Israel and Lebanon

[Swift]

Meaning no one else, including you had brought up the responsiblities of Israel regarding the prevention of the war and keeping the peace yet brought up Lebanon's obligations to the prevention in the guise of it's failings following 1559. I accepted you acknowledged BOTH sides responsibilites in other affairs, as noted in my other post.

But do you acknowledge Hezbollah's responsibilities. I don't care what their stupid, that's right stupid, president feels. He's knowing letting a terrorist organization occupy a large piece of the southern part of his country. So that makes him either stupid, inept, corrupt or he simply agrees with what Hezbollah does. Up to and including this most recent battle.

Sure, Israel isn't squeaky clean in all this. But lets not forget that Hezbollah abducting Israeli soldiers and targeting Israeli civilians is what started this. As much as Israel likes to use force, they wouldn't have bombed the places they bombed just "because". There needed to be a justifiable reason. Everyone sees that reason. The only thing that should be under any kind of debate is what they targeted. And even that is somewhat suspect because Hezbollah uses civilians as shields.

Israel is in a radically tough position. They have a group of terrorists, just on the other side of the border, willing to sacrifice their own people just to hurt Israel. When fighting this type of enemy, as everyone in the free world is right now, you CAN'T fight with a 100% humanitarian philosophy. I'm not saying kill indiscriminately. But I am saying that collateral damage, as ugly as it is, is a part of war and battle. To blame all the civilian casualties of the Lebanese on Israel is simply unfounded.

 

[///M-Spec]

Re: Responsibilities toward peace

You didn't, but then you didn't either show in any posts that Israel had any responsibility in preventing or ending the conflict, only showing Lebanon's responsibility in the possible prevention of the war and Israel's past with the UN and it's failure in it's obligation to minimize civilian damage. I don't understand what you mean by reading only what I want to - I'm sure I covered every single point from your last post.

……..

Meaning no one else, including you had brought up the responsiblities of Israel regarding the prevention of the war and keeping the peace yet brought up Lebanon's obligations to the prevention in the guise of it's failings following 1559. I accepted you acknowledged BOTH sides responsibilites in other affairs, as noted in my other post.

Why did you form an expectation that I would bring up Israel's responsilbities?

Did you ask me if I thought Israel had any responsibilities towards peace? No.

Did anyone ask me if I thought Israel had responsibilities towards peace? No.

Have I made statements that implies Israel is free of responsibilities towards peace? No. IN FACT, I have made statements in the opposite. I have stated that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders. I have implied that Israel’s government should control the expansion of Israeli settlements (the ‘crazies&#8217.

And since we’re talking about settlements, let me state here and now that I think most of them should be abandoned and the land given to the Palestinian Authority. (Because if I miss any opportunity to criticize Israel, it must mean that I condone everything that they do )

All this amounts to what I consider the most mealy type of nit-picking. You may as well have written a whole post correcting my spelling or grammar. Why don't you just drop it? Or maybe just ask me what I think Israel should do to promote peace in the region? 💡


Re: Abductions, POWs

They were counting on being able to bargain with Israel for the release of the prisoners, as far as I know they thought it would lead more releases than just a jail break.

I agree with that, but if your saying that all the people abducted from Lebanon where Hezbollah soldiers, that's untrue. (If you were implying that, I can't tell if you're just referring to Hezbollah capturing the Israeli soldiers)

I can't, but I never said they were and neither did Hezbollah. I'm sure the abducted persons from Lebanon who are held without charge would constitute a crime, in fact the UN thinks so to. I never referred to any hostages in my posts. What I said was:

you already know what I'll say about how this applies to Israel too

it was meant to show you what I think of the Israeli equivalent to what you said "This is hostage taking and is a war crime. The indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel can be considered a war crime as well.

If we're going into litarary quotations and semantics then I suppose I should have equated hostage to abductee, but I presumed I wouldn't have needed to....

The taking of a prisoner expressly for the sole purpose of demanding ransom is a war crime. This is what’s legally known as a hostage. Hezbollah is never at any time justified in taking hostages.

If you define the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as a war, then prisoners may be capture by either side so long as they are properly identified as a combatant.

A Prisoner of War is defined as:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
---that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
---that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
---that of carrying arms openly;
---that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

POWs do not need to be charged with any crime.

However, if either Hezbollah or the IDF detains, abducts or imprisons a person who does not fit any category above, then they must be charged with some crime or released.


Re: What is justified and what is not

Also why is it not the reverse? Note I'm not justifying Hezbollah, I just want to know how you can justify Israel. (example below)

Thankyou, so you too feel they weren't justified in these activities - but then you justify Israel for it's actions against an enemy who does the same thing against them, but say (as quoted from your previous post) It is NOT the reverse. when I pointed out the past instances of cross border abductions by Israelis and air-strikes.

The difference is the target.

In an armed conflict either side is justified any time it conducts military operations against a military target, unless it has agreed to some other type of agreement that limits what targets are legal and what is not.

At no time, under any circumstance, should a non-combant be targetted. In addition, both sides of the conflict should take great measures to ensure this doesn't happen by accident.

In the case of airstrikes, artillery, rockets or other area-effect weapon, Hezbollah frequently targets Israeli settlements. Targetting means shooting at civilians with the intent to kill them. This type of military action is by definition prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstance. Does Hezbollah always attack settlements? No, not always. Sometimes they do attack IDF military positions. These are valid and legal targets.

The IDF frequently targets positively identified or suspected militant positions, including support facilities such as a arms supply warehouse. This type of military action is justified when reasonable care is taken to ensure non-combatants are will not be harmed. Does the IDF always take reasonable care? No, not always. There is a fair amount of evidence to the contrary. In these cases, the attacks are NOT justifiable.

Thus to reiterate my position: Israel is always justified in attack armed militants within it's territory and surrounding regions, where they operate and stage attacks. It is when innocent by standers are killed in a strike that I find unacceptable. The primary difference between the IDF and Hezbollah is that the IDF tries not to aim for civilians.

