The Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah says it has captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes across the Lebanese-Israeli border.
The Israeli defence ministry has confirmed the two soldiers were seized by Hezbollah, Associated Press reports. The capture occurred during morning clashes on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Hezbollah launched dozens of Katyusha rockets and mortar bombs at the Israeli town of Shlomi and at Israeli outposts in the disputed Shebaa Farms area.
Israel said its aircraft hit Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon after the rockets were fired and bombed a bridge. Israeli tanks were also firing artillery rounds at southern Lebanon.
Call me negativist, but I'm beginning to feel more and more we're on the brink of a major conflict.
JERUSALEM (AFP) - The Israeli army launched a ground and air assault on Lebanon after admitting there was a strong chance two soldiers had been captured by Hezbollah militants, a spokesman said.
"Our planes, tanks and artillery are operating inside Lebanese territory," the spokesman said, stressing the offensive began after the army said there was a "strong possibility" that two soldiers had been captured.
Call me negativist, but I'm beginning to feel more and more we're on the brink of a major conflict.
The **** has officially hit the fan, ladies and gentlefolk. I'm well and truly surprised (and, I admit, quite relieved) that I haven't been called up yet today.
I found Hezbollah's offer to release the 2 captured soldiers and Gilad Shalit, the soldier captured by Hamas in Gaza last week (IIRC), in exchange for Israel's releasing of thousands of arrested Palestinians quite intriguing. Shows the value both sides put on the respective lives of people. But that's always been so.
Even more interesting is the fact that Hezbollah is apparently speaking on behalf of themselves AND Hamas - throwing out the window any arguments that the two organizations aren't in cahoots.
****!FAN
Thanks, it's far from unexpected, MND takes years to run it's course, but still not easy to see him nowadays.This is my concern. With the tensions with Iran, the violence in Iraq, and Israel attacking targets in Lebanon it could get pretty messy if someone decides to intervene. Iran's president did say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map so this would be a pretty good pretext. And the US would get to drop bombs on Iran's nuclear ambitions peaceful or otherwise. Heck...the Israel could do it for them. It'd be pretty messy one way or another...
I'll agree that, if it were purely between Israel and Palestine, I'd almost be of the opinon of 'Let them sort it out themselves', but the thing that worries me is the possiblity of other Middle Eastern countries getting involved. Hopefully this will wind down, but if it escalates, things will get far far worse before they get better.
And Israel is too small to grab any significant piece of land and hold on to it.
1 israle soldier to 65 pala's. 2 for 2000 pala's, and 3 for around 3500 palas.
I say, go israle! I say 'kill all the palastinions and\or kick them of israles land (gaza strip and the other place. West bank?)'. I say israle, dont take ****, go kick their ass. Give no one of their fukin ases back. Kill all 2000 and ship their heads to them and threaton the laboninites, to give israle their guys back or they will kick majoir ass. Thats how thsi **** should be done.
Israle should take back its birthright land.
This whole arab\muslim thing all hapened cauze israle did a dumbass move and disobeyed god way back when. Now look at the trouble its gettin them into? Constant wars with the group of people they should have wiped out in the first place b4 they became a problem.
~Ephili~
They do have the worlds largest airforce if I'm not mistaken. It was good the first time...this time they would have a huge advantage in numbers and more importantly in technology.
That's a kind of hypocrital thing to say from someone who lives in a land that was previously "owned" by another ethinic group.
Except Egypt isn't a prototypical arab country surrounding Israel
So im gathering that the F-35's are the best fighter model out there? Anyone know their statistics and weaponry specs?This site (http://www.google.com) gives you a nice description of the basic statistics and weaponry. :)
If we terraformed antarctica and relocated israel there (this is assuming future technology of course) we can leave muslims their palestine and the jews get the new antarctica.
Not at all. We were farmers, they are fags. No comparison.
1 israle soldier to 65 pala's. 2 for 2000 pala's, and 3 for around 3500 palas.
I say, go israle! I say 'kill all the palastinions and\or kick them of israles land (gaza strip and the other place. West bank?)'. I say israle, dont take ****, go kick their ass. Give no one of their fukin ases back. Kill all 2000 and ship their heads to them and threaton the laboninites, to give israle their guys back or they will kick majoir ass. Thats how thsi **** should be done.
Israle should take back its birthright land.
This whole arab\muslim thing all hapened cauze israle did a dumbass move and disobeyed god way back when. Now look at the trouble its gettin them into? Constant wars with the group of people they should have wiped out in the first place b4 they became a problem.
~Ephili~
Was that a disgustingly racist comment referring to native Americans, or did you just forget to add in some sort of context to explain it?
QuoteWas that a disgustingly racist comment referring to native Americans, or did you just forget to add in some sort of context to explain it?
I think he was referring to the Arab Extremists. I could be wrong, though.
As for the likely upcoming war...its about ****ing time. I hope Israel takes off the kidgloves this time.
QuoteWas that a disgustingly racist comment referring to native Americans, or did you just forget to add in some sort of context to explain it?
I think he was referring to the Arab Extremists. I could be wrong, though.
As for the likely upcoming war...its about ****ing time. I hope Israel takes off the kidgloves this time.
Well, I hope so, which is why I'm asking for the context. Albiet even then 'fag' is only acceptable when applied to extremists, i.e. not to all the poor bastards who invariably get hurt in the crossfire. Let's not forget it's the innocents who suffer most, after all.
Well, I hope so, which is why I'm asking for the context. Albiet even then 'fag' is only acceptable when applied to extremists, i.e. not to all the poor bastards who invariably get hurt in the crossfire. Let's not forget it's the innocents who suffer most, after all.
