The Middle East spirals out of control!

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

Israel has always acted in a reactionary measure, and comparing the Israeli government to Apartheid is ludicrous.

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.

Quote:

Arabs in Israel have the same basic rights as Jews, and if the Palestinians desire independence while also harboring and electing elements hostile to Israel then how can Israel act in any other way?

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.”

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Do you think Israel would be attacking Lebenon by now had Hezbollah not kidnapped their soldiers? Of course not.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Give me an example of Arab Israelis that have been denied their rights afforded to them by the Israeli constitution.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Now you all know there's a big Zionist lobby in the US, right?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

<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?

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Israel MUST do what a soverign nation must do when terrorized.

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

Quote:

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

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"?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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?

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:

Quote:

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.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

No they haven't.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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?”).

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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…

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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."

...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.

Quote:

He also noted that during WW2, the British retaliated to the Blitz, by leveling entire German cities.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Maybe we should just free all of the prisoners, without discriminating them based on origins.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

'Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.'

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.

Quote:

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.

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."

Quote:

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…

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.

Quote:

proofs, please.

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?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Can any of you "land for peace" advocates name one time where when Israel ceded land peace was the outcome? Israel exited Gaza, forcible removing Israeli citizens and what happened? Palestinian aggression against Israel. Israel has been out of southern lebanon for years. The result...Hezbollah rearmed, against U.N. mandates, and proceeded to attack Israel. Do any of you really think that if Israel were to give back the entire West Bank, that the Arabs would be satisfied and stop their war of aggression? The Hezbollah leader quoted in the New Yorker article stated that their goal is the annihilation of Israel as a nation. He said that the jews could then "go back to Germany or wherever they came from" and that the Jews who had lived in Palestine before Israel could stay, as a minority, under Muslim rule. Any of you who think that land for peace is a viable option are living in a fantasy world.

It's not a fantasy world at all, because so-called "land for peace" is only part of it. Israel HAS withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, but look at the human rights violations that the Israeli police are still committing there. And look at the number of Palestinians who are still in the prisons.

Sure, Hezbollah may be committed to the complete destruction of Israel, but my point all along has been, had Israel ceded the land, prisoners, and stopped these human rights violations, Hezbollah wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on, would they? Then, as I stated before, I don't think anyone would hold it against Israel for attacking.

Double Post:

Quote:

That's the pot calling the kettle black. I don't hear you saying we should give back the United States to the natives. Genocide helped pay your mortgage dude. In that regard Israel has shown considerable restraint in the face of adversity.

I'd also like to hear which tribe/group/country you think didn't get "their" land by wiping out or enslaving the current occupiers.

Where in that post did I say that the Arabs should kick all of the Israelis off their land? I was in no means advocating that. However, I did state the facts. Obviously you know what they are: land was stolen. We can talk about Native Americans, Palestinians, and even insects and mammals if you want, having their land taken away, but that's really a different topic. If you'll notice, I was referring to ofirov's post because he was obviously blind to these facts.

And how do you define "restraint?" To me, if Israel was using so-called "restraint," then it would be taking better measures to ensure that so many civilians aren't dying. It also wouldn't be bombing civilian infrastructures so that civilians couldn't leave the country. Is this the restraint pro-Israel people talk about?

Quote:

Where does thinking along this line stop? So Israel gives back Lebanese land and prisoners. Then what? Palestinian land? So basically the state of Israel either no longer exists, or is just a strip of land under constant bombardment. Think about it from their prespective. Neither option is really viable because if an inch is given, a yard is taken. Issues like these rarely, if ever end well in the course of history being made. The settlers usually completely wipe out the natives. I'm hard pressed to name an instance where it wasn't like that.

Maybe in a Disney movie.

Quote:

Israel cares about casualties and Hezbollah does not.

Really? Because "caring" about casualties and trying to prevent them are two different things. Anybody can "care" about casualties. The bottom line is that Israel is not taking the measures that it should to avoid these casualties. Therefore, it's hard to distinguish between them and Hezbollah.

An inch given is a yard taken, indeed, but when Israel takes a whole football field to begin with, you can't exactly blame Arabs for being mad, can you? I mean, you and I probably wouldn't be very happy if China invaded our country and suppressed our culture, would you? Hezbollah has done none of this.

In regards to your comments about "natives" never making history, that happens because the governments keep it that way. Israel is no different in that sense. But once again, that doesn't make it right.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

If you want to play history, we can drag this out back to the Biblical days. Let's just sum it up like this:

1000BC - Now.
(Thousands of years of pissing on each other, warfare, plundering, bla bla bla)

Relatively peace for 2 years.