I have already addressed the issue of what consitiutes a POW and a hostage in the previous paragraph. To reiterate, hostage taking is never justifiable.


Re: "FAIR"

http://www.fair.org/extra/9909/lebanon.html is an instance, although the other I used in the post was from a documentary on TV.

I have two signifgant problems with this report. (Other than the name of this group makes me snicker in the same way I do when I read that Sudan was on the UN Human Rights Commision)

1- This organisation lists no sources for the information it presents. I searched around a little (I didn't have time to look very hard) and could find no alternate sources that corraberate their information. Sorry, but anyone can put up a website and claim they are telling the truth and that everyone else is lying.

2- The article complains about how major media outlets distort the truth and selectively ignores information to purposely manipulate their readers. However, in this very article you post, it says

"But this round of violence in fact began on Wednesday [June 23] when Israel's proxy 'South Lebanon Army' militia fired several mortar rounds into the Lebanese Shia Muslim village of Qabriqa, in violation of the 1996 cease-fire accords. Four civilians--including Fatima Yassin, a 45-year old housewife--were wounded."

So the IDF's proxy army attacked a village... for no reason? It tries so hard to uncover the true order of events, but seems to gloss over this very important issue. Were the morter rounds fired because the army units were taking fire? Were they fired because of a mistake?

Why? The article doesn't say. It lays the blame squarely at the foot is Israel and is happy to let you make the assumption that this proxy army was shooting at civilians.

So much for being "fair".

Re: Tit for tat

How was this taken out of context. I was merely saying that you were right and wrong in that statement and particularly regarding the arab worlds viewpoint on it.

I correlated the statement as a reponse to a different statement. My fault.


Re: The Inane

Yes, but if you look at my original reply to your comment, my point was showing how the Lebanese and their President feel about their responsibilities and the risk they weren't willing to take - not criticising you for holding that view.

It wasn't recognising your position, it was compring your opinion to the view taken by the President of Lebanon and a lot of his people who ultimately control the country's actions:

I made a statement in which I thought Lebanon has responsibilities toward peace in the region.

You then replied to my original statement by presenting what you thought were the Lebanese government’s attitudes about their responsibilities.

I stated how I felt their position on the matter was wrong.

You continue to reiterate their view point.

This line of dialogue also stopped being productive several posts ago. How about we drop this too?


Re: Misc. complaining

So you can say:

However, I do hear constantly about Israel's violations of past resolutions because some posters around here apparently love to present one-sided arguments against the country.

Apparently, I can and already have. What of it? I asked you to address my points only, not what points other posters have made. I asked this because we're gone for two pages where it appears you have confused me with other people. You could have done the same at any time... except you wouldn't have needed to... with the exception of that one flippant remark, all of my posts have been based on exactly the things you've posted.


M

 

[Danoff]

Re: What is justified and what is not

It is when innocent by standers are killed in a strike that I find unacceptable. The primary difference between the IDF and Hezbollah is that the IDF tries not to aim for civilians.

I completely agree that the target is the most important. But sometimes the target is militants (stationed in a hospital for example), and innocent bystanders are killed. How does that sit with you?

 

[KSaiyu]

I will reply to these posts in a few days (answering seems to take longer and longer) since I'm in the process of buying a new car.

 

[KSaiyu]

Re: Responsibilities toward peace

Why did you form an expectation that I would bring up Israel's responsilbities?

Did you ask me if I thought Israel had any responsibilities towards peace? No.

Did anyone ask me if I thought Israel had responsibilities towards peace? No.

Have I made statements that implies Israel is free of responsibilities towards peace? No. IN FACT, I have made statements in the opposite. I have stated that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders. I have implied that Israel’s government should control the expansion of Israeli settlements (the ‘crazies&#8217.

What I'm trying to say is that these aren't really relevant to this past conflict, even though I agree with your views. I was stating that when you laid out the reasons Lebanon was culpapable for the prevention of THIS war, you didn't list Israel's responsibilities in the possible prevention of this conflict

]And since we’re talking about settlements, let me state here and now that I think most of them should be abandoned and the land given to the Palestinian Authority. (Because if I miss any opportunity to criticize Israel, it must mean that I condone everything that they do )

I agree with that, though it's not my intention to single you out as someone who doesn't see Israel's wrongs by not mentioning things although I admit it could have been seen that way.

All this amounts to what I consider the most mealy type of nit-picking. You may as well have written a whole post correcting my spelling or grammar. Why don't you just drop it? Or maybe just ask me what I think Israel should do to promote peace in the region? 💡

I think I have a good idea of how you feel Israel can promote peace, but what I was asking (or trying to) was how you felt about Israel's responsibilities in this war, not in relation to collateral damage but to its prevention.

Re: Abductions, POWs

The taking of a prisoner expressly for the sole purpose of demanding ransom is a war crime. This is what’s legally known as a hostage. Hezbollah is never at any time justified in taking hostages.

I agree, as you already know.

If you define the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel as a war, then prisoners may be capture by either side so long as they are properly identified as a combatant.

A Prisoner of War is defined as:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
---that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
---that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
---that of carrying arms openly;
---that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

POWs do not need to be charged with any crime.

However, if either Hezbollah or the IDF detains, abducts or imprisons a person who does not fit any category above, then they must be charged with some crime or released.

Thankyou - this is what I've been trying to point out, and it extends BEFORE this war.

Re: What is justified and what is not

The difference is the target.

In an armed conflict either side is justified any time it conducts military operations against a military target, unless it has agreed to some other type of agreement that limits what targets are legal and what is not.

At no time, under any circumstance, should a non-combant be targetted. In addition, both sides of the conflict should take great measures to ensure this doesn't happen by accident.

In the case of airstrikes, artillery, rockets or other area-effect weapon, Hezbollah frequently targets Israeli settlements. Targetting means shooting at civilians with the intent to kill them. This type of military action is by definition prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstance. Does Hezbollah always attack settlements? No, not always. Sometimes they do attack IDF military positions. These are valid and legal targets.

