Israel and Lebanon

[Danoff]

No, I don't, but I do feel that there has been a little encouragement.

You mean in going after terrorist organizations? Because I'll agree that our actions in the middle east encourage other countries to play hardball against terrorists. But that doesn't mean we're responsible for their actions.

George Bush has often quoted that America is the worlds police force etc, well if thats the case, he should start being a little less partisan.

O'Rly? Perhaps you could provide me with that quote. America is not, and does not want to be the police of the world. That's the UN's job, and what a fine job they're doing.

How do you think America can earn respect for its policies in the Arab world, when every time a conflict involves Arabs, America is always against them?

Hmmm... well, I think we're pretty consistently anti-terrorism. Perhaps the Arab world will begin to realize that terrorism is not the best way to get the support of the great satan, er, I mean, the US.

 

[Famine]

Uh? You obviously haven't been following the News then? I'll give you a clue, it was at the G8 summit....

That's nice. Are you going to tell me what it was or why it's absolute proof that the US is using the Israeli-Lebanon skirmishes to "end once and for all the Syrian and Iranian problem".

Yes they are. Just because they don't recognise the laws, doesnt mean that they are not culpable.

Of course it does.

I don't recognise the US's law (or at least the law in many states) of a minimum drinking age of 21. Are under-21s drinking in the UK culpable? No.

Israel is not signatory to x,y,z law, therefore they do not have to abide by it. Cause and effect.

Hmmm... I'm going to have to pull up a list of evidence, but you'll probably deny that too.

Knock yourself out. Don't bother with "evidence" that shows civilian areas, UN troops and the Red Cross have been casualties. You said that these acts were deliberate and I want proof that they are.

I agree that Hezbollah rather cowardly hide themselves in civillian areas, but the method that Israel is using is akin to 'a bull in a china shop'. Its like, 'If we can't find their headquarters, lets just bomb any building we suspect might be their head quarters'.

I agree with your analogy, with the exception that the bull wrote to the china shop two days beforehand and advised the owner to remove all of the china before he got there.

 

[magburner]

You mean in going after terrorist organizations? Because I'll agree that our actions in the middle east encourage other countries to play hardball against terrorists. But that doesn't mean we're responsible for their actions.

OK. Do you think that Bush has said anything about the rising civillian death toll? If he is the person he keeps projecting himself to be, then surely he must of said something.

O'Rly? Perhaps you could provide me with that quote. America is not, and does not want to be the police of the world. That's the UN's job, and what a fine job they're doing.

Maybe I was a little mistaken with this one. I've heard it impplied on the news, but maybe thats not good enough. Anyway, you know thats not true, America (and us flunkies in the UK) only listens to the UN when it suits us.

Hmmm... well, I think we're pretty consistently anti-terrorism. Perhaps the Arab world will begin to realize that terrorism is not the best way to get the support of the great satan, er, I mean, the US.

I was talking about the fledgling democracy in Lebanon. George Bush said he wanted to protect it, well it seems by the time the conflict finishes, thats all that will be left in Lebanon.

I don't hate the US, you seem to be dropping the old one-liners all of a sudden (ie. great satan). I can be equally scathing about my own (British) government. Aren't you about yours?

In fact, our government has shown how much influence it actually has in this whole conflict. Blair seems to be superman when he's hanging onto the coat tails of Bush and flying into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to saying something that might go against What Bush wants he goes pathetically timid.

That's nice. Are you going to tell me what it was or why it's absolute proof that the US is using the Israeli-Lebanon skirmishes to "end once and for all the Syrian and Iranian problem".

Sorry, I was being a little flippant there. I'll see if I can find the report, or a transcript from somewhere.

Of course it does.

I don't recognise the US's law (or at least the law in many states) of a minimum drinking age of 21. Are under-21s drinking in the UK culpable? No.

Israel is not signatory to x,y,z law, therefore they do not have to abide by it. Cause and effect.

Of course, but America has no jurisdiction in the UK. International law is just that international. It doesnt matter if your in Harrowgate or Haifa, the same international laws (should) apply.

Knock yourself out. Don't bother with "evidence" that shows civilian areas, UN troops and the Red Cross have been casualties. You said that these acts were deliberate and I want proof that they are.

Well, I posted a video clip earlier about the UN post being bombed. Here it is again, incase you missed it. Israel bombed UN staff 'despite pleas'. Give me a few days, and I'll find the rest.

I agree with your analogy, with the exception that the bull wrote to the china shop two days beforehand and advised the owner to remove all of the china before he got there.

True, but the bull being the fiery tempered sod he is couldn't wait, and charged the shop owners van just as he was pulling away - completely destroying the van, and most of the shop owners expensive dinnerware.

 

[Famine]

Of course, but America has no jurisdiction in the UK. International law is just that international. It doesnt matter if your in Harrowgate or Haifa, the same international laws (should) apply.

Though they don't. There is no such thing as "international law" - that's the point.