I haven't forgotten, and I already feel sorry for those people. But sadly, it comes with the territory when you support the outright destruction of a nation that rather easily blows your own forces sky-high.
Well, I hope so, which is why I'm asking for the context. Albiet even then 'fag' is only acceptable when applied to extremists, i.e. not to all the poor bastards who invariably get hurt in the crossfire. Let's not forget it's the innocents who suffer most, after all.
I haven't forgotten, and I already feel sorry for those people. But sadly, it comes with the territory when you support the outright destruction of a nation that rather easily blows your own forces sky-high.
Does it come with the terroritory if you support the outright destruction of a nation that is rather easily blown sky high by your forces, though?
Does it come with the terroritory if you support the outright destruction of a nation that is rather easily blown sky high by your forces, though?
Nope, but IIRC the Israeli's have never advocated that. In fact, IIRC, they're the ones who wanted to settle matters out through negotiations, whereas Hamas/Hizbollah refuse negotiation unless pretty much all their demands are met (which, IIRC, include Israel simply opening itself to whatever form of terrorist attack they desire).
(well, quite a few people are effectively advocating that here)
Quote(well, quite a few people are effectively advocating that here)
I don't. I'm just sick of the waiting. War is, as far as I can see, inevitable, and I'm tired of all this 'lets negotiate,' 'Lets not *Boom*,' 'Bigger *Boom* right back,' etc etc crap. Right now, I support the Israeli's mainly due to the fact that they aren't headed by an elected terrorist organization like Hamas, and at least have TRIED to spur peaceful negotiation, whereas the Arab leaders...refuse to even consider such a course until they've already recieved the concession they want.
It's more like the need to see something different. That the situation will be no better off is secondary, really, though I suppose one could always hold out hope that the Extremists would realize that they should just sit the **** down or something.
It's more like the need to see something different. That the situation will be no better off is secondary, really, though I suppose one could always hold out hope that the Extremists would realize that they should just sit the **** down or something.
The thing is, we've seen all this before........
ngtm1r: Do you remember which administration sold Egypt the M1's? No sarcasm or anything here; I'm asking a serious question.
1 israle soldier to 65 pala's. 2 for 2000 pala's, and 3 for around 3500 palas.
I say, go israle! I say 'kill all the palastinions and\or kick them of israles land (gaza strip and the other place. West bank?)'. I say israle, dont take ****, go kick their ass. Give no one of their fukin ases back. Kill all 2000 and ship their heads to them and threaton the laboninites, to give israle their guys back or they will kick majoir ass. Thats how thsi **** should be done.
Israle should take back its birthright land.
This whole arab\muslim thing all hapened cauze israle did a dumbass move and disobeyed god way back when. Now look at the trouble its gettin them into? Constant wars with the group of people they should have wiped out in the first place b4 they became a problem.
~Ephili~
1 israle soldier to 65 pala's. 2 for 2000 pala's, and 3 for around 3500 palas.
I say, go israle! I say 'kill all the palastinions and\or kick them of israles land (gaza strip and the other place. West bank?)'. I say israle, dont take ****, go kick their ass. Give no one of their fukin ases back. Kill all 2000 and ship their heads to them and threaton the laboninites, to give israle their guys back or they will kick majoir ass. Thats how thsi **** should be done.
Israle should take back its birthright land.
This whole arab\muslim thing all hapened cauze israle did a dumbass move and disobeyed god way back when. Now look at the trouble its gettin them into? Constant wars with the group of people they should have wiped out in the first place b4 they became a problem.
~Ephili~
Theres one thing worse than someone who puts no value on human life whatsoever. And that's someone who can't spell putting no value on human life. Does it occur to you, for example, how many Israelis would die in that sort of conflict? But then, you don't care, it's not in your country, so let's get on with the big explosions :(
Quite frankly, I've had it up to here with fundamentalist assholes trying to start World War Three and then turning round and saying "Look! Rapture! The Bible was Right!', because they are making a self-fulfilling prophecy and are yet too blind to even see what they are doing. It's as bad as the actions of Fred Phelps or Jack Thompson or the like... 'The world isn't revolving around what I want it to be! Waaaaaaah!!'.
So obviously the T-72's that most of the neighboring nations have would be no match for the Merkava. A group on group probably would result in total destruction of the T-72 platoon with few losses.
Its fortunate that you haven't been called up...hopefully this doesn't get any worse.
They've had them since around '97, so it'd have to be Clinton's.
Theres one thing worse than someone who puts no value on human life whatsoever. And that's someone who can't spell putting no value on human life.Hahaha!
It's a good thing that Firefox 2.0 is going to have built in spell checking :)Theres one thing worse than someone who puts no value on human life whatsoever. And that's someone who can't spell putting no value on human life.Hahaha!
It's a good thing that Firefox 2.0 is going to have built in spell checking :)Theres one thing worse than someone who puts no value on human life whatsoever. And that's someone who can't spell putting no value on human life.Hahaha!
As far as the course of war is concerned, I support Israel all the way, and I've actually considered changing my language of choice from Mandarin to Hebrew or Arabic should this escalate (I'm going into the USAF as a linguist).
The M1 wiped the floor with Saddam's T-72's in the Gulf War, and if the Merkava Mk. IV is as superior to the M1 as Sandwich says, than it should have absolutely no problem rolling over that old Soviet equipment. The targeting systems between the M1 and the Merkava seem to be of reasonably equal capacity; the M1 can kill a target 2 kilometers away on the move.
the press seems to think of anything with armor, tracks and a turret as a tankIndeed. Though even the turret and even armour are often just an optional extras for a tank in their eyes, I've seen M113s counted as tanks more often than not, and those things have neither a turret nor armour enough to stop anything above a standard .556mm rifle bullet.
