-taking violence and aggression, not just a frivolous game where you have to play by the rules or you get disqualified.

EDIT: Nehmi: Striked out for now, but could you verify that? I had never heard that. It still doesn't change my point.

EDITx2:They performed a cross-border raid. Unstriked-out.
EDITx3:More evidence

I hate to break it to you, but Hezbollah never entered Israeli territory to kidnap the soldiers, they were in Lebanon.

Double Post:
Hindustan Times (Original not found anymore heh, I wonder why.)


Bahrain News Agency


news.monstersandcritics.com


Asian Times

Here's a handy map.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...arte-finul.gif





EDIT:

Haha, oh this amuses me. The entire post I was going against is gone. ;_;

Thats okay, you can go against my edits. :)
but...
But, it seems, from this information, that the incursion was provoked by Israeli operations in Lebanon. This is new information to me; however I am sure there is much more to these events which we don't know anyways. Apparently, there were many clashes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces on the border for some time before the event in question.

Taken from bbc:
according to this, Hezbollah has abducted the 2 soldiers from within the Israeli territory. As well as shelled Israel (yes, from day one).

Taken from the cnn’s site (from their time-line of the events):
Taken from Wikipedia:
Nehmi, these are 2 of your sources:
The Hezbollah has announced that the Israelis were captured in Lebanon, but that’s not true. The Hezbollah has abducted the soldiers from within Israeli territory. That’s all there is to it.

In response to Casual_Otaku:

What’s happened there is definitely tragic. But these children’s deaths is the Hezbollah’s doing, even if it was caused by Israeli fire. The Hezbollah is risking the Lebanese civilians’ lives by operating from within Lebanese cities, by hiding ammunition inside Lebanese civilian buildings, and by launching rockets from within populated areas.

mms://mz12.mediazone.co.il/mediazone/34/3204!3631.wmv

This film is taken from a recent IDF briefing shown on Israeli television. The video shows the launching of rockets from the area of Kfar Qana. The video continues to show several vehicles that were used to launch rockets entering civilian buildings after launching said rockets.

Oh, and han89, by “real, workable solutions”, I didn’t mean: “just do whatever the Hezbollah wants, and all will be fine.” That’s just dumb.

I'm sorry, but I find someone taking something Hezbollah says with a straight face amusing. While it might be true that they weren't in the specific buildings(after all, there's so many civilian buildings that Hezbollah likes to hide in, how can you be sure you're blowing up the right ones?) that were destroyed, taking their word for it is kind of pointless.

Is what Israel is doing right? I honestly can't say. They're trapped in a nasty mess with an enemy who does like to hide it's forces among civilians. That's standard terrorist tactics. Hell, Hezbollah is BRAGGING about Israel killing more civilians than Hezbollah soldiers/guerillas/terrorists(take your pick on what you want to call them) which tells you how much they really care about the people of Lebanon.

Doing a prisoner exchange is pointless though. That'll just encourage groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to do it again and again. So I agree with Israel's no prisoner exchange stance.

Really, Israel loses no matter what they do. Lebanon loses even more no matter what happens. In the final analysis though, Israel is going to do what's best for Israel though, not what's best for Lebanon. Just like Iran is going to do what's best for Iran, the US is going to do what's best for the US, and every other country is going to do what's best for them. Until now Lebanon saw it as being in their best interests not to have a civil war with Hezbollah. This worked in the short run but it's now costing them as Hezbollah stirred up Israel.

And I'm of the opinion that there are no real workable solutions to the whole mess in the Middle East. Although the cynic in me says that a few decades down the road a real workable solution might come up in the form of mutual nuclear annihilation at the rate everyone there is going.

A question, if there were rockets in the building, shoudln't it do a BIG HELL OF A GREAT BLAST????? it only crumbled like any other buliding and no rockets were found when taking out the 37 dead children and 25 other males and females and when the investigations were carried. So your video is as good as any cinematic done video!!!

And the soldiers WERE in Lebanon. Just because the CNN says so and everyone else says otherwise, it doesn't mean the CNN is the rightful news. THey were in our territories and we had every right to do what we did. And about the shelling from day one, that's wrong info.

And a workable solution is not give israel what they want either!!! Dream on about that too!

The Hezbollah always had soldiers captured and exchanged them for prisonners, and Israel always did. So don't tell me that the exchange was impossible because they used to do it so the war is Israel's fault, they announced it... As easy as that!!!!

You don't seem to understand why this justification doesn't work. At all.

Consider this hypothetical dialogue between two members of a group which regularly kidnaps and ransoms people. Let me know if it makes sense:

1> "So it looks like the cops are trying to capture us again"
2> "Yeah, whats with that? We've always kidnapped someone rich, and gotten a lot of money out of their relatives. A simple exchange. Its a good system: we get money, and they get their relatives back."
1> "I don't understand why the police keep wanting to capture us. Its like we're doing something that other people don't like. WTF?"
2> "What a pain. It would be nice if those darned cops would lay off us for once."

Mistakes happen and people die. Accept that, that is part of life and move on. You want to sit and pin Isreal as a bad guy, fine go ahead. You want to support the actions that Hezbollah is taking against Isreal go ahead. If you think it's ok for Hezbollah to blindly shoot rockets into Isreal to murder innocent civilians and destroy houses and businesses fine. You can't condem Isreal and not condem YOUR organization for doing the same exact thing.