Imagine that - and I don't wish to be condescending at this point, but I don't know your age offhand - you're at school, and every kid apart from you decides to give £2 a week to a donkey sanctuary and not to hit the little speccy kid in year 8. They all sign a contract saying they'll agree to this - but you don't because you hate donkeys and the little speccy kid smells of wee and once killed your cat.

Do all the other kids in school have the right to pressure you into giving £2 a week to the donkey sanctuary and not to hit the little speccy kid or, because you haven't signed the contract, are you free to smack his ass and spend your £2 on Dime bars?

 

[magburner]

Though they don't. There is no such thing as "international law" - that's the point.

Imagine that - and I don't wish to be condescending at this point, but I don't know your age offhand - you're at school, and every kid apart from you decides to give £2 a week to a donkey sanctuary and not to hit the little speccy kid in year 8. They all sign a contract saying they'll agree to this - but you don't because you hate donkeys and the little speccy kid smells of wee and once killed your cat.

Do all the other kids in school have the right to pressure you into giving £2 a week to the donkey sanctuary and not to hit the little speccy kid or, because you haven't signed the contract, are you free to smack his ass and spend your £2 on Dime bars?

I'm 33, and your not being condescending. No they don't, and no you shouldn't, but you can spend your £2 however you please. Man, you and dandoff are tough cookies! 👍

Anyway, I was scanning through the Aljazeera News site, and I came across this interview with a senior Hezbollah official (I emboldened a section that I thought was interesting, although the whole article is worthy of a read) Hezbollah: Israeli response unexpected:

A senior Hezbollah official has said that he did not expect Israel to react so strongly to the group's capture of two Israeli soldiers two weeks ago.

"The truth is... let me say this clearly... we didn't even expect [this] response ... that [Israel] would exploit this operation for this big war against us," Mahmoud Komati, the deputy chief of the Hezbollah politburo, told the Associated Press.

His comments were the first time that a leader from the Islamic militant group has publicly admitted that it miscalculated the consequences of the July 12 cross-border raid that seized two soldiers and killed eight others.

He said that Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.

"In the past, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending in commandos into Lebanon and kidnapping Hezbollah officials or briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon," he said.

Komati also said that his group had anticipated negotiations to swap the soldiers for three Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it had in past prisoner exchanges.

Counting casualties

According to Komati, casualty figures for the guerillas were higher than previously thought.

"As of Monday there were 25 killed, not 11 as the group had previously reported," he said.

Hezbollah announced the deaths of two more guerrillas in border-fighting late on Tuesday, bringing the total toll to 27.

Although, Israel and Hezbollah had issued figures, it was not possible to independently determine the number of those killed or sometimes to distinguish between civilians and fighters.

Premeditated

Komati claims that the Israeli offensive was planned in advance and was only waiting for the right time to be executed.

He said that Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers from a military area, but Israelis had kidnapped Hezbollah leaders from their homes at night.

"They exploited this issue... the kidnapping of the soldiers," he said, "The response is unjustified."

Komati was adamant that Hezbollah would not lay down arms because of what he said was "Israeli occupation of Lebanese land, the threat of Israeli aggression and Lebanese prisoners still being held in Israeli jails."

Questioned over whether Hezbollah was firing Iranian-made missiles on Israel, Komati said: "We don't deny nor confirm. We believe where the weapons come from is irrelevant."

"Some of our fighters carry M16s. So you think we buy them from America?" he said.

Komati said that Hezbollah had a diversified selection of weapons made in various countries, including the United States, France, China, and Russia.

In the past, Hezbollah leaders have always categorically denied that Iran was supplying them with weapons.

Ceasefire

Komati said Hezbollah demanded an immediate end to Israeli attacks before agreeing to negotiate and rejected a blanket plan proposed by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, during Monday's surprise visit to Beirut.

The plan calls for the deployment of international and Lebanese troops into southern Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah attacks on Israel before a cease-fire.

He said he didn't want to talk about the issues to be negotiated before a cease-fire, including the deployment of an international force.

"No one can talk about politics while the fire rages, and killings occur," Komati said.

 

[Danoff]

OK. Do you think that Bush has said anything about the rising civillian death toll? If he is the person he keeps projecting himself to be, then surely he must of said something.



Maybe I was a little mistaken with this one. I've heard it impplied on the news, but maybe thats not good enough. Anyway, you know thats not true, America (and us flunkies in the UK) only listens to the UN when it suits us.



I was talking about the fledgling democracy in Lebanon. George Bush said he wanted to protect it, well it seems by the time the conflict finishes, thats all that will be left in Lebanon.

I don't hate the US, you seem to be dropping the old one-liners all of a sudden (ie. great satan). I can be equally scathing about my own (British) government. Aren't you about yours?

In fact, our government has shown how much influence it actually has in this whole conflict. Blair seems to be superman when he's hanging onto the coat tails of Bush and flying into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to saying something that might go against What Bush wants he goes pathetically timid.