If you glued 2 together, it'd look like a Cyclon BaseStar for Men ;)
:lol: Well, if there were more Hot Naked Boomers in the world, there'd be a lot less tanks, I feel ;)
As far as the course of war is concerned, I support Israel all the way, and I've actually considered changing my language of choice from Mandarin to Hebrew or Arabic should this escalate (I'm going into the USAF as a linguist).
No offence to you, but surely they'd want to get native or at least first generation non-native speakers (i.e. the children of immigrants) of those languages for their linguists?
Damn, that's a fine looking tank.
When Israel was formed in the begining, nobody asked hte people who lived there anything. They were put before a finished act - naturalyl they got mad. I can understand why they attacked then.
Howevere, by now Israel has established itself. If it were to go back to the territory it initally was granted in 1948 most arabs would be happy with that.
You say Israel pulles out of Gaza - so why do they attack? They attack becoause palestinins are treated like third class citizens and they don't forget all the hardship the whole people endured.
I'm against Israel in this becosue they strike at the whole people. Unselectivly.
Destroying bridges, leaving a million people wihtout power and water in the desert, during summer - now THAT is a crime. How many of the palestinians in those prisions are actualyl terrorists? How many palestinins that were killed or exectuted were simply labeled terrorists afterwards?
Israel has th right to defend itself. But this is not defense - it's madness.
It's not handing back territory if you create an autonomous state, though.
It's not handing back territory if you create an autonomous state, though.
Autonomous state..........
Has Palestine shown any form of leadership qualities, population control, police initiative that would warrant such a title? Would that title mean anything to its people without the "blood of their infidel enemies" spilt?
I wasn't aware self-determination was a concept to be doled out to those we consider worthy to our standards, rather than being an inexorable human right.
Can we really judge the Palestinians under-occupation, any more than we can view either Vichy France or the Resistance movement as indicative of France as an independent & unoccupied state?
After all, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, they're occupied by a country that considers them 'expendable'; where the capture of a single Israeli soldier is enough justification for destroying infrastructure and bombing raids. Now, I don't consider anything to justify the killing of innocents in terrorist acts, but I think I can understand why they might not be too concerned with protecting Israel.
I wasn't aware self-determination was a concept to be doled out to those we consider worthy to our standards, rather than being an inexorable human right.
I wasn't aware self-determination was a concept to be doled out to those we consider worthy to our standards, rather than being an inexorable human right.
There is self-determination, and there is self-determination. We generally view the concepts of murder and suicide, when determined through any means, as a sign of non-competency to determine for yourself, and we put you somewhere where you can't (in theory at least) do those things.
Palestine has self-determined for Hamas, which would like to murder all Israelis. However this is not a goal they can realistically accomplish, though they try anyways. And in trying Hamas are much more likely to end up precipitating some kind of national Palestinian suicide, and worst of all, Hamas knows this. They are perfectly willing to cause the martyrdom of all Palestine. They think that would be just great.
One must consider whether Palestine is mentally competent to self-determine at this point. I haven't decided for myself; I'd need to be there, know more, then I do. But the question rears its head.
you simply can't collectively punish a people for the act of a few cretins with bombs. .
I think you are all missing some main points, israel doesn't mean to harm any lebanon civilian(dont forget they did published an annoucment which they write clearly to those citiziens to get the hell away from where the terroists act),though to beat the terroists they(IDF) have to destroy thier foundation(Oil,Electricty) which does harm the civlian-normal-life, that's true but it serve two purposes : 1. it's acctually stoping some of the missles.
2.it makes the citizien to hate the terroists acts which
causing them those situations.
In the other hand the terroists are skiping the fighting agaisnt thier acctually enemy and preffer to just shoot the israel civilians,only today 12 people are injured,yesterday they reached to haifa hurting and disturbing the life of those who are far from the "war". 7 ketyushot here, 6 there,8 here,3 there,explosive in the mall,and such. this is the 21 century type of war, its a new kind of war which i blame the arabs for.
By the way trashman i think you should better go to read your books and tolkien.
Aldo everything has 2 faces, ofcourse some people will now even want to make the terrorism even worse,but some, as i saied will hate the one who are resposible to why the war began.
Its better than the default situation which evey civilian in lebanon support terrorism. the thing is, some of you like trashman for example is living in thier own peaceful reality, which gives you no right to judge israel acts(nor lebanon in that matter).
Well, I'll disagree with the opinion that every civilian in Lebanon supports Terrorism, if that was the case, then I think you'd have a much bigger problem on your hands than you already do. In countries such as ours we can stand up and speak out (and, on occasion, vanish, but that's another matter) but many countries such as Lebanon, that luxury is seriously curtailed. I suspect a lot of Lebanese civilians are too concerned with staying alive to develop political positions. I think that's one of those stereotypes that does so much damage.
Israel has every right to protect it's interests, but by equal quantities, so does Lebanon. Many of these countries, however, need to get their leadership in order and stop provoking, things were looking hopeful for a little while, what with the referendum in Palestine etc, but, as usual, small groups with chips on their shoulders have ruined everything. Part of me wishes Israel hadn't risen to the bait, but lacking any other suggestion for what they could have done, I really don't know what to suggest, the problem is, I think they've been led around by the nose in this case, and the radical groups have got exactly the reaction from Israel that they were trying to achieve.
The targeting systems between the M1 and the Merkava seem to be of reasonably equal capacity; the M1 can kill a target 2 kilometers away on the move.
I just wonder what type of tank was the one destroyed by the mine - one of the older M60s? Can even be an IFV, the press seems to think of anything with armor, tracks and a turret as a tank.