Are you a member of Hezbollah then? I only make the assumption right now because you said that "They were in our territories and we had every right to do what we did" God knows that the Lebenese Government had nothing to do with the kidknapping of the Isreali soldiers so that kind of leads me to believe that you are either a member or a supporter of a Terrorist organization. I mean please correct me if I'm incorrect in my statement. I guess I could use the word sympothizer also but that just doesn't sound right for the group you're supporting / a part of.

I guess you've never known or met a bully in your life. Just because Hezbollah has captured soldiers and exchanged them in the past with Isreal doesn't mean that it's going to work out every time. I knew kids back in school that would get juked every day for their lunch money because the bullies in knew the kids would openly give them their money with no questions. It takes a bully a simple fuck no and a pop in the face to get the message and to leave the kid alone.

Oh yeah I'm sure you'd be totally ready to accept bombs raining down on your neighbours and just move on if it was happening in Iowa.

Yeah because Israel is totally the victim here, being bullied by powerful, mean Arab states, stealing all their lunch money and pushing them into the dirt. But it's ok, kill a few of their children and they'll get the message.

We really should just ban analogies from PP.

Learn2history.

Israel has been bullied many many times by those powerful mean arab states say since DAY 1 of Israel's formation?

No analogies here. Look up
Israel War of Independence
Six-Day War
Yom Kippur War

Hezbollah TV is NOT everyone else. You've supplied one source that's not affiliated with anti-Israeli and/or pro-Arab groups that says that the Israeli's were in Lebanon at the time. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc, all say they were in Israeli territory during the kidnapping. The one source you did supply that wasn't a Hezbollah propaganda machine was a source that nobody knows about it's reliability because nobody watches it.

So evidently Hezbollah is going to try and hit Tel Aviv with...something. Perhaps we are going to see some new ordinance not seen yet.

I'm not sure about the location of the kidnapping, but Arabs consider the Shebaa Farms part of Lebanon, and not Israel. That might account for the issue, as it is land Israel stole in a previous war.

The escalation of this war has been absolutely perposterous however. Israel has been brutally slaughtering innocents for an action, while serious, amounts to very little and could be resolved through diplomacy. Israel's behavior is more of that of a terrorist orginization than a soverign state.

As for hitting Tel Aviv, they might have some ordinance capable of that. New weapons keep emerging every once in a while.

Terrorism is a deliberate action designed solely to harm civillian targets.

Israel has only killed civillians because Hezbollah hides among civillians, making them collateral damage.

You can't negotiate with an organization who wants your country destroyed - completely. You either kill them or they kill you. It's that simple.

Actually, if they know that they hide among civilians, it's not collateral damage, but intended damage. Don't make it sound like they don't have a choice, here.

No, because Isreal did not intend to kill civillians. They only struck known Hezbollah targets - which just so happened to be surrounded by civillians. Isreal did not intentionally target civillians. The civillians killed, thus, are still collateral damage.

The only alternative they have is to not strike back against Hezbollah who is lobbing rocket artillery onto their cities, which is unacceptable by anyone else's tandards.

And yet a majority of Israel's targets are civilian targets. Four bridges today, multiple airports, as well as other infastructure areas, and civilian houses have been hit. Hezbollah having southern Beirut as a stronghold does not justify blasting the entire city under the pretense of collateral damage.

Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah in dealing with prisoners before. Both groups have prisoners of each other and would like them back.


You're simplifying the situation a lot more than it actually is. Also, the classification of Hezbollah as a terrorist orginization isn't even complete, while the US, Canada, and Israel say so, the EU thinks differently.

so, using your own definition of terrorism, as well as the UN building incident (to name just one) where they knew only innocent civilians would be killed, that makes the israeli army a terrorist organisation.

If Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, maybe you could tell us just what miltary targets they are attempting to hit with these rockets and missiles. Indiscriminately launching rockets at populated cities and towns, seems like a terrorist action to me. Hezbollah doesn't even attempt to claim the civilians they murder as collateral damage, since killing civilians is their goal, as opposed to those killed by the Israeli air strikes.

I'm going to have to ask you to prove that there was even a single instance where Isreal deliberately attacked a target to kill civillians.

U.N.

I think, Israel with its high-tech gadgetry and military assets can make difference between U.N labeled vehicles and others.

Lebonan is 'test bed' for Israel,following the policy of 'shoot first ask questions later'.

No matter the sophisticated weaponry of today, accidents always happen. Surely the United States, with it's high-tech weapons and military assets, could avoid 'friendly fire', right? No military force is perfect. In war, accidents will forever be inevitable.

But you still haven't answered Night Phoenix's question. He specifically asked: "I'm going to have to ask you to prove that there was even a single instance where Isreal deliberately attacked a target to kill civillians." - It would be like me claiming: "Sexninja absolutely hates dogs! In fact, I saw him beating one the other day!"

You or other members would ask for proof. If I responded by only saying how I found a hurt dog on the street the other day or located pictures showing one injured, it wouldn't prove that you were responsible. No, you'll have to prove Israel is purposely attacking civilians. I recommend posting a reliable news article.

<sigh> I can't believe people are STILL using this as a pathetic excuse to justify Hezzbolah's actions. Once a bitch, always a bitch eh? Maybe Israel is tired of being pushed around?

That and other similiar asserations are soo much bullshit. Answer one question:

1.) Is Israel using its full military might on Lebanon?

maybe some other side issues to consider is why isn't Israel using it's nuclear weapons if its intent was to cause maximum civillian casulties? Why is Israel bothering to tell people to evacuate ahead of time? Why is Israel doing house to house fighting when it could just level the entire city?

I mean damn... if a military general was aiming for maximum civillian casulties they sure SUCK AT IT.




So Hezzbollah as an organization cares so much about their own people that they will ONLY operate in the Southern Lebanon theater and promise not to run north?

Whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or not is open and shut case.

Whether the Lebanese citizens who *VOTED* Hezzbolah into power and refusing to disarm them should pay for Hezzbolah's crimes is a little trickier.

sorry pal, but when the vast majority of the lebanese death toll belongs to civilians the onus is on YOU to prove that they AREN'T deliberately targeting civilians.

It tends to be the case that Israel does a lot of the pushing. Palestine jumps to mind pretty quickly.

And yet they've still managed to kill roughly 700 civilians, and considering the amount of ordinance used for an army roughly 3000 strong, its excessive.

Also, they've done a pretty good job of leveling cities anyways. Beirut, Tyre, and a few other places have taken billions of dollars worth of damage.

Until Israel started destroying the country, they wouldn't have been able to. The attitude was shifting against Hezbollah, but of course, thats not the case anymore.

Which is exactly the most important point of this all.

Let's face it: The only one thing that is already certain about the war is that nothing good will come of it. Whatever happens - Hezbollah will emerge strengthened. If there had been hopes in the past that Lebanon would slowly become a normal country, where Hezbollah would be deprived of a pretext for maintaining a military force of its own, they were now provided with the perfect justification: Israel is destroying Lebanon, only Hezbollah is fighting to defend the country. Nobody else is.

How quick we are to devalue life. Of course Israel aren’t intending to kill civilians –and who would be stupid enough to admit that? This fact, however, doesn’t make the results of their actions any less abhorrent or somehow immune from criticism. Does a ‘kill or be killed’ argument really apply given the disproportionate military strength in Israel’s favour? Ok, there are rocket attacks in Haifa in the north, but based on the death and injury tolls, it is relatively little compared to sophisticated carnage created by the Israeli precision strikes. It’s like going after a fly with a hammer, but calling for some restraint at this point is too little too late.

Israel have been keen to differentiate between Hezbollah targets and the ‘normal’ Lebanese, however ask yourself what kind of impact do you think these activities will have on the moderate Lebanese government and the future of the region? You have to remember that past conflicts with Lebanon have been resolved with dialogue and diplomacy; ie a government open to discussion. There’s been some talk that if the invasion was able to convince normal Lebanese to reject Hezbollah (Adamigan’s mentioned the shift already), but if the long term effect ends up with them being replaced by radicals… well, it’s not as if the region isn’t destabilised enough already.

Maybe Israel do suck at military strategy. This attempt to crush Hezbollah over a couple of soldiers has gone on for three weeks and killed more civilians than terrorists, so wouldn’t you say that this quick show of strength has backfired? On the day Israeli leader Olmert announced that they’ve crushed Hezbollah, the rockets still continue to fall. Now there’s some talk of holding the territory or leaving it to an International (UN) peacekeeping force -good luck on getting volunteers for that. Until that happens, Israel will be holding onto territory while all the while losing casualties and international goodwill (not that they’ve ever cared for that).

I think it’s a little deeper than that. Simplifying things is often a good idea, but it lends itself to making you look like a shallow fool. Ask yourself what kind of ‘terrorists’ are you thinking of? If you’ve really read your history, you’d know that the origin of Hezbollah was entwined in a regional conflict in repelling Israel from Lebanon, and thus lends itself to much popular support from the Lebanese. Freedom fighters could also be an apt tag, although this on its own does not justify their actions. As such, any implied comparisons to ‘destroy the non-islamic world’ global terrorists (a la Al-Qaeda) are null.

In the interests of simplicity, yes.

Once a bitch, eh? The same goes for Israel when it comes to killing civilians.

People seem to be twisting this issue to no end. Just because myself and others are calling Israel terrorists, that doesn't mean we aren't calling Hezbollah terrorists, either. Both sides are committing acts of terrorism. Make no mistake about that. But Israel is taking this way farther than Hezbollah could ever hope to.

Israel's full military might has nothing to do with this. The same question could be asked of the United States Army in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the answer would be no. Of course they aren't. But no matter what their restraint is, hundreds of people are still dying. That's why it's not relevant to this issue.

That's complete lunacy. Do you honestly think Israel would use a nuclear bomb to get rid of Hezbollah? If Israel was that stupid, we wouldn't be here to tell the tale.

And Israel is not going to just wipe everybody out because that's not how modern warfare is fought. What they're doing instead is bombing civilian infrastructures, transport routes, and other strategic civilian targets in an attempt to starve the country instead.

No, they don't. Because if this war continues, more people will die from a lack of food, water, and medicine than the IDF could ever hope to kill.

So Israel's latest incursion into Gaza was completely unprovoked? Remember that there is relative peace in the area UNTIL some suicide bomber decides to blow uo a cafe or schoolbus.

If you added up the potential killing power of all the ordnance dropped thus far, wouldn't the numbers killed be in the hundreds of thousands if Israel was REALLY trying to kill civillians? If Hezzbolah would fight Israel toe to toe instead of hidng among innocent Lebanese the fight would be over quicker and less innocents would have to die.

You forget that "not being a bitch" is worth fighting for - worth dying for, worth killing for. Israel MUST do what a soverign nation must do when terrorized.

You are willfully ignorant if you think that Hezzbolah was going to disarm anytime soon.

Who here REALLY thinks that Hezzbolah is "defending" Lebanon. Hezzbolah isn't doing shit. THey have:

-Killed approximately 100 IDF soldiers and Israel civillians
-Kidnapped two IDF soldiers

in exchange for

-700? dead Lebanese civillians
-Billions in damage

(Adamgian numbers).