My point is that the US is not responsible for the Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas conflict. Yes, we have the power to stop it (as we have the power to stop many world conflicts), but since we are NOT the world police, we're under no obligation to use that power. Thus, we're not responsible for the actions of any nation but ourselves.

If we had kidnapped Israeli soldiers and framed Hezbollah, I'd say we were responsible. If we had carpet bombed Lebanese people and framed Israel, I'd say we were responsible. But not stepping in and stopping it (or shouting orders at the nations involved), does not make us responsible.

Peace in the middle east can be gotten at the end of a bug gun from America, but I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest.

 

[KSaiyu]

So then how do you believe any of it? Outside of the basic events that are going on? any death tolls reported work on the side of the Hezbollah. Unless of course they are in Israel in which they seem to not be reported at all.

Not all death tolls would have been through Hezbollah though, plus it would be pointless to dispute it since I can see so many live, British reports showing the situation accros the bombed out Lebanese cities.

 

[Swift]

Not all death tolls would have been through Hezbollah though, plus it would be pointless to dispute it since I can see so many live, British reports showing the situation accros the bombed out Lebanese cities.

Ksaiyu, you're a hypocrite. You don't believe interviews but you believe "live" reports that could be faked or embelished. Just because they "say" they're in the hotzone, doesn't make it true.

So, you either have to believe it or not. Don't just take the parts that help your side of the argument.

 

[ledhed]

I like the live reports that showed the rockets being fired from INSIDE the city of Tyre on the Lebanese coast in the general direction of Haifa .

Its a shame they didnt stick around to show the bombs and shells going back into Tyre from Israel .

WTF do you do with hezbollah when they insist on using Lebanese cities and civilians to hide amongst ?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm 33, and your not being condescending. No they don't, and no you shouldn't, but you can spend your £2 however you please. Man, you and dandoff are tough cookies! 👍

Anyway, I was scanning through the Aljazeera News site, and I came across this interview with a senior Hezbollah official (I emboldened a section that I thought was interesting, although the whole article is worthy of a read) Hezbollah: Israeli response unexpected:

Oh wow, he ducked the question. The intent of the question wasn't where was the manufacturing facility that made the weapons but who gave them the weapons. The reporter worded it poorly and then didn't follow up, on Al-Jazeera, imagine that.

I'll see if I can find the report, or a transcript from somewhere.

I'll save you the trouble.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over,"

How does that show that Bush is trying to use this to deal with the Syrian and Iranian problem? All I see is him saying that they need to get Syria to tell Hezbollah to stop.

I think you are trying to place too much blame on the US when we already have Secretary Rice leading conferences to try and solve the situation with multiple countries.

 

[KSaiyu]

Ksaiyu, you're a hypocrite. You don't believe interviews but you believe "live" reports that could be faked or embelished.

WHY would western world journalists fake or embelish live reports? I'm NOT talking about Hezbollah news controlled reports? I don't see how that makes me a hypocrite?

Just because they "say" they're in the hotzone, doesn't make it true.

I don't understand again, why would IMPARTIAL reporters lie?!

So, you either have to believe it or not. Don't just take the parts that help your side of the argument.

I'm not just taking the parts that help, I explained why I don't know whether to believe it or not, even if it were significant.

WTF do you do with hezbollah when they insist on using Lebanese cities and civilians to hide amongst ?

Which is exactly my point, where do they plan to end? Hezbollah will UNDOUBTABLY be in Iran and Syria - do Israel plan on flattening those two countries as well? We've already seen that Iranian soldiers are fighting FOR hezbollah against Israel.

 

[Famine]

Which is exactly my point, where do they plan to end? Hezbollah will UNDOUBTABLY be in Iran and Syria - do Israel plan on flattening those two countries as well? We've already seen that Iranian soldiers are fighting FOR hezbollah against Israel.

Would Iran or Syria allow Hezb'Allah to use their territory as a platform for missile strikes against (civilian) targets in Israel?

In Iran's case, it'd be kinda tough. In Syria's case... well, they've offered to help Lebanon round up Hezb'Allah like they agreed to in 1989.

Kinda answers that question.

 

[Swift]

WHY would western world journalists fake or embelish live reports? I'm NOT talking about Hezbollah news controlled reports? I don't see how that makes me a hypocrite?



I don't understand again, why would IMPARTIAL reporters lie?!

Ok, impartial reporters is an oxymoron. They just want to advance their career. And the best way to advance your career right now is to show the terrorists as the victims and Israel as the hostile unforgiving aggressors.

You're a hypocrite because you only believe the parts of the news that support what you want. If a news report says that "5 civilians killed in an Israli assault" how do you know they were civilians at the time of the incident. But then you choose not to believe that the Lebanese government had full knowledge of Hezbollah's actions. That makes them directly responsible for the current armed conflict.