After 2 years, does Israel go back into the Gaza strip to start shit up again? HELL NO. Some Palestinian group gets bored and is itching to kill some children. Fighting resumes. If you want to play chicken and egg, we can safely say its Hamas and related entities "hatching new eggs".

Do you honestly believe that Israel still isn't stirring up shit in the Gaza Strip? I direct you to the front page of B'tselem. Let's argue the facts.

Quote:

They certainly have the right to. It's just pointless for them to do so. The reason why they shouldn't fight back and why Israel has to invade is because HEZZBOLAH STARTED IT. The person who got sucker punched doesn't have to back off.

It doesn't matter who started it. If Israel is the so-called "nation of restraint" that you claim it to be, they would be taking better measures to insure that civilians aren't dying. Regardless of who started it, Israel has escalated this crisis higher than Hezbollah could have ever hoped to.

Quote:

Where did that come from? - It's called looking at the bigger picture. Each additional Israeli innocent killed from random rocket attacks only increases the pressure and duration that the IDF must remain in Lebanon. You tell me in what way has Hezzbolah made any tactical progress against Israel?

And every Lebanese citizen who isn't a part of Hezbollah dying from a bomb attack increases Hezbollah's support and solidarity among the Lebanese people. By STARTING THIS WAR, Hezbollah has made progress against Israel because it knew that it would respond such disproportionately, as it has done in the past. Israel took the bait.

Quote:

Do you REALLY believe that it would have stopped with those two soldiers? The entire middle east has been chomping at the bit to eliminate Israel from the map since what.. 1947?

No, because this conflict isn't about those two soldiers only. However, those soldiers were the scapegoats. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. Israel would have been in Lebanon eventually to stop Hezbollah. But like I said before, maybe a solution could be reached if both sides actually NEGOTIATED, but with people like you who are too hell-bent on war, we'll never know.

Quote:

No, its YOU who doesn't get it. When Israel is *capable* of irradiating half of Lebanon, creating a no occupancy zone which GUARANTEES that Rockets from Lebanon can not hit Israel and chooses not to do it - it's called restraint.

No, again, YOU don't get it. Israel's not that stupid. Israel can get away with a lot of things, but not that. Israel may not give a damn about civilians, but they aren't going to wipe out an entire country because of this. It's not "restraint"... it's common sense.

Quote:

You tell me what Israel can do then to get rid of Hezzbolah master genius?
Enough pressure hasn't been applied to Lebanon yet if they are still choosing Hezzbolah over the rest of the country.

Thank you for the kind words, "Master Genius." As I said before, negotiate, which Israel has not and is not going to do. And if you haven't read the news, the Lebanese government CAN'T do anything because its already a weak government to begin with, and with torn up roads, transportation routes, and lack of supplies, what would you expect them to do? Don't blame the Lebanese for not being able to defend their country. Blame Israel for not letting them.

Quote:

So you are saying that if Hezzbolah suddenly announced that they were:

1.) Returning the two soldiers.
2.) Halting all rocket attacks into Israel

that Israel would continue it's attacks? I really dont think so. But impossible to prove since Hezzbolah would never do such a thing.

Oh and regarding Israel invading Lebanon in the 80's? Maybe if the PLO didnt shoot rockets into Israel from the 80's they wouldn't of invaded to begin with?

Owned.

No, that's not what I'm saying. But of course I question at this point if you are even listening.

I explicitly said that in addition to what you said, Israel should:
1. Give back Lebanese land
2. Give back Lebanese prisoners

and then, talks can start. If Hezbollah still decides to stir up stuff, then we'll talk war. Read my posts, please. You are doing me, Israel, and the people of Lebanon a great disservice.

Quote:

Blame Hezzbolah.

Those airports could have been used to move the soldiers. Those bridges roads could be used for Hezzbolah fighters to sneak out or rockets moved. More than just the Red Cross uses roads ya know.

No, but you have to consider the fact that with the IDF planes sweeping the area, it would be awfully hard for planes to move Hezbollah members. And besides, where are they going to go? The smarter option would have been to secure the airport, not destroy it. And THEN, if Hezbollah was moving men across the country, Israel would have been justified in destroying it, because it would have been considered a military target. But let's face it, the Rafik Hariri Airport was not a military target when it was bombed. People were trying to flee the country.

Quote:

Oh. Sources please on Israel targeting Lebanese soldiers? Sources please on Israel arresting and killing Lebanese government officials.

Yes, the ball is in their court for not doing something about Hezzbolah to begin with and allowing them to be a part of the government. I'm sorry, if a Hezzbolah agent tried to hide in my house and open up my family to risk from an Israeli bomb I would shoot the agent.