:p
Does anyone knows some place with pictures of the Merkava? And if possible the current arsenal of the Israel military?
Now, is it just me or do the engine ports, given that intended role, look uncomfortably vulnerable to the old 'burning gasoline soaked rag' trick that takes out Leopard 1 tanks in minutes by overheating their engine?
That's of course assuming that those nice, juicy looking engine ports are in fact that, and not some decoy put there to attract attention - Something which I would be not at all surprised by given that it's an Israeli design ;)
Unselectivly.
Destroying bridges, leaving a million people wihtout power and water in the desert, during summer - now THAT is a crime.
First they go back into Gaza to get back one soldier, and now they bomb and invade Lebanon to get back two soldiers. Something doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense, the reaction isn't proportional to the action. There must be something else, some publically unknown reason for this, or else Olmert is just trying to look tough so he'll be taken seriously.
See, as much as I'd love to take the moral high ground here... if this were a British boy I'd be saying the same thing as Splinter. :nervous:
2.it makes the citizien to hate the terroists acts which causing them those situations.
Crazy people..
The Palestinian extremists and the Isreali government and military should all be rounded up and shot.
And then we wpould have peace.
There must be something else, some publically unknown reason for this,
There must be something else, some publically unknown reason for this,
Oh, come now, this has been culminating ever since 1973 when Israel was first faced with giving up land. Israel's given up more than enough land to the Palestinians and the other Arab nations, but the Arab world is still unsatisfied. They've been conducting terror attacks in Israel ever since the '73 war ended, and Israel is finally standing up and saying enough is enough. The Middle East would be a lot better without Hezbollah in power, and that's exactly what Israel means to accomplish.
Maybe "most Arabs" would be happy with Israel pulling back, maybe they wouldn't. But we're not talking about "most Arabs" here, are we? Hamas' charter includes the goal of utterly annihilating the state of Israel. This is the same Hamas that was elected into the Palestinian parliament. Now THAT's madness.
You speak about "unselectively" targeting civilains. So, I guess strapping some C4 stuffed with nails onto yourself and blowing yourself up in a shopping mall doesn't count, does it? What's worse: leaving people without power, or murdering them in cold blood? Like I said, Israel's done thier share to contribute to this whole mess, but in my eyes, at least, the blame scale tips pretty heavily onto a group of certain fanatics. Maybe with all of this, the majority of the Palestinian people will finally figure out that supporting the terrorists among them only results in suffering. If groups like Hamas and Hezbollah lost all public support, we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we?
Are you a lunatic, or just misinformed?I could ask you the same question....
I would agree you can't punish everyone for the actions of a few. On the other hand if a minority in country X is attacking country Y and country X is doing nothing about it, I call that an act of agression on the part of country X. Under those circumstances country Y is perfectly within it's rights to defend itself.
Aldo everything has 2 faces, ofcourse some people will now even want to make the terrorism even worse,but some, as i saied will hate the one who are resposible to why the war began. Its better than the default situation which evey civilian in lebanon support terrorism. the thing is, some of you like trashman for example is living in thier own peaceful reality, which gives you no right to judge israel acts(nor lebanon in that matter).
Crazy people..
The Palestinian extremists and the Isreali government and military should all be rounded up and shot.
And then we wpould have peace.
Every Israeli male is required to serve at least three years in the military, and women two, with some exceptions. By rounding up the entire government and military and killing them all isn't a solution--it's essentially genocide.
Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.I had the same thing on my mind. EXACTLY, the same thing.
I'm against Israel in this becosue they strike at the whole people. Unselectivly.
First they go back into Gaza to get back one soldier, and now they bomb and invade Lebanon to get back two soldiers. Something doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense, the reaction isn't proportional to the action. There must be something else, some publically unknown reason for this, or else Olmert is just trying to look tough so he'll be taken seriously.
Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.
Well, I do have to agree with Sandwich in some ways there, as I said about one of the towns in Iraq, whilst I don't always agree with what was going on, had it been British Empire occupiers about 40 years ago, rather than being a centre for 'problems', it would probably be a mass grave, knowing my countries attitude towards dissent at the time. I'm not saying that mollifies anyones actions, but had Israel been shelling in a truly indiscriminate manner, a lot more Lebanese civilians would be dead than already are.
I don't agree with what's going on, but I also do believe that Israel are trying to limit civilian casualties, but the longer this continues the higher that figure is going to creep, it's a sad inevitability.
I'm still pretty sure this is not the actions of the majority, it's minority acts and I'm pretty sure that most Lebanese will be as happy to see the back of Hezbollah as the Israelis, purely because they won't get shelled every day, but I still find myself wondering what, exactly, the Lebanese army can do against an entrenched enemy who even the Israelis are facing a drawn out and expensive battle to deal with, and they have, without doubt, the most advanced equipment in the region. You may find that demands for the Lebanese government take action about Hezbollah and their ability to actually do anything may be worlds apart.
had it been British Empire occupiers about 40 years ago, rather than being a centre for 'problems', it would probably be a mass grave, knowing my countries attitude towards dissent at the time.
And the government can't do anything really to stop them because it would cause civil war, so all they can do is give them some symbolic power in the hope of, I would expect, gradual democratisation leading to disarmament.
Not quite sure what was discussed beforehand, as I am just popping into this thread and have not read the previous pages, however I was discussing this with a few of my classmates here at JSA and we think this stands a serious chance of exploding into a worldwide conflict, and at the very least will involve the US. This war with Lebanon threatens to destabalize the entire region, as multiple alliances are called in and "freedom fighters" come to the call of the battle, creating a very WWI-esque situation.