The IDF frequently targets positively identified or suspected militant positions, including support facilities such as a arms supply warehouse. This type of military action is justified when reasonable care is taken to ensure non-combatants are will not be harmed. Does the IDF always take reasonable care? No, not always. There is a fair amount of evidence to the contrary. In these cases, the attacks are NOT justifiable.

Thus to reiterate my position: Israel is always justified in attack armed militants within it's territory and surrounding regions, where they operate and stage attacks. It is when innocent by standers are killed in a strike that I find unacceptable. The primary difference between the IDF and Hezbollah is that the IDF tries not to aim for civilians.

I have already addressed the issue of what consitiutes a POW and a hostage in the previous paragraph. To reiterate, hostage taking is never justifiable.

I agree with all that, and the part I highlighted was the point I was trying to show. If Israel can be justified for Hezbollah's abductions and strikes, why couldn't the reverse be true? I know this is the same question I asked before, but I think the answer "the target is different" doesn't qualify. I'm reffering to the abductions and strikes by Israel BEFORE the war, and I fail to see why the targets were different in those instances.

Re: "FAIR"

I have two signifgant problems with this report. (Other than the name of this group makes me snicker in the same way I do when I read that Sudan was on the UN Human Rights Commision)

1- This organisation lists no sources for the information it presents. I searched around a little (I didn't have time to look very hard) and could find no alternate sources that corraberate their information. Sorry, but anyone can put up a website and claim they are telling the truth and that everyone else is lying.

2- The article complains about how major media outlets distort the truth and selectively ignores information to purposely manipulate their readers. However, in this very article you post, it says


So the IDF's proxy army attacked a village... for no reason? It tries so hard to uncover the true order of events, but seems to gloss over this very important issue. Were the morter rounds fired because the army units were taking fire? Were they fired because of a mistake?

Why? The article doesn't say. It lays the blame squarely at the foot is Israel and is happy to let you make the assumption that this proxy army was shooting at civilians.

So much for being "fair".

I see what you're getting at, but I only trusted the Independant newspaper report since I know it's usually unbiased compared to most of the other papers in Britain. However what you're proposing also goes back to the circle of violence, and the endless retaliations from such and such attack and so on.

I made a statement in which I thought Lebanon has responsibilities toward peace in the region.

You then replied to my original statement by presenting what you thought were the Lebanese government’s attitudes about their responsibilities.

I stated how I felt their position on the matter was wrong.

You continue to reiterate their view point.

This line of dialogue also stopped being productive several posts ago. How about we drop this too?

I think so too, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Apparently, I can and already have. What of it? I asked you to address my points only, not what points other posters have made. I asked this because we're gone for two pages where it appears you have confused me with other people. You could have done the same at any time... except you wouldn't have needed to... with the exception of that one flippant remark, all of my posts have been based on exactly the things you've posted.

You're right, the only excuse I can give is that before that post of yours there was no mention of any resolutions against Israel, and many on 1559 and Lebanon's failure to impose it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Sorry I didn't reply to this one

But do you acknowledge Hezbollah's responsibilities. I don't care what their stupid, that's right stupid, president feels. He's knowing letting a terrorist organization occupy a large piece of the southern part of his country. So that makes him either stupid, inept, corrupt or he simply agrees with what Hezbollah does. Up to and including this most recent battle.

Yes, in fact in responses to your posts I've made clear what I think of Hezbollah and the cause of the war.

Sure, Israel isn't squeaky clean in all this. But lets not forget that Hezbollah abducting Israeli soldiers and targeting Israeli civilians is what started this.

This is what I'm also trying to debate - the abduction of Israeli soldiers was for the bargaining for abducted Lebanese civilians. I'm under no illusion that all Lebanese prisoners held by Israel should be set free, but it is a war crime to abduct someone across the border and then hold them without charge and without a trial.

As much as Israel likes to use force, they wouldn't have bombed the places they bombed just "because".

But it's so easy to blanket everything as "legitimate targets" and for no-one to ask questions. I'm presuming you were reffering to the incidents I mentioned that took place before this war.

Israel is in a radically tough position. They have a group of terrorists, just on the other side of the border, willing to sacrifice their own people just to hurt Israel. When fighting this type of enemy, as everyone in the free world is right now, you CAN'T fight with a 100% humanitarian philosophy. I'm not saying kill indiscriminately. But I am saying that collateral damage, as ugly as it is, is a part of war and battle. To blame all the civilian casualties of the Lebanese on Israel is simply unfounded.

I'm not denying that there will be collateral damage and I never said that every civilian casualty of the war should be blamed on Israel - in fact right at the start of this argument I denounced and blamed Hezbollah's tactics for civilian deaths.

 

[Swift]

I'm not denying that there will be collateral damage and I never said that every civilian casualty of the war should be blamed on Israel - in fact right at the start of this argument I denounced and blamed Hezbollah's tactics for civilian deaths.

Huh? You spent about 5 pages saying how Israel was targeting civilians and causing possible genocide to the Lebanese people.

65 civilians dead at least yet people still believe Israel is defending itself....
*snip*

I'm sorry, it must be just me seeing in the news that they're killing people trying to flee the country in retaliation for 2 kidnapped soldiers. Silly me, I thought that's a bit heavy handed seeing as they bitch and moan when they kill a buss full of people (quite rightly). We don't go out and kill civilians with intent when we fight in wars, so why should Israel be justified in doing that?

Is that lame enough for ya?

Don't expect me to believe they aren't targetting civilians, because that is a lie. *snip*

The death toll is up to 200 in a week. This is bull**** that they are just hitting strategic targets with no intention of harming civilians.
*snip*

Because everytime I repeat myself it goes up, and I don't see it as defeated just because you don't agree with it. You still don't explain your reasoning as to why this should be allowed and ordinary Lebanese people should be killed for no involvement to Hezbollah at all? Continue taking out Hezbollah's rocket attacks sure, but can they stop ****ing hitting civilians for a few hours? I HATE how there's no condemnation to this and they're allowed to get away with it, it's not ****ing defending itself anymore.
*snip*

(gotta love the multiquote function )

And that's not even half of the statements you made at the BEGINNING of your argument.