I never said Israel was killing government officials. I said they were "victims." Face it, they are. HOWEVER, Israel is killing soldiers, as reported in an interview with Robert Fisk, a reporter for the Independent stationed in Beirut:

Quote:

got there in about eight minutes. And there were three very friendly Lebanese soldiers. By chance, I knew one of them, the sergeant, who said, “Mr. Robert, you must be very careful. The Israelis will come back and bomb again, but we’ll take you into the fire and show you as much as we can.” And they stood around me and protected me as we went up the road for about a mile walking -- or running, to be very honest with you, because Mr. Fisk here is not a very brave warrior. And I saw parts of what appears to be a wing. I think it was burning fuel all over the road. I think it came out of whatever the aircraft was. I think what actually happened is a Hezbollah missile probably hit an F-16, and the Israelis didn't want to claim it. They said that it was part of a barrel containing propaganda pamphlets and leaflets, which -- well, I didn't see leaflets anyway, and I know they burn on fuel, but anyway, I saw what I could and got away afterwards and said, you know, waved at the soldiers and thanked them.

And the Israelis did come back some hours later and bombed the barracks of these soldiers, which were members of a logistics unit. Their job was to repair bridges and electrical lines. They weren't combat soldiers. And they killed ten Lebanese soldiers, including the three young men who had protected me the previous day. This was outrageous, because the Israelis know what each individual Lebanese army unit is doing. They know if it's a combat unit, armored personnel carriers, helicopters, whatever.

And they picked on this sole barracks to destroy those men, to exterminate them, because, of course, their job was to keep Beirut alive, to keep the power systems running, to repair the bridges which were being destroyed -- 46 bridges now, according to Minister of Finance, who told me this a few hours ago, have been destroyed in Lebanon. This is the inheritance, of course, of former prime minister, assassinated prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was murdered on the 14th of February last year. He rebuilt this country. He rebuilt the city of Beirut. Now, bit by bit the bridges, the lighthouse, the international airport are being destroyed.

And, in regards to Hezbollah hiding in your house and firing rockets, from what Human Rights Watch has reported (which I sourced in my earlier post directed at ofirov), I direct you to this post yet again. I know you read it, but it's the evidence you're asking for:

Quote:

"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."

I gave you sources. Now it's your turn.

Quote:

Going into MY country, abducting MY soldiers is an invasion. Try Six-Day war as well and Israel didn't level arab contries in comparasion.

No, it's not an invasion. It's called "abduction" or in lamen's terms, "kidnapping." Pardon my sarcasm. But if you can prove the soldiers were abducted behind the border of your country, then we'll talk.

Quote:

Israel has very very specific reasons for having those territories and lets not forget that had those countries not attacked Israel to begin with - they would have those lands wouldn't they? You play, you pay.

...Acquiring lands as an act of war is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. Israel played in the Gaza Strip, now they should pay, according to your standards. And give me sources and examples of these "very very" specific reasons, and tell me why they are justified. Otherwise, you don't have an arugment.

Quote:

Over the past 60 years, multiple arab nations have gotten together in an attempt to destroy Israel. Who's the unfriendly neighbor now?

Israel. For its atrocities in the Gaza Strip, that alone classifies it as an unfriendly neighbor. Especially in a region where nationality means nothing to Arabs when they are threatened by a foreign aggressor.

Quote:

Ohh.. I love the word "occasionally". What the hell does that mean? If Hezzbolah even ONCE placed rockets or ammunition in civillians areas then they are responsible for all those deaths.

In case it slipped your mind, "occassionally" means every once in a while, according to society. And no, it doesn't justify those people dying. Not when they aren't related to Hezbollah. Ask a Lebanese person what they would do if Hezbollah knocked on their doorstep and launched a rocket from their house? They can't do shit, and they're screwed, because they're either going to 1) get killed by Israel 2) get killed by Hezbollah for objecting.

We can blame everybody in the world, but the one people that we cannot blame is the Lebanese people. Don't blame them for sealing their fates. We can blame Hezbollah for exerting pressure on them ("occassionally") and Israel for not discriminating civilian targets.

Once again, I want to see YOUR examples and your facts to prove me otherwise.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

So what measures, exactly, should Israel be taking? Should there be a plain-clothes Mossad operative on the ground in every single Southern Lebanese city making sure that there aren't rockets in each and every building?

Well, at the very least, Human Rights Organizations have clearly stated Hezbollah doesn't hide amongst civilians as much as we'd like to believe. However, we know that civilians are still dying at an astonishing rate. It leads one to ask questions, don't you think?

Quote:

How convenient it is to criticize Israel for bombing villages when you don't have to do anything about it, nor particularly want to, I'd imagine. Your government apparently doesn't. That would be convenience as well, though.

Just because you aren't a party to a conflict, should that stop you, or anyone from discussing it? I mean, you are the person who started this thread. Or is it just convienance for me because I'm not on the right side?