You think if Hezzbolah really gave a damn about their country they would stop the fighting. My argument of not being a bitch doesn't apply to Hezzbolah. The reason this is the case is in a fight, Hezzbolah will lose and therefor should not be starting a fight to begin with.

How quick are we to devalue Israeli life? Maybe Israel cares enough about it's citizens to respond to any and all aggression. If me and you were at war (and if it's one that you started) I really don't care how many of you I kill to save 1 of my lives - ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU STARTED IT.

Maybe the damage done due to Israeli precision weapons and WARNING people to leave has resulted in relatively little death and damage tolls compared to what could be happening?

UN Conversation to Lebanon: Hi there Lebanon, we were wondering if Hezzbolah could kindly disarm it's military wing?

Lebanese government: Hezzbolah IS the government biatch! HAHA. Elected and everything!

You tell me what you would have done if your country was attacked the way it was hmmmmmm?

Also, who expects Israel or ANYONE in their situation to backdown in the current situation.

Scenario 1 - Israel withdraws from Lebanon = Hezzbolah victory
Scenario 2 - Israel agrees to a ceasefire without the return of soldiers = Hezzbolah victory.

Has no one ever kicked ass or gotten their ass kicked in the playgrounds? Same shit here, there are protocols that must be followed.

--
Look. The best solution moving forward is the Lebanese deciding that they have had enough of the Hezzbolah dogs shitting in their neighbors yard and dealing with it. Will it be costly? Yes? No fence sitting on this one. What will be more costly

1.) Continue to fight with Israel until the end of time?

2.) Friggin expel Hezzbolah.

Double Post:
The ball was always in Hezzbolah's court. They could of not started this shit to begin with for one. Two, they could have returned the soldiers anytime between then and NOW and Israel would have much less of a leg to stand on.

My question was in response to a statement that Israel was INTENTIONALLY killing civilians. They are not. If they were, they would be using their full military might wouldn't they?

Hezzbolah would no doubt used a nuclear weapon on Israel - without disregard that Lebanon would probably be hit by 20 afterwards.

You are right. You have seen the tactical situation. Now what will you do assuming Israel does not back down?

Defang Hezzbolah or let your people starve?

This very sentence shows how lacking your knowledge of the entire conflict in the middle east is.

Like an organisation such as the Hezbollah can "lose" anything at all.

Would you just sit idly by while a superior army invades your country? If Israel's actions to "defend" themselves against terrorists by invading another sovereign country is legit, then the Hezbollah's fight against this invader is just as legit and will draw a lot of support from the people because Hezbollah are the only ones standing up to fight, not because they are a terrorist organization.

Tony, what I'm trying to say is that you seem to lack the ability to put yourself in the place of the Lebanese people.

How many of this "700 civilians" number are hezbollah fighters? Have yet to see any figures on how many Hezbollah have been killed, so you have to assume that a large number of this 700 are Hezbollah, and not "innocent" civilians. The civilians killed by hezbollah rockets in israel however are undisputably civilians, since Israel also releases seperate numbers for their military KIA.

Double Post:
And you are wrongfully assuming that all of the lebanese people are behind hezbollah. Lebanon is roughly 40% Christian, and most of that 40% would much rather see hezbollah defeated and removed from their country. The Christian militias for the most part abided by the peace treaties of the past and disarmed, leaving them in no position to challenge the Iran and Syria supported Hezbollah.

Have you even read my post? Where did I assume that "all of the Lebanese are behind Hezbollah"? The situation you describe was only true before the outbreak of this recent war. My point is that Hezbollah gains a lot of support these days, because they are the only military force fighting against Lebanon's foreign invaders. Besides, you seem to have missed the reports of Christians openly supporting Hezbollah leader Nasrallah (btw the now much more capable successor of the former leader assassinated by Israel *g*). Actually, this war is the best recruitment program for Hezbollah since they were founded back in 1982 to repel the first invasion by Israel.

Also, good luck trying to convince the average Lebanese that Israel destroying the country is in their best interest.

Oh, so go ahead and blame the suicide bomber. They wouldn't be blowing shit up in the first place if Israel hadn't invaded the Gaza Strip. The egg comes before the chicken, man. At least in this case.

And Hezbollah must do what the people of an invaded nation must do when they are under attack; fight back.

Where did that even come from? How can you take civilian casualties and say that because Hezbollah hasn't killed as many people, that they aren't "defending Lebanon"?

Be consistent. If Israel gave a damn about its citizens, it might realize that going to war over 2 soldiers put its citizens in even more harm for every Lebanese citizen they kill. They are just creating more terrorism.

You just don't get it, do you? I'm telling you, this whole business about "restraint" is garbage. As long as the Israelis are still slaughtering Lebanese 9 to 1, does "restraint" really matter if it's already a massacre to begin with?

You're forgetting one scenario:
3. Israel continues to fight in Lebanon for decades, never disarming Hezbollah=Hezbollah wins.

If you think Israel will succeed in wiping out Hezbollah, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

No, the ball wasn't always in Hezbollah's court. Even if they had returned those soldiers, Israel would still be in Lebanon, for the same reasons they are now. But this isn't about those 2 soldiers.

Hezbollah might not have felt compelled to abduct those 2 soldiers if the Israelis hadn't been holding thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians in prison, most of them probably civilians. And Hezbollah also wouldn't be around if Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon in the 80s.

Yes, they are intentionally killing innocent civilians. Full military might my ass. You don't have to have your whole military in a country to kill innocent civilians. Again, your point is irrevelant. If the Israeli wasn't intending for civilians to die, then why did they bomb the airports so the civilians couldn't leave? Hezbollah's not going anywhere. Why are they bombing bridges so civilians can't escape their towns? Why are they blowing up aid routes so that people can't get food? All of this is intentional, man. And people will die as a consequence of this.