 

[KSaiyu]

Look,

I'm not denying that there will be collateral damage and I never said that every civilian casualty of the war should be blamed on Israel - in fact right at the start of this argument I denounced and blamed Hezbollah's tactics for civilian deaths.

Do you really need me to condemn them, do you really think they are prepared to think about the damage they are doing to Lebanon? As I laid out earlier they are just USING Lebanon for their own agenda with Israel and masquerading as their protectors.

....while the Lebanese have to suffer the bombing campaign for their government's inaduquacies. The fact that so little militants have been killed by Israel makes the whole thing worse.

You yourself (or someone else) said, why would the terrorists care what happens to the Lebanese, they'll just carry on sending missiles regardless, all the while Beirut burns down and more civilians die.

 

[Swift]

That's all well and good. But your underlying theme was that Israel was causing the needless death of a multitude of civilians, on purpose.

Also, abducted and arrested are two different things. If the Hezbolah went into Israeli territory and "abducted" two soldiers that's different from Israel arresting Hezbollah/Lebanese that are IN Israel.

 

[ledhed]

Hey they are still observing the cease fire ! That alone is news ...

 

[Swift]

Hey they are still observing the cease fire ! That alone is news ...

Good point! 👍

 

[KSaiyu]

That's all well and good. But your underlying theme was that Israel was causing the needless death of a multitude of civilians, on purpose.

It was and still is, but don't confuse it with me saying that all the casualties (civilian) were the result of it - I do believe many were unavoidable collateral damage.

Also, abducted and arrested are two different things. If the Hezbolah went into Israeli territory and "abducted" two soldiers that's different from Israel arresting Hezbollah/Lebanese that are IN Israel.

It would be if they were arrested. The UN resolution expressely denouned Israeli "abductions in Lebanon" - plus the fact that many are being held without CHARGE or TRIAL, how can we seperate the innocent abductees with the valid Lebanese/Hezbollah terrorists rightfully held?

 

[///M-Spec]

I completely agree that the target is the most important. But sometimes the target is militants (stationed in a hospital for example), and innocent bystanders are killed. How does that sit with you?

Hi danoff. Sorry it's taken over a month for me to reply. But I wanted to make time to give the reply the attention it deserves. I'll answer your question in a round about way.

There is an excellent scene in the film Saving Private Ryan (I'm sure you've seen it) where Tom Hanks' character is resting in a church at night, talking about men who have died under his command.

He reasons that for every man he has sent to his death, it means that five, ten or even twenty other men will get to live. That every life that is lost is lost in order to save a life.

The real poignancy in the scene is how Hanks desperately WANTS to believe this is true, even though he can never, ever really know for sure.

This is exactly to sort of difficulty a military commander has to deal with in every war. It is especially hard when civilians are involved. If you are a general, and you know that destroying a certain building can save the lives of 10 of your men, but cost the lives of 10 civilians, what would you do?

This is a difficult enough question to answer in a hypothetical situation, when you know the results. But it is even more difficult in real war, where the fog of war almost guarantees you will never know for sure.

Generally speaking, I am against any military action that trades the life of non-combatants for a combatant. In the example you give, combatants are stationed in a hospital. Unless there is 99% intel assurance that the hospital does not contain a civilian, I am strongly against an area weapon (bomb, rockets, artillery, etc).

If it is a target of some strategic importance, a commando raid is usually the most appropriate course of action. Of course, raids usually have a habit of either going very well or very poorly, in which case the commandos all die or are taken prisoner. Most commanders strongly dislike this option because it places valuable, highly trained men at great risk. And no one wins any wars by placing your own soldiers at risk.

Do I see a situation where it is ‘acceptable’ for a civilian to be killed in order to achieve a military objective? Perhaps. Maybe to save the lives of a number of other people. A rocket attack is an interesting example.

If a friendly unit or site comes under attack by direct fire, such as rockets, it is absolutely appropriate to return fire so long as you are fairly certain no civilians are put at risk. Can you always be sure? No. But consider that if you do NOT act, it places the lives of the people you are protecting at risk of being killed or injured.

The Israelis take a lot of heat for their artillery fire from a lot of people, but I feel for their situation. They take fire. If they do not return fire, their soldiers or their civilians may lose their lives. If they do return fire, sometimes they will accidentally kill a civilian. Most certainly, they will damage property. If they return fire too quickly, they increase the chances a civilian may be killed or injured. If they wait too long, the attackers will simply move to another position.

It’s a very difficult place to be and I resent the militants that purposely place them in this situation. But I also resent Israeli policy makers for holding onto land that doesn't belong to them in the first place.


M

 

[ledhed]

Dude great post...Tom Hanks and all. And what a great way to illustrate a point .

 

[///M-Spec]

Oh well, here's something else I missed about a month ago.

What I'm trying to say is that these aren't really relevant to this past conflict, even though I agree with your views. I was stating that when you laid out the reasons Lebanon was culpapable for the prevention of THIS war, you didn't list Israel's responsibilities in the possible prevention of this conflict

I didn't lay out Lebanon's responsibilites. I was asked what they were. Big difference. So I answered. Is there something wrong with that?

Nice to know we're down from several thousand words to just a few sentances now.


M

 

[KSaiyu]

Ahhh, so we're back here again

I didn't lay out Lebanon's responsibilites. I was asked what they were. Big difference. So I answered. Is there something wrong with that?

Remember this all started from me stating that:

The problem is that there was no reason to clear them out in the eyes of the Lebanese, including their President. Imagine the recriminations from other arabs as well as the prospect of a civil war by ridding the country of their shi'ite brothers and defenders against Israel.

and

The other issue is that Israel has hardly lived up to all UN resolutions past against them, and the fact that they have been doing virtually the same thing years before in capturing Lebanese "suspects" only strengthens the Lebanese and arab view on the double standards shown towards Israel.

to which I still stand by for why there was no reason for the Lebanese AND their President. I was pointing out why they wouldn't comply with the resolutions, which I think also applies to Israel as well.