See this is where the EU could really lay the foundations for a new Empire - go in and act as an ally to the elected government, mixed with units of the PA's army wipe out the "2nd-army" militant groups and then establish a permanent base within the territory. Install decent border security, entice western investors into the region, and voila - instant empire foundation. Just add 1tblsp balls.
NB: to be fair, Sandwich, it's not really 'what they wanted', is it? It's just moving settlements from one area of occupied territory, to another; reinforcing one position by weakening another. Especially if the border delinated by 'the wall' is annexing chunks of territory, or cutting off areas of economic importance, etc.
I would be interested to see how much better the EU would fare thanthe US at occupying and rebuilding Middle Eastern countries. At the very least it's take a while to replace all the propaganda.
NB: to be fair, Sandwich, it's not really 'what they wanted', is it? It's just moving settlements from one area of occupied territory, to another; reinforcing one position by weakening another. Especially if the border delinated by 'the wall' is annexing chunks of territory, or cutting off areas of economic importance, etc.
Erm, you do know that it's a major sore point and a big effing embarassment which is being swept under the carpet here that many of the displaced Gaza settlers are still living in hotels & tent cities around the country, right?
Doubt it. The US can not sustain another war ATM, especially not this close to an election (even if Bush can't get elected personally, he presumably wants to see a republican in the drivers seat which wouldn't happen after the inevitable public opinion nosedive another war would cause. Moreover, US involvment would draw attention, supplies and inevitably troops away from Iraq and Afghanistan which they can't really afford. Finally and critically, the US won't sacrafice what small amount of military flexibility it still has on what would be a rather pointless invasion that's sure to end in a "victory" (i.e. another Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq style quagmire), sucking up the last of the US's ability to do anything if someone like North Korea or Iran does something really stupid.
And if you rule out the US, there's not a single other major military power that would support Israel. Russia and China are snuggled up to the arabs, the EU and its major member countries aren't aggressive enough (and rightly so), nor traditionally close enough to Israel diplomatically, and Britain's in a smilar position to the US I suspect given its comittment to Iraq (though not as severe I suppose) (and yes, I know Britain is an EU member). Thus, unless something highly unlikely happens, the conflict's not going to extend beyone the middle east. The only possibilities I can see to bring outside forces in are a major terrorist attack by hezbollah in the US or a European country (whch would be, AFAIK, 100% against their MO) or someone firing rockets at cyprus to draw the EU in.
If it's a true world war you're worried about, worry about NK. They're not much of a threat, granted, but they're much closer to the kinds of flashpoints that can draw in major powers (i.e. they're capable of firing missiles against Taiwan, Japan, Russia, China, even the US).
Doubt it. The US can not sustain another war ATM, especially not this close to an election (even if Bush can't get elected personally, he presumably wants to see a republican in the drivers seat which wouldn't happen after the inevitable public opinion nosedive another war would cause. Moreover, US involvment would draw attention, supplies and inevitably troops away from Iraq and Afghanistan which they can't really afford. Finally and critically, the US won't sacrafice what small amount of military flexibility it still has on what would be a rather pointless invasion that's sure to end in a "victory" (i.e. another Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq style quagmire), sucking up the last of the US's ability to do anything if someone like North Korea or Iran does something really stupid.
You missed the point of what I said. I didn't say that the US would want to be drawn in, I said they would be. Their troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan would undoubtadly recieve reciprocal violence from this entire situation, them being concrete allies of Israel. Therefore, the US is left with three options; one, pull out unilaterally and immediately to avoid a war, two, stay in the area with the troops it has now, and get beaten to a pulp, or three, institute a draft, pour in troops to protect its holdings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and its ally, Israel, and maybe start the fuse to the Middle Eastern powder keg.
And I'm not saying that the other major powers would have to support Israel; China/Russia are very cosy to Iran, which is very cosy with Syria, which is very cosy with Lebanon. Like someone said prior; all it would take is one stray missile landing in Syria, then it all goes to hell.
And North Korea, honestly except for its nuclear policy, is not that much of a threat. Once it gains ICBM capability, then we're in serious trouble, but as of right now it controls no major resources and is not a threat in terms of conventional military. That's why the world leaders are ignoring everything about it except for its nuclear capabilities.
EDIT: Highlighted what was most important in my last statement.
Israel gets some Arab support,
As the fighting continued unabated, Lebanon sought support from fellow Arabs at an emergency session of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But sharp rifts erupted over as moderate Arab states denounced Hezbollah for starting the conflict.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called the guerrilla group's actions "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible," telling his counterparts: "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them."
Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
Another camp led by Syria defended Hezbollah as carrying out "legitimate acts in line with international resolutions and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance," delegates said.
Well that's good. But they wouldn't be protecting "a few idiots" in Iran or the Middle East - they'd be protecting their entire economy, and grabbing the rest of the world's economies by the neck. After all, what's in the Middle East but oil?
But anyway, that news looks good. Can you find the source if possible?
Anyway, it would effortlessly kill T-72s right and left.
Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
QuoteIsrael gets some Arab support,
As the fighting continued unabated, Lebanon sought support from fellow Arabs at an emergency session of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But sharp rifts erupted over as moderate Arab states denounced Hezbollah for starting the conflict.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called the guerrilla group's actions "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible," telling his counterparts: "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them."
Supporting his stance were representatives of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, delegates said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
Another camp led by Syria defended Hezbollah as carrying out "legitimate acts in line with international resolutions and the U.N. charter, as acts of resistance," delegates said.
(Ditto the F-22. You think Crays break a lot or something?)
And presumably the Lebanese would be more welcoming of foreigners, just so long as they're some third party? Not likely. The whole idea of putting "peackeepers" between two forces who want to knock the hell out of each other, Israel and Hezbollah, is absurd. Neither side would grant them any jurisdiction over the border areas, and they would at best be caught in the crossfire.