Which is exactly my point, where do they plan to end? Hezbollah will UNDOUBTABLY be in Iran and Syria - do Israel plan on flattening those two countries as well? We've already seen that Iranian soldiers are fighting FOR hezbollah against Israel.

Well, I would hope that the UN and united states would help Israel to track down and elimate the threat. But that's probably too good to be true. Israel DESERVES to not have it's citizens live in fear of bombs at the schools and other civilian targets.

 

[FoolKiller]

WHY would western world journalists fake or embelish live reports? I'm NOT talking about Hezbollah news controlled reports? I don't see how that makes me a hypocrite?



I don't understand again, why would IMPARTIAL reporters lie?!

I don't know. Why would a reporter in New Orleans after Katrina report from a canoe, talking about how deep the water is, only to have a rescue worker WALK past her canoe in ankle-deep water? Why would reporters be reporting live from the scene of the story, only it is a blue screen? Why would a network anchor interview Saddam Hussein without letting the US find anyway to find the location, or why would reporters interview terror leaders and be sympathetic and not let the US know where they are? Or why would a highly respected newsman go to Iraq and report from a barber shop and talk about how there is no electricity, only the barber is in the background using an electric shaver plugged into the wall?

It happens and the "hotzone" could just as easily be the safest place to be at the moment but they stand by a building in shambles talking about how it was bombed.

Which is exactly my point, where do they plan to end? Hezbollah will UNDOUBTABLY be in Iran and Syria - do Israel plan on flattening those two countries as well? We've already seen that Iranian soldiers are fighting FOR hezbollah against Israel.

So, should Israel just give it up and accept rockets and kidnapped soldiers? What is your suggested direction here? I don't need a detailed plan, just how should this be dealt with generally?

 

[Sphinx]

You're a hypocrite because you only believe the parts of the news that support what you want. If a news report says that "5 civilians killed in an Israli assault" how do you know they were civilians at the time of the incident. But then you choose not to believe that the Lebanese government had full knowledge of Hezbollah's actions. That makes them directly responsible for the current armed conflict.

And here we have the pot calling the kettle black. LOL

 

[Swift]

And here we have the pot calling the kettle black. LOL

I'm not following you.

 

[Sphinx]

I'm not following you.

Allow me to narrow it down for you:

You're a hypocrite because you only believe the parts of the news that support what you want.

 

[Swift]

Uh...yeah. That's a hypocrytical way to approach the issue. I know that Lebanese civilians are being hit. But that doesn't take away from two facts.

1) Hezbolah started this
2) They are hiding among civilians on purpose knowing they will be killed when the Israelis assault them

 

[KSaiyu]

Would Iran or Syria allow Hezb'Allah to use their territory as a platform for missile strikes against (civilian) targets in Israel?

In Iran's case, it'd be kinda tough. In Syria's case... well, they've offered to help Lebanon round up Hezb'Allah like they agreed to in 1989.

And lose all Syrian prescence inside Lebanon?? So it's alright for Iran and Syria to HARBOUR and supply the terrorists (and in Iran's case actually send their own guard to fight with them), but Lebanon should be isolated because Hezbollah has setup in their country - through no fault of the people but of the government?

Ok, impartial reporters is an oxymoron. They just want to advance their career.

So we shouldn't believe ANY single reporter who is covering this conflict?

And the best way to advance your career right now is to show the terrorists as the victims and Israel as the hostile unforgiving aggressors.

That's a bit hypocritical isn't it, or maybe that's the US coverage of the news. Over here we get reporters from both sides of the border showing the civilian casualties and the suffereing, it's just that more airtime is usually from the Lebanese side since it's to a greater extent.

You're a hypocrite because you only believe the parts of the news that support what you want. If a news report says that "5 civilians killed in an Israli assault" how do you know they were civilians at the time of the incident.

I don't, just like how you don't know for sure that there are X amount of Israeli children killed from a rocket, yet you would believe and not dispute that.

But then you choose not to believe that the Lebanese government had full knowledge of Hezbollah's actions. That makes them directly responsible for the current armed conflict.

I choose not to because, like I said before, it is from a Hezbollah militant. Besides, you could argue that Israel is directly responsible for holding innocent Lebanese people in their prisons forcing the Lebanese government to allow Hezbollah. The arguments for trying to make someone "directly responsible" for this conflict would never end, and sure as hell wouldn't end with the Lebanese government if this is true.

Israel DESERVES to not have it's citizens live in fear of bombs at the schools and other civilian targets.

But the people in Lebanon, not the government, but the actual people in the towns do deserve this?

It happens and the "hotzone" could just as easily be the safest place to be at the moment but they stand by a building in shambles talking about how it was bombed

This means we can't trust anything that reporters say from EITHER side of the border then....

1) Hezbolah started this

Who will say that Israel started it, who will then say the Lebanese started it, who will then say Hezbollah is to blame etc etc.