Quote:

You talk about how people don't have all the facts when you cite the Munich Agreement and Germany's fictional invasion of Great Britain as meaning that Netanyahu has no comparison to be made. Maybe if Munich concerned German aggression on British interests as opposed to the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakian) you'd have something there. Especially if it didn't mean that the victimized party (Czechoslovakia) wasn't even invited to the negotiations. I suppose the Firebombing of Dresden didn't make Great Britain a terrorist state because the Nazis bombed London. The British were also one of the winners. How convenient.

Hey, I said the treaty was screwy. I didn't go into the details because it would have confused the issue. But the grounds that ofirov sourced Britain on were ridiculous to begin with, so it was worth the comment.

Quote:

War crimes themselves are constructs designed to make it that much easier to prosecute the losers in any conflict. Since there aren't any winners when it comes to Arab/Israeli conflict, though, the international body gets to play a fun game of finger pointing and reach arounds, accusing Israel of "war crimes" and "disproportionate force" with one hand while mainting its right to "defend itself" with the other. Isn't it so convenient? It's like, having your cake and eating it too.

The historical context on war crimes certainly is enlightening, but that doesn't change the definition of what they are. Whether it was Israel doing this or Great Britain, wouldn't you still argue that at least a few of the acts I listed above classify as war crimes?

Quote:

I like how words like "indiscriminate" get thrown around in reference to Israeli attacks on civilian targets. This couldn't be further from the truth. Israel is intentionally attacking UN targets, Civilian targets, Hospitals, Schools, Roads, etc., etc., etc. Why? Because the nature of Hezbollah's operation makes them a party to the conflict. Does it excuse the civilian deaths? Absolutely not. Yet that's what's happening, and it happens because of how Hezbollah wants to play the game, not Israel.

But can you prove to me that the people who are dying are related to Hezbollah? Can you even prove if Hezbollah was even in the area? Because Human Rights Watch has released a document that could prove you otherwise. This is important to remember when talking about these "indiscriminate" or "intentional" Lebanese civilian casualties. I'd argue that many of the Israeli attacks are both.

Quote:

It's easy to say that Israel's attacks are unfounded while not doing anything about it. Especially when Hezbollah uses UN Ambulances as APCS.

Wait a second. That video supposedly took place in the Gaza Strip, and there's no proof that those men are members of Hezbollah, or even that that took place in the Gaza Strip. I also have to ask you: that scene was captured from all angles. Don't you think those cameras were a little convienently located? The video was no doubt shocking, but of little relevance to Lebanon.

Quote:

But yes indeed, Hezbollah wouldn't have a leg to stand on if Israel left the Farms and released all of their Lebanese prisoners. To you, perhaps. I don't think Iran, Syria, or the Shi'as in Hezbollah-built housing would particularly notice the difference. Especially when Hezbollah knew that abducting Israeli soldiers would spark a conflict. Israel began operations in Gaza a week in advance of the Hezbollan attack. They had plenty of time to figure it out, and yet the abduction went through.

Hezbollah wouldn't have a leg to stand on if those conditions were met. Not just to me, but probably to the international community, because Hezbollah wouldn't be able to justify itself.

Quote:

Hezbollah doesn't have a leg to stand on much like Hamas doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is because despite the suffering of their people at the hands of the Israelis, neither party makes an effort to attack the tools of their oppression. Instead, they indiscriminately kill Israelis and each other over petty grievances, while not doing anything to better themselves or their people.

You can't condemn me for using "indiscriminate" and then use it yourself in the same context. Yes, Hezbollah is being "indiscriminate." But so is Israel.

Quote:

You didn't mean to imply that the state of Israel shouldn't exist when you said they should give Arabs back their land. Yet that's essentially what you've suggested. Or have you forgotten that Hamas considers the entirety of Israel and the occupied territories as Palestine?

I'm not going to defend myself on this issue any more, because I shouldn't have to. Me "implying" or me "suggesting" is different than what I said, and what I said is what we're debating about here. Hamas considers the entirety of Israel to be occupied territories of Palestine, and they're right. It does rightfully belong to the Palestinians. But to just kick all the Israelis out would be impractical, as we all know, just like kicking all Americans off Native American soil would be. There are other solutions.

I stand by what I said before, because the claim that Hamas made is true. Actions, however, are a different story.

Quote:

I guess, though, we can continue to talk here about issues that we're not a party to. Making easy talk and vindicating our world views based on criteria that ultimately have no meaning. I guess that's convenience.

Do you feel differently now than a few weeks ago about this crisis, because you started this thread. If all we're doing here is small talk, then everyone's guilty of that. If nothing we are talking about has meaning, then what does? Why don't you just close this thread, then?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.