For my money, I think Israel will be fine as long as they confine their activites to Lebanon. But if they go after Syria, the **** will well and truly hit the fan, with not only Syria and Iran getting involved but also drawing a much sharper response from the Arab world. It's also funny how, just a year ago, the West was head over heels in love with the "Cedar Revolutionaries", those fresh-faced young democrats, all Western and secular and loveable, and now that bombs are falling on them, its all like "Huh? Lebanon? Oooh, you mean Hezbollah, right? Yeah, bomb them ****ers."
Bush: And thanks for the sweaters - I know you picked em out yourself...
Blair: Oh yes absolutely - in fact I knitted it!!!
(laughter)
Bush: What about Kofi Annan - he seems all right. I don't like his ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything sorts out.... But I think...
Blair: Yeah the only thing I think is really difficult is that we can't stop this without getting international presence agreed. I think what you guys have talked about which is the criticism of the [inaudible word]. I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.
Bush: Yeah I think Condi's [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] gonna go soon.
Blair: Well that's all that matters but if you... You see at least it gets it going.
Bush: I agree it's a process...I told her your offer too.
Blair: Well it's only if she needs the ground prepared as it were. If she goes out she HAS to succeed whereas I can just go and...
Bush: You see the irony is what they need to is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's all over...
Blair: Dunno... Syria....
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing...
Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah
Blair: Look - what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine. Iraq goes in the right way
Bush: Yeah - he's [indistinct]
Blair: Yeah.... He's had it. That's what all this is about - it's the same with Iran
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [indistinct] blaming Israel and [indistinct] blaming the Lebanese government....
That there's fascinating stuff. Thanks for the post Aldo.
Local paper mentioned something about an Iranian (or Iranian-made) missile having been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes...Hmmm, i've heard about the Syrian-made missile, but I haven't heard anything Iranian-made missiles anywhere...
Hang on I thought they were Chinese?
first what the news hasnt really said so far is the hezzbolah captured israli soldiers to try to levy a deal with the isralis about releasing some hezzbolah that they captured beforehand.
I think they are talking about the Katushka rockets? Russian made...not sure about the ones they are using but they are basically WWII era technology. The idea being to line up a whole bunch of mobile launchers and fire them in large numbers.Local paper mentioned something about an Iranian (or Iranian-made) missile having been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes...Hmmm, i've heard about the Syrian-made missile, but I haven't heard anything Iranian-made missiles anywhere...
Incidentally, it's interesting to note the Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to Israeli strikes, even thought they have taken casualties.
my grandfather lives in dubai and has told my mom about the almost random bombing of gas stations, petrol depots, airports, highways, claiming that these are all places where hezzbolah get their supplys from.
Quotemy grandfather lives in dubai and has told my mom about the almost random bombing of gas stations, petrol depots, airports, highways, claiming that these are all places where hezzbolah get their supplys from.
So if they are just randomly bombing some areas, then what is the real point to go there in the first place.
I think they are talking about the Katushka rockets? Russian made...not sure about the ones they are using but they are basically WWII era technology. The idea being to line up a whole bunch of mobile launchers and fire them in large numbers.Nah, i'm talking about the larger attack, creating considerably more damage than a classic Katyusha rocket is capable of, basically a missile, not a rocket: as in larger blast radius, more damage, ball-bearings, etc.. I recall that preliminary reports pointed to a Syrian missile. I have to admit I got this off the evening news and it was only preliminary reports, hence no linky.
Incidentally, it's interesting to note the Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to Israeli strikes, even thought they have taken casualties.
I'm not sure that's the best move for the Lebanese government. Personally, if I were the one calling the shots, I'd be milking this for all it was worth
"Israel claims to be attacking Hizbullah, but it has attacked civillians and government infrastructure. It is the government and people of Lebanon who are being punished for the actions of these renegades". Pump addresses like that out every day or so, then start deploying troops to protect what government infrstructure is left. The Israelis attrack the troops, and they overplay their hands, or they don't, they start to listen to reason, and they arrangde for war reparations and hopefully tone the **** down a bit.
Collective punishment. Apparently an increasingly weakened Lebanese government is going to be more likely to go after a militarily strong at-least-partially-publicly-supported militia force when it's infrastructure is under intense attack by a foreign power......
And then get bogged down in a situation ten times worse than Iraq?
I believe the term is striking while the iron is hot.
Go in. Sweep the place. When you're done give it to the UN to sort out. Precisely what they should have done in Iraq.
Go in. Sweep the place. When you're done give it to the UN to sort out. Precisely what they should have done in Iraq.
At which point the UN would say "**** you. You deal with it" just like they said to the US when they suggested that they help out in Iraq.
To handle situations like this, which is why the UN is discussing a possible peace keeping force for the region. The UN doesn't exist to give countries like Israel carte blance to go and **** up their neighbours and expect the UN to heal all wounds and mop up the leftovers; it exists to stop these situations before they get to that stage. That won't happen so long as the US continually vetos all UNSC resolutions that don't 100% back Israel.
maybe the veto wouldn't be used so much if most of those resolutions didn't come from muslim countries that would do anything to screw over israel...
Go in. Sweep the place. When you're done give it to the UN to sort out. Precisely what they should have done in Iraq.
At which point the UN would say "**** you. You deal with it" just like they said to the US when they suggested that they help out in Iraq.
I don't blame them for saying it. Like I wouldn't blame them if they said it to Israel too. The reasoning would be pretty much the same in fact.