Here, I believe is the reply that I think will clear this up:

I thought I covered this whole section when I said "exactly" in reference to how both sides can't expect the other to obey resolutions when they don't themselves. It seems to me that you don't have a reply to this conundrum either - you're willing to point out that it's no excuse for Lebanon to disobey UN resolutions because of Israel's past defiance, yet you seem to not direct this attitude towards Israel.

to which you replied about the legal obligations of the country....well, yes I know they are meant to under international law, same as Israel but I showed WHY they wouldn't, which is the same reason Israel doesn't.

Now the original question was asked by Carl here:

- Who exactly expected Lebanon to take care of Hezbollah by itself, without going back to a civil war, you know, as in the good old times... a few years back, when Israel, with all of its might and support from the west, hasn't been able to deal effectively with the same effin problem on its own soil in 50 years???

Now your answer to this was hard to interpret, but I saw it as the responsibility lay with the Lebanese government for not dealing with Hezbollah - EVEN though, as with Israel they would have had no incentive to do so.

 

[Swift]

It was and still is, but don't confuse it with me saying that all the casualties (civilian) were the result of it - I do believe many were unavoidable collateral damage.

Well, that's good to know.

It would be if they were arrested. The UN resolution expressely denouned Israeli "abductions in Lebanon" - plus the fact that many are being held without CHARGE or TRIAL, how can we seperate the innocent abductees with the valid Lebanese/Hezbollah terrorists rightfully held?

Now, if there is truth to this, and there may be, then it's a very valid point. But I'm quite sure that the history of this conflict goes back further then a few abuctions. I'm not making light of the situation just stating that using the "abducted" Lebanese as a reason to start a war is a front.

Why didn't they do it much earlier when those people were first "abducted"? Because Iran didn't say so yet, that's why.

 

[Danoff]

It would be if they were arrested. The UN resolution expressely denouned Israeli "abductions in Lebanon" - plus the fact that many are being held without CHARGE or TRIAL, how can we seperate the innocent abductees with the valid Lebanese/Hezbollah terrorists rightfully held?

When was it denounced? Kidnapping soldiers during peacetime is an act of war. Taking soldiers prisoner during wartime is a good thing. Finding and capturing terrorists, even during peactime, is a good thing.

 

[///M-Spec]

Now your answer to this was hard to interpret, but I saw it as the responsibility lay with the Lebanese government for not dealing with Hezbollah - EVEN though, as with Israel they would have had no incentive to do so.

Please quote the peice of text that I wrote which implied Israel had no responsibilities in preventing the 2006 conflict with Lebanon. This is your whole point isn't it? Desperately trying to prove I have some sort of bias towards Israel, even though I've demonstrated time and again this is not the case?

I've already asked you to provide this on at least one other occasion, so I'm going to ask you again; provide proof or acknowledge you were mistaken.


M

 

[KSaiyu]

Oooooh we're back to this huh hehe.

Well, that's good to know.

Now, if there is truth to this, and there may be, then it's a very valid point. But I'm quite sure that the history of this conflict goes back further then a few abuctions. I'm not making light of the situation just stating that using the "abducted" Lebanese as a reason to start a war is a front.

Why didn't they do it much earlier when those people were first "abducted"? Because Iran didn't say so yet, that's why.

To be honest, I don't know what goes through the heads of Hezbollah and the reasoning for their timing, however the abductees are a problem that still hasn't been dealt with (from either side I believe).

When was it denounced? Kidnapping soldiers during peacetime is an act of war. Taking soldiers prisoner during wartime is a good thing. Finding and capturing terrorists, even during peactime, is a good thing.

UN resolution 317. I agree with what you say - but Israel hasn't done only that.

Please quote the peice of text that I wrote which implied Israel had no responsibilities in preventing the 2006 conflict with Lebanon. This is your whole point isn't it? Desperately trying to prove I have some sort of bias towards Israel, even though I've demonstrated time and again this is not the case?

Yes, I'm desperate to prove that you're biased against Israel , c'mon man.

When I said

Now your answer to this was hard to interpret, but I saw it as the responsibility lay with the Lebanese government for not dealing with Hezbollah - EVEN though, as with Israel they would have had no incentive to do so.

I was specifically referring to

The question isn't really what can be reasonably expected, but where the responsibility lies for any expectation whatsoever.

You misunderstand my analogy. You had questioned if expecting the government of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah was reasonable, correct?

The whole point of my original post was what you didn't say - I took the above quote to mean that it was expected of Lebanon to deal with the problems that led to the war (Hezbollah), but nothing on what could be reasonably expected from Israel in terms of its contribution to the breakout of war (abductees, violations of resolution 425).

 

[///M-Spec]

Yes, I'm desperate to prove that you're biased against Israel , c'mon man.

Prove it, then. Admit you are mistaken and let it go. Or admit it's just not that important. Or keep going and find yet another way to insist on the absurd.

The whole point of my original post was what you didn't say - I took the above quote to mean that it was expected of Lebanon to deal with the problems that led to the war (Hezbollah), but nothing on what could be reasonably expected from Israel in terms of its contribution to the breakout of war (abductees, violations of resolution 425).

For the nth time: IF I DO NOT MENTION ISRAEL'S RESPONSIBLITIES, IT DOES NOT MEAN I BELIEVE THERE ARE NOT ANY.

I don't know how I can possibly make it any more clear to you. Perhaps font size 7 in red next time?

What you have quoted is not proof. It is YOU trying to read between the lines and making ASSUMPTIONS about my viewpoint. Your assumptions are WRONG. You even insist my viewpoint is a certain way after I have directly contradicted it numerous times.

Refusing to give up on a futile argument, insisting you are correct despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and repeating the same accusation over and over again... I could call it simple thick-headedness, but it's not.