Come on. Not even Hezbollah is that stupid. If Hezbollah wanted to get a nuclear weapon, they could have easily done so by now, just like you and I could come up with a nuclear reaction in a physics class if we really wanted to.

I find it odd how you ask the Lebanese government to respond, when they are victims of this crisis too. When Israel is targeting Lebanese troops as well, how is the government going to be able to do anything about Hezbollah in the future? With no airports, roads, food, water, the Lebanese government can't do anything even if they wanted to. And they probably aren't going to do anything in the future. The ball will never be in their court, because they weren't playing the game to begin with.

Double Post:
That's the biggest double standard I've ever heard.

Yes, you can prove that Hezbollah is killing innocent civilians. But you can't prove anything about who the Israelis are killing. Therefore, they are innocent before proven guilty. If I asked George W. Bush to prove that every person in Guantanamo Bay was a terrorist, could he do it? Could you?

The Lebanese Christians do not support Hezbollah, neither do the Druse,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/4094118.html

The fact that a handful of Christian Lebanese leaders have voiced support of hezbollah is more indicative of a fear of Hezbollah or Syrian retaliation than of anger aginst israel.

But, it's like you said, Christians only make up for around 40% of Lebanon. That makes them a minority. A close one, but still a minority. The Arabs living in Lebanon have way more influence on this current crisis.

Again, why would they be afraid of Hezbollah if they are the only ones fighting to defend Lebanon? In this situation, every Lebanese who loves his country and doesn't want to have it laid to waste has no choice but to support Hezbollah. Because obviously, nobody else gives a damn about Lebanon.

And on a side note, Al Queda is said to make plans for terrorist activities in post-war Lebanon similar to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why would Christians be afraid of Hezbollah?...because Hezbollah uses them as human shields?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7314

From a New York Times article;

"But for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah — a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.

“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”

“Please,’’ he added, “write that in your newspaper"

the article continued

"One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.

“This is what’s happening, but no one wants to say it” for fear of Hezbollah, she said. "

Styphon, that is quite possible the biggest crockpot of shit I've ever heard. The idea that "there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy" is ridiculous. Jewish law doesn't mean anything because the Israelis aren't bombing Jews.

And next I ask, which Jewish law, which book? Because if that is even true, then nobody should be complaining about what happened to Jews during the Holocaust, and Israelis shouldn't be complaining about their own who are dying as a result of Hezbollah's bombs. That's how ridiculous that statement is.

Hezbollah using civilians as human shields? Unheard of.

This is gonna get a bit long, and I’m sorry for that…

You can dismiss the Hezbollah attack by saying “they just kidnapped 2 soldiers”, but you’d be missing the point (as well as some facts). Since the withdrawal from Lebanon, every now and then, the Hezbollah decides to abduct a few soldiers (during 2006 and 2000), and even a citizen. From time to time, they test the recent shipment of Katyusha rockets from Syria and Iran, by launching them into Israeli territory. In between, they’re smuggling other weaponry from Iran and Syria, calling for the destruction of the “Zionist enemy”. You know, regular stuff. As han89 has stated, us not retaliating in the past, has only encouraged the Hezbollah to continue (“you’ve done nothing before, why now?”).
It’s true that we negotiated the exchange of prisoners in the past. But it is also true that all of the above has happened even AFTER the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon to the border approved by the UN. And although, some of you seemingly disagree, it is also (according to, at least, most of the world) true that the attacks by Hezbollah were taking place inside Israeli territory.

Now given those facts, tell me, Onyx, Rock, and whomever else who might want to answer: what is a sovereign state that wants to defend its citizens and even its <gasp> soldiers </gasp> to do? Should we use military power? Even the slightest bit? (it seems that we’re using too much. Maybe if we just fired Katyusha rockets back unto Hezbollah strongholds, it would have been OK? Or maybe we should just wait a bit, until the Hezbollah catches up and kills more Israelis before we’re allowed to carry any military operation?).
Wait a minute, I know. We should negotiate. Stupid us, how did we not think of this earlier. Oh, wait a minute… we did. And shockingly, it resulted in more attacks. And more abductions.

Or maybe we should ask the UN to deploy a peace-keeping force along the border. wait… that sounds a bit familiar too…

Oh, I know. We should ask the UN to pass a resolution, asking the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah (or even just take control over it, and add its forces to the Lebanese army’s). What? Resolution 1559?

If only there were as many a solution as complaints…

And you seem to lack the ability to put yourself in the place of the Israeli people.

It would have been in the Lebanese best interest to disarm, or gain control over Hezbollah during the last 6 years. But what’s done is done. Israel is not acting in Lebanon’s best interests, it’s acting in its own best interests. And that is, defending the citizens of our country, just as any other sovereign country would have done in our stead.

Fight for what? For the defense of the Lebanese people? Nice job, operating from amongst civilians is surely the best way to defend them. Invading into Israel is definitely an act of defense. They wanted peace and quiet so badly, that they have shelled Israel, crossed the border, abducted 2 of its soldiers and killed 3 others.
The Hezbollah has surely done a fantastic job defending the Lebanese citizens. Bravo.