2) They are hiding among civilians on purpose knowing they will be killed when the Israelis assault them

Which means, using the current argument that this is the correct amount of force, there CANNOT be an end until every hezbollah militant is wiped out, no matter how many civilians are killed or buildings are collapsed.

 

[Swift]

So we shouldn't believe ANY single reporter who is covering this conflict?

I didn't say that. But the fact of the matter is that reports and networks try to make their broadcast the most appealing. As Foolkiller illustrated so well earlier.

I don't, just like how you don't know for sure that there are X amount of Israeli children killed from a rocket, yet you would believe and not dispute that.

You're right! However, I do know one thing for sure. Hezbollah is targeting any/all Israeli's and Israel is targeting only Hezbollah and military related targets.

I choose not to because, like I said before, it is from a Hezbollah militant. Besides, you could argue that Israel is directly responsible for holding innocent Lebanese people in their prisons forcing the Lebanese government to allow Hezbollah. The arguments for trying to make someone "directly responsible" for this conflict would never end, and sure as hell wouldn't end with the Lebanese government if this is true.

How do we know those Lebanese people are "innocent"? Maybe they were found commiting crimes or terrorist actions and caught. Of course Hezbollah believes they are innocent but not the UN.

But the people in Lebanon, not the government, but the actual people in the towns do deserve this?

You do realize that you can't sererate the two, right? 9/11, they were striking at our government, military and economy. They killed at least 2500 people that had nothing to do with government or the military. They just wanted hurt America period. That was their goal. They didn't seperate civilians from the government. They are using the EXACT same philosophy but in reverse now in Lebanon. They hide amoung the civilians to conceal their activities.

This means we can't trust anything that reporters say from EITHER side of the border then....

If you've got 5 or more sources with the same basic report, then you can pretty much bet that there's at least some truth to it. OF course it's impossible to believe everything especially DURING the conflict. Muchmore info will be released once the people stop shooting.

Who will say that Israel started it, who will then say the Lebanese started it, who will then say Hezbollah is to blame etc etc.

Yeah, everyone in the world knows Hezbollah started it.

Which means, using the current argument that this is the correct amount of force, there CANNOT be an end until every hezbollah militant is wiped out, no matter how many civilians are killed or buildings are collapsed.

No, it means until the Lebanese government realizes that their country is being decimated ONLY because of a small part of their population that they already agreed to kick out. Tomorrow, if the government of Lebanon said, "Ok, these guys are gone" Israel would stop, they've already said so.

 

[Famine]

And lose all Syrian prescence inside Lebanon?? So it's alright for Iran and Syria to HARBOUR and supply the terrorists (and in Iran's case actually send their own guard to fight with them), but Lebanon should be isolated because Hezbollah has setup in their country - through no fault of the people but of the government?

We're going round in circles here...

Are Hezb'Allah mounting assaults and kidnapping raids from within Syrian territory on Israeli territory? No - so why would an assault on Syria make sense when no-one inside Syrian borders is threatening Israel's borders?

Are Hezb'Allah mounting assaults and kidnapping raids from within Iranian territory on Israeli territory? No - so why would an assault on Iran make sense when no-one inside Iranian borders is threatening Israel's borders?

Are Hezb'Allah mounting assaults and kidnapping raids from within Lebanese territory on Israeli territory? Yes - so an assault on the Lebanese territory from which the attacks originate makes more sense.

Is Lebanon aware of these assaults? Yes - they allow Hezb'Allah seats in government, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, despite having agreed in 1989 to disband all Hezb'Allah groups in Lebanon. I'm not sure how this can be any more clear for anyone. Hezb'Allah are not supposed to be there, because Lebanon said they would remove them. It appears that Lebanon had some confusion with the issue and, instead of disbanding them, allow them to operate with impugnity and allowed them to stand and take seats, and have ministerial responsibility, in their parliament.

Who is responsible for Lebanese government? Lebanon is a democracy, so it's the people. To claim that it's no fault of the Lebanese people is just simply inaccurate.

Now at this point you're going to say something along the lines that I actually mean that Lebanese people deserve to be targetted and killed, and so do I because my country elected Tony Blair and he blah blah blah Iraq blah blah. No. What I actually mean is that saying it isn't the fault of the Lebanese people is wrong - it is, as they are a democracy and elect their officials. It is not right to target them, which is fortunate as Israel are not doing that and, and I don't know how to make this any more clear either, announced their intentions to strike against Hezb'Allah targets in populated areas, and warned the residents that if they didn't want to risk injury/death, they should vacate those areas. Apparently 100,000 people got this message, even if it isn't getting through here, and left Lebanon for Syria in the 3 days before the strikes started.