It's desperation. You know why that is? Because you are more interested in arguing about it than understanding my position. If you are actually concerned that I don't think Israel has any responsibilities then you should have been happy with my clarification many pages ago. But instead, you want to IGNORE my clarification and INSIST on a viewpoint that SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST because you're dying to win an argument with someone. Christ man, if you're going to do that at least pick a topic that actually matters. It's time to let this one go.



So who wants to wager 10 bucks I get the same argument on the next post?


M

 

[Duke]

Oooooh we're back to this huh hehe.

...mostly because you don't seem to listen when ///M-Spec corrects your assumptions about what he thinks.

The whole point of my original post was what you didn't say - I took the above quote to mean that it was expected of Lebanon to deal with the problems that led to the war (Hezbollah), but nothing on what could be reasonably expected from Israel in terms of its contribution to the breakout of war (abductees, violations of resolution 425).

And there's your problem - you've made a fundamental assumption about his thinking, and you've refused to acknowledge that it is NOT CORRECT.

 

[KSaiyu]

OK now this is going in circles.... Firstly, to get this sorted - what is it that you want me to admit? I've explained my thinking and reasoning behind this exact quote that you brought up just a few days ago:

I was stating that when you laid out the reasons Lebanon was culpapable for the prevention of THIS war, you didn't list Israel's responsibilities in the possible prevention of this conflict

in the above posts - what do you want me to say??

Prove it, then. Admit you are mistaken and let it go. Or admit it's just not that important. Or keep going and find yet another way to insist on the absurd.

What the....YOU'RE the one who brought it up again, what more can I say? I took objection to the fact that when you previously posted about the "general expectance" on Lebanon and it's government, and the subsequent post you didn't list Israel's responsibilities in the possible prevention of this conflict, which is true now as it was then. Does it mean you're biased towards Israel - no, but I found it a point to contest that nothing was mentioned about Israel's responsibilities and the general expectance that should have been placed equally on them in the buildup to the war. Now I really don't know how to make it anymore clearer, and I can't see what we're argueing with to be frank.

...mostly because you don't seem to listen when ///M-Spec corrects your assumptions about what he thinks.

That was more in reference to Danoff and Swift's points.

And there's your problem - you've made a fundamental assumption about his thinking, and you've refused to acknowledge that it is NOT CORRECT.

I made the assumption of what - that he doesn't believe Israel should uphold resolutions because Lebanon doesn't? Wrong:

Accepting Israel's responsibilities in THIS WAR and maybe its prevention, or just it's failures in the past with upholding UN resolutions? That's what I meant.

I still stand by this, and I hope this post clarifies why.

 

[ledhed]

K Saiyu ..if you were the leader of a country and were surrounded on all sides by countries that not only invaded you but refused to recognise your right to exist . And after defeating them you took ground from them that was very strategic and acted as a buffer against further attacks they swore was comming, and the UN told you to give the land back that your people DIED for and left bload soaked . Not only did they say GIVE the land back but offered no guarantees that after YOU DID you would be safe from further attacks. In fact those same nations except Jordan and Egypt to this day do not recognise Israels RIGHT TO EXIST . How many more Israelis would have to die because they followed a UN resolution that gave them NOTHING but demanded EVERYTHING.

And BTW ...we can all see how well the UN can watch while others die and can stand by and do nothing in war after war and genocide after genocide.

PUT youreself in the Israeli posistion and stop making excuses and paper arguments. BUt do think it through...think real hard now......... you are the leader of Israel.

In how many languages and ways would YOU tell the UN to make love to itself with a telephone pole from behind ?


Be honest with yourself .


BTW not that I shouLd have to point it out but Israel left Lebanon WITH guarantees by the UN it would not be attacked and that the UN would take controll of the border.......


Those UNarmed observer dudes did real well preventing Israel from being attacked now didn't they .

 

[///M-Spec]

OK now this is going in circles....

This is going in circles because YOU'RE going in circles. Every time I refute your accusation, you start right back at the beginning.

If you want it to stop, all you have to do is admit you are mistaken or this argument is not worth having.

What the....YOU'RE the one who brought it up again, what more can I say?

Umm, no. I responded to the post you made on Sept 7. If you didn't want to discuss this topic, then don't ask me the damn question. Simple enough, isn't it?

I took objection to the fact that when you previously posted about the "general expectance" on Lebanon and it's government, and the subsequent post you didn't list Israel's responsibilities in the possible prevention of this conflict, which is true now as it was then.

Okay, again for the nth time: WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHY LEBANON NEEDED TO DISARM HEZBOLLAH. I wasn't ASKED to comment on Israel's responsibilities.

The question was not: "Who is responsible for peace in the Middle East?"

It was not: "Who is responsible for preventing the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah?"

It was: "Why should Lebanon be responsible for disarming Hezbollah?"

WHY would I need to bring up Israel in a conversation ABOUT LEBANON AND IT'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN DISARMING HEZBOLLAH???? Lebanon was the ONLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY IN THIS CONVERSATION.


THE CLIFF'S NOTES*

*All dialogue is paraphrased by me. If you don't like how I did it, then TOUGH.

CONTEXT: Why is Lebanon responsible for DISARMING HEZBOLLAH.

Carl: Why should Lebanon disarm Hezbollah?

///M-Spec: Because they have responsibilities to maintain peace in the region.

KSaiyu: Why should they? Israel doesn't do anything to help peace.

///M-Spec: Well, for one, the UN told Lebanon to do it. Lebanon even agreed.

KSaiyu: Well Israel doesn't listen to the UN.

///M-Spec: What Israel does --or doesn't do-- doesn't make Lebanon exempt from their own responsiblities. The reason why there is still war in the region is because no one wants to live up to their responsiblities. Both sides need to live up to their responsibilities.

KSaiyu: I'm just telling you that's what the Lebanese are thinking.

///M-Spec: Well, okay. I think they are wrong, though.