Also, when comparing the IDF and Hezbollah. Note that the IDF doesn’t decide what to do on its own. IDF is following the Israeli government’s decisions, not the other way around.
Hezbollah on the other hand, is acting on its own. Hezbollah decides whether the Lebanese will go into war or not. Hezbollah decides when (and if) to retreat. Hezbollah decides what happens in Lebanon, not the elected prime minister (who surely didn’t want all this to happen). And don’t go telling me that the Hezbollah is expressing the people’s opinions, because (at least) at the beginning of the war, many a Lebanese objected to Hezbollah’s actions. Hezbollah only acts on its own agendas.

Again, what do you expect us to do? Wait for the Hezbollah to catch up? We don’t need to apologize for being stronger. Comparing the death tolls on both sides, as means of deciding who is right and who is wrong is kinda barbaric.

I think former Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has ansewered your claim pretty well on an interview to the BBC:

When the BBC interviewer accused Israel of harming Lebanese civilians, Netanyahu compared the situation to the British Royal Air Force's fight against the Nazis in World War II. He said that when the RAF targeted the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen in 1944, they missed and hit a children's hospital, but "that didn't make the British pilots terrorists and it didn't make the Nazis the good guys."
He also noted that during WW2, the British retaliated to the Blitz, by leveling entire German cities.
So before calling Israel a terrorist state, and stating that Israel is using unproportional force, check your facts first. Because your countries would have used the same amount, if not much more, of "unproportional force". In fact, some of them already did. And if it was you being shelled, you would have asked them to, yourselves. Justly, might I had.

This is a link to a different interview of Netanyahu to Sky news, if you’re interested. (I couldn’t find mentions of the BBC interview on the BBC site, if someone finds it, please post it, or let me know).
- news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-netanyahu_030806_1430,00.html

As much as I’d like to think that, I don’t. I don’t think that the Hezbollah will be completely wiped out. But I do know that what we’re doing is much better than doing nothing while our soldiers and citizens are getting abducted, killed, injured and displaced.
Sure, the war has its price. I agree that more people are getting hurt (I’m talking about Israel here) right now, than there would have been during the same period of time if we wouldn’t have acted. But this is the difference between thinking in the short term, and thinking in the long term.
I also agree that because of this war, many Lebanese will develop\deepen their hatred towards Israel. Some of them might even join the Hezbollah. But it is definitely much better, than sitting idly and not doing anything to defend ourselves.
Stating that this war achieves nothing is untrue. The Hezbollah did not expect this kind of retaliation. As han89 has said, they only wanted prisoners exchange (poor them…). And they are sustaining damage. The proof of that is their secrecy about their losses, their lies in the media (“we hit a second Israeli ship”, “we’ll hit Tel-Aviv if IDF strikes in Beirut”, “We meant the center of Beirut, not just the southern part of it”, “The Israelis are targeting civilians while we are targeting military posts”).
The rockets threat will never disappear, but if the Hezbollah will hesitate the next time, then we did our job.

This is an interesting article from the New Yorker magazine from 2002

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021014fa_fact4

This war should suprise no one. The maniacal anti semetic hatred of Hezbollah is well documented and highlighted well in the article.

Just a tid bit from a Hezbollah leader quoted in the article

""The Jews are sons of pigs and apes," Na'im said"

But lets negotiate with these folks!

I'm well aware that Hezbollah has been abducting and killing Israelis as well. But perhaps if Israel wasn't holding thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians to begin with, Hezbollah would have less of a leg to stand on, as I said before.

As long as Israel is holding Lebanese people in prisons (whether or not they are civilians, we can argue all day), Hezbollah will always have an interest in attacking Israel. Maybe if Israel released the prisoners in addition to having withdrawn from Lebanon, this would be a popular war. Nobody would disagree. And you can't say anything about Hezbollah without looking at Israel, either. Israel has been infamous for abducting people from along the Lebanese border as well.

In the words of Amy Goodman, "you don't negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with your enemies." And in negotiating, both sides give up something. In Hezbollah's case, it's the violence and the killing of civilians. In Israel's case, it's the release of Lebanese prisoners and violence. Both sides have committed terrorist acts, therefore, both have something to bring to the table and benefit from. If both sides did their part, and then Hezbollah still decided to attack Israel, then I don't think anyone would hold it against Israel to retaliate with military might.

There's a flaw in your argument. Hezbollah doesn't hide amongst its citizens as much as say, the Iraqi insurgents. Hezbollah is a much more visible entity. It's been mentioned in this thread many times that the public doesn't support Hezbollah. Out of the reported 900,000 people that have been displaced in Lebanon, it's the members of Hezbollah who are staying behind. They don't have to do much hiding, although that shouldn't really matter anyway since Israeli is indiscriminately bombing civilian targets anyway. What's worse?

And in your comment about the IDF taking orders from the military, you've illuminated exactly what the problem with Israel is, as with any regional superpower: it's government. Much like the United States, the orders to kill innocent civilians and bomb civilian infrastructures is coming from the government. Do you see a problem with this? I sure as hell do.

Apologize for being "stronger?" No, of course not. Apologize for war crimes? Yes. And I wasn't comparing death tolls to see who was right or wrong. Good job putting words in my mouth. If you want to point that finger, attack TonyDaTigger, whose post I was referring to.

...the Prime Minister said it himself (if he wasn't lying), that the RAF "missed." Is Israel missing its targets left and right? No. Therefore, there's no comparison. Of course though, I'd expect that from a former Israeli PM.

Except there's one big difference. The Germans were invading Britain.

First off, I think you need to check your facts, first. We're not going to get into the argument of "well, you would do it too," because simply, it's utter bullshit. Of course the United States would do the same. And so would Britain, and France. But that doesn't make it right. As a citizen of the United States, I personally did not ask George Bush to go to war after 9/11. So if you are going to profile other governments in the world (and their people), don't assume that they're going to do the right thing, or that their people are going to support them. Because in many cases, you may be wrong.