The summary of all of this is:
Lebanon promised, in 1989, to disband terrorists.
Lebanon made no such effort.
Lebanon allowed terrorists to stand in elections.
Lebanese people voted for terrorists.
Lebanon allowed terrorists to take seats in parliament.
Lebanese government give terrorists ministerial responsibility.
Terrorists operate in areas they aren't supposed to be under Lebanon's promise.
Terrorists operate missile strikes against Israeli civilian population.
Terrorists illegally cross UN blue line into Israeli territory and abduct two citizens.
Israel announce their intentions for a response.
Israel announce that if the missile strikes stop and the citizens are returned they will not mount any response.
Terrorists reject proposal "on Zion's terms".
Israel tell people in areas they will target for harbouring terrorists to leave or risk injury/death.
100,000 Lebanese get the message and leave the country - not just the targetted areas.
Israel start campaign of retaliation against targetted areas.
Some civilians remain and are injured/killed.
Israel maintain ceasefire proposal as originally tabled.
Terrorists reject any proposal for ceasefire as "humiliating".
Terrorists admit "surprise" at Israeli response, despite being told about it.


This is what happens when an immovable object (Hezb'Allah) is struck by an unstoppable force (the Israeli armed forces). I cannot believe that Lebanese people would actually vote for these buffoons who clearly care so little about them that they shelter amongst them, use their homes to strike against a nuclear superpower neighbour and, despite hundreds of reported deaths, reject and ceasefire deal because it would be "humiliating" to them. How weak is that for a reason?

 

[KSaiyu]

Are Hezb'Allah mounting assaults and kidnapping raids from within Syrian territory on Israeli territory? No - so why would an assault on Syria make sense when no-one inside Syrian borders is threatening Israel's borders?

Are Hezb'Allah mounting assaults and kidnapping raids from within Iranian territory on Israeli territory? No - so why would an assault on Iran make sense when no-one inside Iranian borders is threatening Israel's borders?

It doesn't - at the moment, which is bringing up my point about the end of this conflict. Hypothetically if Israel by a miracle drives all of Hezbollah out of Lebanon, do you think it will end there? Of course not - THEN they will have to target where they hide amongst civilians and attack/regroup I.E. Iran or Syria. I believe though that targeting the SUPPLY (I.E. Iran and Syria) will help them.

Who is responsible for Lebanese government? Lebanon is a democracy, so it's the people. To claim that it's no fault of the Lebanese people is just simply inaccurate.

So everyone who lives in a democratic country - whether having voted for them OR not - should be held accountable for the actions of their government and be forced to suffer the consequences?

Now at this point you're going to say something along the lines that I actually mean that Lebanese people deserve to be targetted and killed, and so do I because my country elected Tony Blair and he blah blah blah Iraq blah blah.

No, I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.

It is not right to target them, which is fortunate as Israel are not doing that and, and I don't know how to make this any more clear either, announced their intentions to strike against Hezb'Allah targets in populated areas, and warned the residents that if they didn't want to risk injury/death, they should vacate those areas.

So by warning in advance they're about to blow up the cities, it gives them the right to proceed and hit anything that moves since all that's left is the targets - right?

reject and ceasefire deal because it would be "humiliating" to them. How weak is that for a reason

So Israel gets something for nothing - why would the Lebanese government deploy it's army to help them fight against shi ite "brothers" and free the soldiers and expect nothing in the form of Israeli prisoners being freed? It won't happen - you can see how much the government is willing to take no matter the cost to its people which is a shame for the Lebanese, but also a great shame for the nation of Israel and the sense of fairness that it tries to portray.

And if you say that 2 soldiers captured is worth this retaliation, you should remember the jewish terrorist movement in the '40s and how the British dealt with them when our soldiers were being captured.

 

[Swift]

And if you say that 2 soldiers captured is worth this retaliation, you should remember the jewish terrorist movement in the '40s and how the British dealt with them when our soldiers were being captured.

What would you call a decent retaliation?

 

[KSaiyu]

Something that achieves the objectives with minimum damage to the people not involved.

 

[Swift]

Something that achieves the objectives with minimum damage to the people not involved.

That's NOT an answer. Actually, it's the typical answer from the politcal left.

 

[Famine]

It doesn't - at the moment, which is bringing up my point about the end of this conflict. Hypothetically if Israel by a miracle drives all of Hezbollah out of Lebanon, do you think it will end there? Of course not - THEN they will have to target where they hide amongst civilians and attack/regroup I.E. Iran or Syria. I believe though that targeting the SUPPLY (I.E. Iran and Syria) will help them.

For the love of...

Do Syria allow Hezb'Allah to attack Israel from within their borders? No. Do Lebanon? Yes. Who is more immediately dangerous to Israel, the country that allows terrorists to operate against them or the country that doesn't?


Oddly, when Israel took out Beirut Airport and blockaded the seaports, they were taking out the supply. You were against it then.

So everyone who lives in a democratic country - whether having voted for them OR not - should be held accountable for the actions of their government

Yes. Democracy has its flaws, but you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

and be forced to suffer the consequences?

I said that you'd say something like that, and you did anyway...