KSaiyu: Well, it's not just about Lebanon. Why didn't you mention what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post?

///M-Spec: Because we weren't talking about Israel. Carl asked me about Lebanon and why they should disarm Hezbollah.

KSaiyu: You should have mentioned what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post.

///M-Spec: Of course Israel has responsibilities. Lots of people have responsibilities toward peace in the region. I don't like the fact that you imply I don't think Israel is responsible for anything.

KSaiyu: You should have mentioned what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post.

///M-Spec: If you want to know so bad, then why don't you ASK ME??

KSaiyu: Why didn't you mention what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post?

///M-Spec: Hey jack, back off, okay? I wasn't fricken asked why.

KSaiyu: You should have mentioned what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post.

///M-Spec: OMFG, you are totally desperate to prove something, aren't you? I already addressed all your issues. STFU already.

KSaiyu: You should have mentioned what Israel's responsibilities were in your original post.

///M-Spec: Holy crap I must be dreaming or something.


M

 

[KSaiyu]

Jesus, one final attempt.

You misunderstand my analogy. You had questioned if expecting the government of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah was reasonable, correct?

After all, they would have risked another civil war if they tried to, no?

My point is that just because it is a very difficult problem to solve doesn't make the Lebanese government any less responsible for solving it. I think our friend The Great Indigo One spelled out Lebanon's responsibilities very clearly early on in this thread.

What was my first - VERY FIRST reply to this? It was arguing that it wasn't reasonable that Lebanon would accept these responsibilities, and subsequently that the main reason wasn't included in your post, which I argued with and we continued to expand and debate with for a good three pages. If you want me to "accept" something then the best I can say is that you weren't asked Israel's responsibilities until by me, but I think when responding about why Lebanon should be expected to remove Hezbollah, specifically:

Who exactly expected Lebanon to take care of Hezbollah by itself, without going back to a civil war, you know, as in the good old times... a few years back, when Israel, with all of its might and support from the west, hasn't been able to deal effectively with the same effin problem on its own soil in 50 years???

you couldn't just post why we should expect them to take this responsibility without mentioning Israel, since this is the main reason why they never did, and probably never will implement it and why they don't feel responsible, which is the reason I commented on your response.

Now, a month later you return to say it was wrong for me to start the argument based on this - well tough, I've had to put up with people arguing with me at least three times earlier in this thread that has started on what I didn't PUT in my arguments, and I continued then to explain my views as best I could - not come back and debate the origin and the accusations that followed (even though I don't know what you're thinking I'm accusing you of).

I also forgot to ask this in response to this made earlier, and I think it fits in with this current argument:

Or maybe just ask me what I think Israel should do to promote peace in the region?

this is in regard to the Lebanese detainees and violations of 425, why should we have expected them to comply.

To Ledhead, I'll respond to that later on

 

[///M-Spec]

Jesus, one final attempt.

Final? If I were only that lucky.

What was my first - VERY FIRST reply to this? It was arguing that it wasn't reasonable that Lebanon would accept these responsibilities, and subsequently that the main reason wasn't included in your post, which I argued with and we continued to expand and debate with for a good three pages. If you want me to "accept" something then the best I can say is that you weren't asked Israel's responsibilities until by me...

Finally

... but I think when responding about why Lebanon should be expected to remove Hezbollah, specifically:
.....
you couldn't just post why we should expect them to take this responsibility without mentioning Israel, since this is the main reason why they never did, and probably never will implement it and why they don't feel responsible, which is the reason I commented on your response.

To which I said "thanks for the info, but I disagree with Lebanon's thinking", in this post.

..and in this post.

..and again in this post.

Once again for clarity: Thanks for the information, but I don't care how Lebanon sees it. Understanding their position don't change mine.

This will be the FOURTH time I've said it now, yet you seem INTENT on ignoring that I ever made these posts. You're still responding to my first ones.

Why are you not responding to the arguments I put forth in those posts? Is it simply because you can't and want to draw attention away from them? Do you NOT think its very obvious to me and anyone masochistic enough to actually be following this thread at this point that you have a huge gap missing your position??

Now, a month later you return to say it was wrong for me to start the argument based on this - well tough

Awwww. Poor baby had to wait a whole month for me to reply. Newsflash, junior: I don't post on a schedule. I post when I have the time and the inclination. I have numerous obligations in real life and they don't include satisfying your notion of a Statute of Limitations on Responding to a GTP Post. I might give someone like danoff the courtesy of an appology because he's earned my respect over the last 3 years --but you ain't there yet, buddy.

You took a week to respond to my post from Sept 1, but no one ever complained about it.

, I've had to put up with people arguing with me at least three times earlier in this thread that has started on what I didn't PUT in my arguments, and I continued then to explain my views as best I could - not come back and debate the origin and the accusations that followed (even though I don't know what you're thinking I'm accusing you of).

I've said this at least twice now. I am not other people in this thread. If you have a beef with someone else: take it up with them. I ain't their damn mommy.

I also forgot to ask this in response to this made earlier, and I think it fits in with this current argument:
...
this is in regard to the Lebanese detainees and violations of 425, why should we have expected them to comply.

For the same reason I expect Israel to avoid killing civilians EVEN THOUGH Hezbollah specifically targets them.

For the same reason I expect the United States to apply international standards to the treatment of prisoners EVEN THOUGH militant groups ROUTINELY deny their enemies the same level of treatment.

I have already explained this AT LENGTH, very clearly in THIS POST.

But I guarantee you're going to pretend it doesn't exist. You've been doing that for several pages now.


M

 

[KSaiyu]

For the same reason I expect Israel to avoid killing civilians EVEN THOUGH Hezbollah specifically targets them.

For the same reason I expect the United States to apply international standards to the treatment of prisoners EVEN THOUGH militant groups ROUTINELY deny their enemies the same level of treatment.

I have already explained this AT LENGTH, very clearly in THIS POST.