And who's going to stop Israelis killing Palestinians?If countries like Syria get involve with this affair, we’ll have a domino effect leading us to a really big mess that may potentially be classified as World War 3. As we speak, politicians (the stupid ones) are already empathizing U.S. forces going in and raiding Syria. Though I highly doubt it will happen, I wouldn’t be shocked if it did either.
Remember that the number of deaths since this started is 10 times higher for Palestinians than Israelis.
The solution is simple-- relocate the entire population of Palestine to Nevada.
Then we have to deal with them. :(Yeah, but then the rest of the world doesn't have to. After all, the needs of the many...
Then we have to deal with them. :(Yeah, but then the rest of the world doesn't have to. After all, the needs of the many...
"nah, i mean, they gave us our land back, maybe theyre not so bad. im just gonna go watch tv."
And who's going to stop Israelis killing Palestinians?
wait.. why move the people that were there in the first place?
move the israelis, theyve only been there (actually been there) for about 60 years, just pick them up and move them, and leave the palestinians alone.
wait.. why move the people that were there in the first place?
move the israelis, theyve only been there (actually been there) for about 60 years, just pick them up and move them, and leave the palestinians alone.
South American country exists only due to a wholesale slaughter of the locals.
wait.. why move the people that were there in the first place?
move the israelis, theyve only been there (actually been there) for about 60 years, just pick them up and move them, and leave the palestinians alone.
3 pages ago, i talked about people who dont deserve to comment on this subject, you just fit exactly to my describtion.
just stfu.
Palestinians and other arabs will by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and stopping to feed their people anti-semitic propaganda. Arabs need to accept that Israel is there to stay, and that the jews will not be run into the sea and that they will not live as a second-class minority in a muslim country.
Its true aldo, though in that spesfic case i find idiotic comments like his offensive.
Beside, you knew why i commented that way, and if you didnt find his comment unhelpful/retarded/offensive and even repulsive to some people you are an idiot yourself. And i know you aren't,so that lead me to one conclusion only, stop spamming.
Im acctually using your suggestion now, i wont hold back when i would like to spam someone or make a comments that are unhelpful to most of society, because we dont live in a world where it is okay for peope to "dictate what others could and could not say".
Because,i wasnt aware about the other posts.
and took off pretty quickly while they absolutly rejecting using force to calm down both arabs and jews.
Dam it i will not go on a history fight agian, yes you are right it happend? gr8. now check the background, why did it happened?Quoteand took off pretty quickly while they absolutly rejecting using force to calm down both arabs and jews.
Hang on - the Israeli "independence" peeps waged a "terror" campaign against British troops, and killed a British MP with a letter bomb meant for his brother! What, were the British supposed to say: "Good show old boy, no hard feelings for waging a terrorist campaign against our troops and our civilians - lets all sit down and figure out how to sort this out what what?".
Perhaps more to the point the British had been out there a long time and knew that getting in the middle was tantamount to suicide.
Dam it i will not go on a history fight agian, yes you are right it happend? gr8. now check the background, why did it happened?Quoteand took off pretty quickly while they absolutly rejecting using force to calm down both arabs and jews.
Hang on - the Israeli "independence" peeps waged a "terror" campaign against British troops, and killed a British MP with a letter bomb meant for his brother! What, were the British supposed to say: "Good show old boy, no hard feelings for waging a terrorist campaign against our troops and our civilians - lets all sit down and figure out how to sort this out what what?".
Perhaps more to the point the British had been out there a long time and knew that getting in the middle was tantamount to suicide.
God i wish i could kill you(not in the good way though i acctually wish i could smash your head through a wall and then obviously loughing), the thing is you got me in the balls here, the only paragraphs i have are in hebrew ,those are summaries i used for my histroy test(2 units). i say bugger off i wont do your work, google it or something. best of luck and stop annoying me.
Not you vyper...
Sry m8, rushed through reading and ended up reading it the wrong way.
Though im not fustrated not at all, im just replying and posting some historic facts, to show people they cannot judge each side. I didnt say the israeli didnt do terror acts to the british, but your cause of the british for running away is absurd(The israeli terror),they had to get out quietly so a good relation will remain with the arabs,the israeli terror infact is not the reason they decided not to get involved(or help each side) , its one of the many reasons they decided to move the israel-question to the U.N. can i judge britan? no, so can you judge israel? hell no.
Perhaps more to the point the British had been out there a long time and knew that getting in the middle was tantamount to suicide.
Yes, but it would involve wholesale slaughter of civilians on both sides.
Exactly. You can't expect the UN to go in and clean up after Israels mess without having the right to clean Israel up as well. Otherwise they'll just keep doing this sort of thing and expecting the UN to solve the problems they create.
By that I don't mean ending the current conflict in southern Lebanon, I mean ending the entire conflict in a fairly decisive manner.
Exactly. You can't expect the UN to go in and clean up after Israels mess without having the right to clean Israel up as well. Otherwise they'll just keep doing this sort of thing and expecting the UN to solve the problems they create.
Yes. Because Israel is the country with military branches not under its control. We need the UN's help SO bad, because we just can't control those darn rogue branches of the IDF.
Yes. Because Israel is the country with military branches not under its control. We need the UN's help SO bad, because we just can't control those darn rogue branches of the IDF.
Well, you are devastating the civillian infrastructure of a neutral state for the actions of a 3rd party that happens to reside there.
The very fact that it is the government is behind this means that the UN should be able to sanction your country for doing it. But they can't because the second they try the US vetos the attempt. So why should the UN have to deal with the mess Israel will make in Lebanon but not have any right to censure Israel for their part in causing it in the first place?
Well, you are devastating the civillian infrastructure of a neutral state for the actions of a 3rd party that happens to reside there.