So by warning in advance they're about to blow up the cities, it gives them the right to proceed and hit anything that moves since all that's left is the targets - right?

China says it's going to nuke Bristol. It's doing so because the town hall once said that China's mother slept with sailors. It's telling you this a week beforehand because it doesn't want any civilian casualties, it's just targeting the aggressor.

Would YOU stay?

Israel was under no compulsion whatsoever to inform Lebanon or its citizens of its plan. It could have just struck. But it informed them anyway. I'm not sure where "rights" come into it. Don't Israelis have the "right" not to be blown up and kidnapped by terrorists from another country who aren't supposed to be there?

So Israel gets something for nothing - why would the Lebanese government deploy it's army to help them fight against shi ite "brothers" and free the soldiers and expect nothing in the form of Israeli prisoners being freed? It won't happen - you can see how much the government is willing to take no matter the cost to its people which is a shame for the Lebanese, but also a great shame for the nation of Israel and the sense of fairness that it tries to portray.

Why would the Lebanese government deploy the army against Hezb'Allah? I don't know, maybe because that's exactly what they promised they would do in 1989 but never bothered? Perhaps?

Hezb'Allah have already demonstrated the sheer contempt they have for Lebanese citizens by hiding in amongst them and making them collateral damage, and by refusing to accept that blowing up Israeli civilians on purpose and going into Israel to kidnap people is, in some way, inflammatory and not willing to protect the people from the repercussions of these actions by stopping - because it'd be "humiliating". Who cares if it's "humiliating" when it's killing pretty much everyone around them? Suck it up if you care for "your people" at all.


Remind me - which Lebanese citizens has Israel gone into Lebanon to kidnap and imprison?

And if you say that 2 soldiers captured is worth this retaliation, you should remember the jewish terrorist movement in the '40s and how the British dealt with them when our soldiers were being captured.

Of course it isn't "worth" the retaliation. Tell me exactly what retaliation, to within one round of ammunition, you'd consider "worth" 2 of your soldiers and missile attacks against your citizens.

"A proportionate response only makes sense when there's a level playing field".

(fun game - hunt the quote )

 

[KSaiyu]

That's NOT an answer. Actually, it's the typical answer from the politcal left.

You're right, it's not an answer to this particular conflict, it's a general answer. I don't have one, but then again that doesn't make me less capable of judging that this is force taken too far.

For the love of...

Do Syria allow Hezb'Allah to attack Israel from within their borders? No. Do Lebanon? Yes. Who is more immediately dangerous to Israel, the country that allows terrorists to operate against them or the country that doesn't?

Exactly - Lebanon is the IMMEDIATE threat. I'm saying do you REALLY believe that IF they are taken out of Lebanon, the supply will stop from Iran and Syria and NOTHING will happen afterwards from those two countries. I'm NOT saying go bomb them now, I'm trying to show how flawed Israels objectives are - they are as stupid as Hezbollah's thinking that Israel will be willing to bargain with them in trading the soldiers for prisoners.

Oddly, when Israel took out Beirut Airport and blockaded the seaports, they were taking out the supply. You were against it then.

Of course, because that hampers aid supply and also effectively traps people from flying out of the country, just like the hundreds of roads that have been hit further hindering supply. Israel HAVE hit hezbollah supplies coming from Syria last week, and I support that.

I said that you'd say something like that, and you did anyway...

Of course I would, because even though they elect their government I don't believe they should be made to suffer for their ineptitude.

China says it's going to nuke Bristol. It's doing so because the town hall once said that China's mother slept with sailors. It's telling you this a week beforehand because it doesn't want any civilian casualties, it's just targeting the aggressor.

Would YOU stay?

So by that reasoning, ALL the casualties in Lebanon were to blame for being hit because ALL Israeli bombs hit their target after the warning? The situation isn't that simple - whole cities won't be deserted just because someone tells you so and Hezbollah is just expected to stay there.

Israel was under no compulsion whatsoever to inform Lebanon or its citizens of its plan. It could have just struck. But it informed them anyway.

Please. Warnings don't make this any better, it may make Israel look better to some people, but the fact remains that it is unnecesary.

Why would the Lebanese government deploy the army against Hezb'Allah? I don't know, maybe because that's exactly what they promised they would do in 1989 but never bothered? Perhaps?

I'm saying why would they NOW, in the same way as why would Israel want to release it's innocent prisoners. My guess is to save face on both sides, and I think with Lebanon they don't want to invoke a backlash from the shi ite community.

Remind me - which Lebanese citizens has Israel gone into Lebanon to kidnap and imprison?

I don't have names since I only saw a documentary on the Palestinian prisoners, but heres a report.

Of course it isn't "worth" the retaliation. Tell me exactly what retaliation, to within one round of ammunition, you'd consider "worth" 2 of your soldiers and missile attacks against your citizens.

"A proportionate response only makes sense when there's a level playing field".