M

I think you misunderstood my question or I didn't put it across right. I'm trying to ask the same question as Carl asked that lead to this argument, but in reference to Israel this time - do you think we should have expected Israel to not violate 425 and to respond to the pressure and criticism they faced concerning the "prisoners" held from Lebanon?

Now I don't believe that post you just quoted covered the specifics (as I've already said) in the same way as your previous post dealt with Lebanon's responsibilities with Hezbollah - for God sake DON'T take this as a false accusation that I don't see you recognising Israel's responsibilities to peace in the general region which you seem to be implying with this:

But I guarantee you're going to pretend it doesn't exist. You've been doing that for several pages now.

even though I've done so already, in my response after your post referenced that point.

___________________________

Awwww. Poor baby had to wait a whole month for me to reply. Newsflash, junior: I don't post on a schedule. I post when I have the time and the inclination. I have numerous obligations in real life and they don't include satisfying your notion of a Statute of Limitations on Responding to a GTP Post.

It wasn't really a reference to the time of posting, however odd, moreso that it's arguing over the beginning of why we started to debate after the argument seemed to be "done".

I might give someone like danoff the courtesy of an appology because he's earned my respect over the last 3 years --but you ain't there yet, buddy.

I don't mind that, I'm not looking for one.

Do you NOT think its very obvious to me and anyone masochistic enough to actually be following this thread at this point that you have a huge gap missing your position??

My position on what?

Ledhead - I will answer that post, promise.

 

[///M-Spec]

I think you misunderstood my question or I didn't put it across right. I'm trying to ask the same question as Carl asked that lead to this argument, but in reference to Israel this time - do you think we should have expected Israel to not violate 425 and to respond to the pressure and criticism they faced concerning the "prisoners" held from Lebanon?

Now I don't believe that post you just quoted covered the specifics (as I've already said) in the same way as your previous post dealt with Lebanon's responsibilities with Hezbollah - for God sake DON'T take this as a false accusation that I don't see you recognising Israel's responsibilities to peace in the general region which you seem to be implying with this:

What part of ...

...if either Hezbollah or the IDF detains, abducts or imprisons a person who does not fit any category above, then they must be charged with some crime or released.

..do you have trouble understanding?

And exactly what part of...

Israel should follow resolutions.

..is too complicated for you to comprehend?

even though I've done so already, in my response after your post referenced that point.

What you did was dodge the issue and pretend you addressed it.

It wasn't really a reference to the time of posting, however odd, moreso that it's arguing over the beginning of why we started to debate after the argument seemed to be "done".

Jesus, please construct a half way intelligible statement out of this.

If you thought we were "done", why did you post a statement saying I should have talked about Israel -- in a post about Lebanon?? Do you post things and actually expect people NOT to respond?

I don't mind that, I'm not looking for one.

Then don't complain about it.

My position on what?

Read the posts and figure it out, smart guy. It's written in plain English.


M

 

[KSaiyu]

What part of ...

..do you have trouble understanding?

You didn't quote that post in your answer.

And exactly what part of...

..is too complicated for you to comprehend?

What I was looking for, and I believe you mean from your answer is an general expectation on Israel in the same way as you said there was on Lebanon here

You had questioned if expecting the government of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah was reasonable, correct?

My point is that just because it is a very difficult problem to solve doesn't make the Lebanese government any less responsible for solving it. I think our friend The Great Indigo One spelled out Lebanon's responsibilities very clearly early on in this thread.

Correct?

I'll address this in my reply to

Read the posts and figure it out, smart guy. It's written in plain English.

Now I'll take it you mean my position on Israel and Lebanon's responsibilities, even though you haven't directly asked (funny that....).

I apply my original feeling to Israel that I responded with right at the beginning with Lebanon - there is no reason for them to comply. Don't get me wrong, I feel both have/had responsibilities in the prevention of this war, but I think both parties couldn't have been expected to uphold this - which was my original argument. What can be done to achieve this - probably not more UN resolutions since Hezbollah is still armed and there has been nothing on the Lebanese detainees in Israel.

What you did was dodge the issue and pretend you addressed it.

Israel should follow resolutions. Lebanon should follow resolutions.

Exactly.

____________

Jesus, please construct a half way intelligible statement out of this.

If you thought we were "done", why did you post a statement saying I should have talked about Israel -- in a post about Lebanon?? Do you post things and actually expect people NOT to respond?

Why? Maybe because a month after the last post in this thread you said

Oh well, here's something else I missed about a month ago......

What did you want me to do - not respond??

Then don't complain about it.

I mention it once, it doesn't mean I'm fishing for an apology, but frankly if you say you'd give an apology to someone you "respect" on a internet board you've already admitted to me that it may be something worthy of an apology.

K Saiyu ..if you were the leader of a country and were surrounded on all sides by countries that not only invaded you but refused to recognise your right to exist . And after defeating them you took ground from them that was very strategic and acted as a buffer against further attacks they swore was comming, and the UN told you to give the land back that your people DIED for and left bload soaked . Not only did they say GIVE the land back but offered no guarantees that after YOU DID you would be safe from further attacks. In fact those same nations except Jordan and Egypt to this day do not recognise Israels RIGHT TO EXIST . How many more Israelis would have to die because they followed a UN resolution that gave them NOTHING but demanded EVERYTHING.

And BTW ...we can all see how well the UN can watch while others die and can stand by and do nothing in war after war and genocide after genocide.

PUT youreself in the Israeli posistion and stop making excuses and paper arguments. BUt do think it through...think real hard now......... you are the leader of Israel.

In how many languages and ways would YOU tell the UN to make love to itself with a telephone pole from behind ?


Be honest with yourself .


BTW not that I shouLd have to point it out but Israel left Lebanon WITH guarantees by the UN it would not be attacked and that the UN would take controll of the border.......


Those UNarmed observer dudes did real well preventing Israel from being attacked now didn't they

To be honest I think it was lose-lose for Israel - complying with all resolutions would only weaken them, but an assault on Lebanon would barely help future security. I think there needs to be a new, stronger approach that leads to complicity from both sides.