I'd like to direct my comments toward the sentences in bold, because they contradict each other. If you claim that Israel is acting in the long term, then how does Hezbollah "hesitating" constitute a long term victory? That's about as short-term as it gets. If that's a long term solution, then Israel will be in Lebanon forever.

Why do you equate 'they aren't entirely to blame' with endorsment of Hezbollah?

Your own country has paramilitary groups that reserve even lower sentiments for the Jews, but if they found themselves in southern Lebanon after 12/7, they'd have been unconditionally airlifted to safety by now.

Israel controls a lot of occupied land however, including the Shebaa Farms, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. You want peace, give the Arabs back their land.

Also, you seem to lack comprehension of the situation. It's not that the Lebanese government didn't really want to disarm Hezbollah, it's that they can't. The Lebanese government is extremely weak due to the way it is set up. While Israeli citizens might not understand that, the government certainly does, and thats why its actions against Hezbollah are terrorist actions - because it knows that the Lebanese government can't do anything, and yet it still destroys the country.

Lastly, the UN force has around 200 members, its not a real force. Don't even act like that is an excuse to justify this slaughter by the IDF.

And yet less 50 Israeli civilians have been killed, compared to 700 Lebanese. The Israeli's are hardly suffering compared to the Lebanese and the Palestinians, and any argument otherwise is a lie.

And yet WW2 was a total war between multiple states, this is a war by a regional power to break a feeble nation who wants nothing to do with this. How about remembering that part?

For the past 60 years Israel has used the concept of "thinking long term" to justify its actions against the Arabs. Where has that gotten you? Israel needs a new policy of treating their neighbors like humans instead of trash if it ever wants to survive. And make no mistake of it, in the region, Israel is outnumbered population wise by a huge margin, it's actions will not lend themselves to the survival of the state in the long term.

Israel's terrorist atrocities against the Arabs don't help, but hell, what can you expect. Israel has slaughtered civilians before. Now is hardly different. And you wonder why everyone hates you.

So you’re basically justifying the Hezbollah attacks. I know you didn’t literally say that, but you’re more than implying. According to you we should just free all the Lebanese and Palestinians in our prisons. Terrorists, of whom some are openly willing to fight against Israel again.
The fact is that there will always be something. We could release the prisoners, but they will still claim that we haven’t withdrawn from the so called “Shebaa Farms”. Even if we would have withdrawn from the Shebaa Farms, there are still many cities they could claim as their own. There would still be the Palestinians, to fight for, and so on… According to you, even if we release the Lebanese prisoners, there will still be the Palestinian prisoners. Maybe we should just free all of the prisoners, without discriminating them based on origins.
Besides, Israel doesn’t hold thousands of Lebanese, that’s just an exaggeration.

That just proves my point. There will always be some other thing to fight about. We might as well just leave Israel altogether.

Israel doesn’t abduct people randomly. And the fact is that many a suicide attacks were prevented thanks to these arrests. Some by arresting the actual bombers, and some by arresting those who plan and support the attacks.

Go on, negotiate with Iran, negotiate with Al Queda. What do you think they want in order to stop their aggressions? Why didn’t Britain negotiate with Nazi Germany? Sometimes, negotiations just don’t work. We negotiated with the Palestinians, but as soon as we reach a dead end, it’s back to violence all over again.
And on what basis do you state that Israel has committed acts of terrorism. And please give me facts that actually prove this, not just death tolls, and pictures of dead bodies. Because all of this proves nothing.

Oh, really? Hezbollah doesn’t hide amongst civilians? If it’s just the members of the Hezbollah who are staying behind, then tell me, how come civilians still die in southern Lebanon? Or are they Hezbollah terrorists? In any case, there’s a flaw in your argument.

If you honestly believe that the Israeli government is ordering the army to kill innocent civilians, then I sure as hell see the problem here. No matter what I say, no matter what reasoning I give. All you’re gonna say is “Israel is a terrorist state”, “You just want to kill civilians”, etc…

proofs, please.

This whole point about restraint is garbage, right? Why? Because there are 9 dead Lebanese for every dead Israeli. It’s a massacre!!!!!1

Again, I apologize on behalf of the IDF, for not letting the Hezbollah invade into Israel (though, it does seem that cross border raids no longer count). If the situation does not escalate into a world war, then Israel obviously doesn’t have a right to defend itself. Nor is it entitled to make mistakes.

The world didn’t object as much to the war in Afghanistan… and just to be clear, I didn’t either, I think it was just.

Okay, let me rephrase. We do want to disarm Hezbollah. If the world would have realized that, and stopped being so hypocritical about the whole thing, then we probably would have succeeded. In those sentences you chose to ignore, I was stating that Hezbollah does suffer from the attacks, in contrast to its claims. If the world would have put pressure on Iran and Syria to stop their support and arming of Hezbollah, then we would have definitely succeeded. Unfortunately, most of the world chooses to pressure Israel to end this conflict right now, and unconditionally, before the desired goals have been achieved.
Thus, it doesn’t seem that we will be able to disarm Hezbollah in this round. Which is pretty sad, because it probably means that we will have the same debate all over again in a few years time.
Though the fact that the Hezbollah does sustain damage, might prove effective in that the Hezbollah will hesitate to start another conflict against Israel in the future. And if it does, it might be on a smaller scale, than if we did nothing.
On the other hand, if we did nothing. Then the Hezbollah would have attacked again, within a short period of time, and much more fiercely. The world would, of course, have done nothing (except for a condemnation here and there) and if Israel would have continued to not retaliate (as it did the last 6 years), this would have gone on, until something like the current conflict would have eventually happened. Only then, the Hezbollah would have been much more capable, and thus the death toll on both sides would have been much higher. By changing the equation, and making the Hezbollah realize that attacking Israel is only gonna hurt itself, we might be able to buy some time between Hezbollah attacks, in which the world would do something. Also, the world seems to realize the importance of finding a real sustainable solution to this conflict, only when Israel chooses to retaliate (hypocrisy?) and not when Israel is holding back after being attacked.