(fun game - hunt the quote )

Obviously I can't drum up a number, I'm just saying that it's excessive compared to what has been done in the past, even AGAINST their countries "forefathers".

 

[Famine]

Exactly - Lebanon is the IMMEDIATE threat. I'm saying do you REALLY believe that IF they are taken out of Lebanon, the supply will stop from Iran and Syria and NOTHING will happen afterwards from those two countries. I'm NOT saying go bomb them now, I'm trying to show how flawed Israels objectives are - they are as stupid as Hezbollah's thinking that Israel will be willing to bargain with them in trading the soldiers for prisoners.

If Syria supports Hezb'Allah, why has there been no second front opened on the Golan Heights?

Hezb'Allah cannot operate against Israel from Iran, because Iran is 1,500 miles away.

Only in Lebanon, where Hezb'Allah are state-supported and part of government, are strikes and raids against Israeli territory carried out. Iran is not a threat. Syria, if it were a threat, would already be one.

Of course I would, because even though they elect their government I don't believe they should be made to suffer for their ineptitude.

Hmm. So you're not a fan of the Darwin Awards then.

So by that reasoning, ALL the casualties in Lebanon were to blame for being hit because ALL Israeli bombs hit their target after the warning? The situation isn't that simple - whole cities won't be deserted just because someone tells you so and Hezbollah is just expected to stay there.

I'm sorry - you didn't answer my question with regards to the hypothetical "China nukes Bristol" situation.

Look at it another way - how many people were blaming the victims of Katrina for remaining in New Orleans despite the warnings?

Please. Warnings don't make this any better, it may make Israel look better to some people, but the fact remains that it is unnecesary.

Yes - the warnings were unnecessary. A country operated a raid against another one. There's absolutely nothing compelling the second country to warn the first where and when it will strike back. Nothing at all.

I'm saying why would they NOW

To finally live up to their side of an International Treaty they signed 17 years ago but did sod all about?

I don't have names since I only saw a documentary on the Palestinian prisoners, but heres a report.

Though it's readily apparent I'm going to ask for a less-biased source reporting illegal activities by Israel than "Arabic News", I must say that this is the first I've heard of Israel operating cross-border raids to abduct individuals. I'm also curious why you think the people in question are innocent when Israel don't.

Obviously I can't drum up a number, I'm just saying that it's excessive compared to what has been done in the past, even AGAINST their countries "forefathers".

Last week you were saying that we shouldn't be conducting wars today as we were in the past, by our forefathers...


An excessive or "disproportionate" response makes most sense. If you knew that every criminal act you carried out would be visited back on you by a factor of 10, would you ever commit a criminal act?

 

[FoolKiller]

I found some interesting stuff about the Israeli strikes hitting UN positions.

In a press release from the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) they mention Hezbollah mortars also hitting UN positions and Hezbollah firing from UN positions.

Here is the press release in a document format.
For more daily press releases this is UNIFIL's Web site.

And the quotes from the press release:
Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Bra****, and At Tiri.

In light of these reports why would Kofi Annan only accuses Israel of attacking UN positions when it appears they were attacking Hezbollah positions that were using the UN as shields? Perhaps if the UN soldiers ran them off this wouldn't happen.

To me, using UN representatives as a human shield is equivalent to firing upon them and should give the UN soldiers the right to fire upon Hezbollah militants. Shoo them off with a grenade or two, let them know that your building is not their bomb shelter.

EDIT: And the swear filter is filtering the legitimate name of an area in Lebanon. Ah well, you all can figure it out.

 

[ledhed]

I found some interesting stuff about the Israeli strikes hitting UN positions.

In a press release from the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) they mention Hezbollah mortars also hitting UN positions and Hezbollah firing from UN positions.

Here is the press release in a document format.
For more daily press releases this is UNIFIL's Web site.

And the quotes from the press release:
Another UN position of the Ghanaian battalion in the area of Marwahin in the western sector was also directly hit by one mortar round from the Hezbollah side last night. The round did not explode, and there were no casualties or material damage. Another 5 incidents of firing close to UN positions from the Israeli side were reported yesterday. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Bra****, and At Tiri.

In light of these reports why would Kofi Annan only accuses Israel of attacking UN positions when it appears they were attacking Hezbollah positions that were using the UN as shields? Perhaps if the UN soldiers ran them off this wouldn't happen.

To me, using UN representatives as a human shield is equivalent to firing upon them and should give the UN soldiers the right to fire upon Hezbollah militants. Shoo them off with a grenade or two, let them know that your building is not their bomb shelter.

EDIT: And the swear filter is filtering the legitimate name of an area in Lebanon. Ah well, you all can figure it out.

They are unarmed observers and surrounded...nothing but heads waiting to be lopped off ...the UN when notified of the sitrep should have moved them out IMMEDIATELY.

Its currency..the dead bodies of peacekeepers that KOFI and the UN used..

They ARE beyond shame .