i don't know if any of you have heard of a guy called george galloway, but he was interviewed by sky news today regarding the current israeli aggression. he proceeded to tear them a new ass hole, just as he tore the US senate a new one last year when they falsely accused him of taking money from saddam hussein:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...060806,00.html

enjoy a legend in his prime.

Sure. Put words in my mouth, I really don't care. Because the fact is, Israel's never going to know what will happen because they've never done it.

Obviously, you have little understanding of the history of your own country. If the Arabs complain that the house you're living in sits on their land...they're right. Because your country was founded by stealing land from people. So yeah, if you're going to complain about Arabs trying to get their land back, just remember that.

And, as for the number of Lebanese being held in prisons, I can't find the numbers. But the number of Palestinians is not an exaggeration. I'll be awaiting your explanation.

Maybe you should...because it's a human rights violation? And because it's exactly what they did in South Africa? Yes, I think so.

Can you prove that? Can you prove that a terrorist attack was stopped by some unrelated Palestinian walking down the street? I sure can't. Just like I can't prove to you that every person in U.S. detention facilities are suspected terrorists. But according to you, since your country already "discriminates based on origins," they must be, if only because of their bloodline.

Again, you have very little understanding of the war that gave birth to your country. Britain DID negotiate with Nazi Germany. And part of the reason WW2 started was because Hitler invaded Poland, in staunch violation of the Munich Agreement. The agreement was screwy to begin with, but there were negotiations.

And as for examples of Israeli war crimes, did you even read my earlier posts? If you want facts, here are some of many:

1
2
3
An interesting article

On the last link, pay attention to the following quote, taken by Yonatan Shapiro, a former Israeli pilot:

Judged by "results?" Typical of any military, but it sounds to me like results are casualities, regardless of who's dying. This article isn't what I would normally read as I think it's whitewashing, but I think it offers a unique perspective into the IDF. Your comments.

I can find more cases if you wish. Also, as I said above, can you explain how attacking an airport, civilian transport routes, and blocking food and water to war victims doesn't constitute terrorism and war crimes? And how using Palestinians and Lebanese as human shields doesn't? I gave you some facts. Now I want yours.

There's no flaw at all. Taken from Human Rights Watch:

"The Israeli government claims that it targets only Hezbollah, and that fighters from the group are using civilians as human shields, thereby placing them at risk. Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack. Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which are serious violations of the laws of war because they violate the duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. However, those cases do not justify the IDF’s extensive use of indiscriminate force which has cost so many civilian lives. In none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in this report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah forces or weapons were in or near the area that the IDF targeted during or just prior to the attack."

Are you honestly that naive? What army DOESN'T take orders from its government? If you want to profile people again, then no matter what I say or what reasoning I give, you're never going to have the right facts.

Refer to the links I gave you above, my earlier posts, and look at the ongoing Qana crisis.

And also refer to these:
Not relating to Lebanon, but still war crimes in the Gaza Strip.
Found from the Human Rights Watch website, despite the link.
Oh boy, you're going to love this report. Be sure to pay attention to the "attacks on civilians" article.

Also taken from that report:
"Of particular concern in the present conflict are the following acts that constitute war crimes:

* Making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of attack.

* Making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military objectives, the object of attack.

* Attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission.

* Causing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

* Deliberately using civilians and civilian objects to shield troops and materiel from attack.

Satisfied?

Yes. Thank you for proving my point, despite your sarcasm.

Webster-Mirriam Dictionary defines invasion as:
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

It defines a "raid" as:
1 a : a hostile or predatory incursion b : a surprise attack by a small force
2 a : a brief foray outside one's usual sphere b : a sudden invasion by officers of the law c : a daring operation against a competitor d : the recruiting of personnel (as faculty, executives, or athletes) from competing organizations
3 : the act of mulcting public money
4 : an attempt by professional operators to depress stock prices by concerted selling

Raids and invasions have nothing to do with each other. Not in the terms that you're describing.

Well, that's definitely is another topic for another day. But just remember that there were Saudi Arabians on those planes on 9/11, not Afghans.

Sure, Hezbollah is suffering. But not that much. If they were really suffering, you wouldn't have had to send ground troops into Lebanon, would you?

And who is this "rest of the world" you refer to? You aren't talking about the United States, Britain, France, and Germany are you? Because they certainly aren't putting much pressure on Israel. Not the governments. The UN is certainly trying, but we all know how they operate. Most of the world powers are condemning the attacks, but they still support Israel.

Again, how does this constitute "long-term" thinking, as I asked you before? If you're trying (at least trying) to get rid of Hezbollah in the first place, then that sounds like the long-term goal, so that there will never be attacks again, ever. Please correct me if I misunderstood Israel's intentions.

Unfortunately, Israel is not in a position where it is the innocent bystander "doing nothing." Israel CAN do something, and it could've for the last 20 years. Give back Lebanese land and release Lebanese prisoners. And then, as I said before, if Hezbollah still decided to attack, then I don't think the "rest of the world" would hold it against Israel to go to war.