Israel left Lebanon in the summer of 2000. Lebanon has had 6 years to pull itself together and lay the smack down on Hezbollah, a large, "independant", heavily-armed force operating according to its own whims and wishes in Lebanon for many, many years. They didn't, and as a result, Hezbollah took actions against Israel so drastic that even the Arab nations have said they've gone too far.
The very fact that it is the government is behind this means that the UN should be able to sanction your country for doing it. But they can't because the second they try the US vetos the attempt. So why should the UN have to deal with the mess Israel will make in Lebanon but not have any right to censure Israel for their part in causing it in the first place?
Just an observation
(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00170/p1-210706_170715a.jpg)
Just an observation
(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00170/p1-210706_170715a.jpg)
My point exactly - if the majority of the world thinks something specific is right, then it probably isn't. :p
Israel's part in causing it? Did I miss something? Did Israel attack Lebanon before Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers? No, wait, we must have attacked before Hezbollah started raining katyushas down on us. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either.
Could you explain yourself?
So Israel puts up with terror attacks for near 30 years, ceding land to the Arabs all the way, and when they finally realize that none of the Arabs are going to be satisfied with just "getting land back," they do something to protect their civilians?
I must have missed the part where they gave the West Bank back then.
You can't give back part of what you've stolen and expect that to be the end of the matter. Israel has no right to the West Bank. Sooner they realise this fact the sooner this will all be over.
Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.Got a better solution?
You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time. :rolleyes:
Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.
You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time. :rolleyes:
Got a better solution?
Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.
You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time. :rolleyes:
Got a better solution?
This (Israels actions) isn't a solution.
Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?
It is a solution. It's not one you like, and it's not a good one, but it is a solution. Israel knows this is not going to end anything. They simply want to keep Katyushas out of Israel, and that, they can do. People are ascribing to Israel giant overarching goals like destroying Hezbollah that they do not have. As bad as it sounds, this is a limited offensive with limited goals.
If the UN does get involved, there are two actions that can reasonably bring this matter to a (semi)permanent conclusion. Both have to work. Both are kinda low on the probablity scale.
No peacekeeping effort. If UN forces go into southern Lebanon it should be with the sole intent of dismantling all Hezbollah efforts there and denying them further use of that area of the country. Perhaps somebody could convince the Lebanese to formally ask for UN assistance in dealing with Hezbollah; that would help tremendously, though whether or not the UN is allowed to do that I don't know. I don't think it's ever happened before.
Get Syria away from Iran, politically speaking. If you could get the Syrians to close their borders to Iranian traffic that would solve a lot of problems and reduce Hezbollah's support (or rather their support's ability to get to them) significantly. If at the very least the Syrians become cooler to Iran and less receptive to letting Hezbollah move freely back and forth across their country, that would be helpful. Right now what the other Arab nations fear is that Syria is going to deliever the Middle East into the hands of an Iranian religious hegemony. Considering the differences and troubles that have broken out in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ite, and the fact that Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East are on different sides of that split, this is not a pleasant thought to the rest of Arabdom.
Regarding the striking of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, I think everyone is missing the logic for doing so; Hezbollah is, technically speaking, composed of civilians as well. They use that infrastructure the same as normal citizens do, and if you want to seperate them from their infrastructure then you're going to end up doing the same to the local populace. The same thing has happened to some extent in every war since WWI. Even the military likes to use the highways.
Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?
Regarding the striking of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, I think everyone is missing the logic for doing so; Hezbollah is, technically speaking, composed of civilians as well. They use that infrastructure the same as normal citizens do, and if you want to seperate them from their infrastructure then you're going to end up doing the same to the local populace. The same thing has happened to some extent in every war since WWI. Even the military likes to use the highways.They also gather their members from that very same civilian population that probably doesnt love Israel a bit any longer (if it ever did) after the strikes against civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. And i would guess that current crisis guarantees that Hames and Hizbollah are not going to run out of recruits any time soon.
So you think this is going to end Hezbollah as a threat, recover those 2 soldiers, strengthen the Lebanese government enough to tackle said Hezbollah and weaken the position of Syria and Iran?
"We have only two options in Iraq: victory or defeat. And I want you to know, as members of the United States military, the American people do not support a policy of retreat of defeatism,"
This may be callous...but I'm of half a mind to let them just fight it out. It took Europe quite some time under the guise of modern warfare to finally realize that full out armed conflict just rains down death and destruction on your cities till there are only bits of rubble to pick up when the war is finished. Maybe then there will be peace because everyone is sick of fighting...maybe. I realize its a different dynamic.
Let me ask you this: if Israel goes give back the West Bank, is that going to be the end of the matter?
So you think this is going to end Hezbollah as a threat, recover those 2 soldiers, strengthen the Lebanese government enough to tackle said Hezbollah and weaken the position of Syria and Iran?
Considering the first paragraph, that's a particularly silly question. It's not like you not to read posts carefully, aldo.
This may be callous...but I'm of half a mind to let them just fight it out. It took Europe quite some time under the guise of modern warfare to finally realize that full out armed conflict just rains down death and destruction on your cities till there are only bits of rubble to pick up when the war is finished. Maybe then there will be peace because everyone is sick of fighting...maybe. I realize its a different dynamic.
thats a solution alright, though a really bad one.
Okay, but then who inherits the land? The Scientologists?!thats a solution alright, though a really bad one.
Why? They both had the chance to live in the land their respective magic sky-men promised them and they blew it.
In my mind I just see it as Europe has had quite enough of the wars over the last few hundred years that has ruined quite a few European nations and everyones been trampled on at some point. That culminated in World War II and with the threat of another war looming during the Cold War I just see the dynamic there in terms of geopolitics headed towards economics rather than war. I think its great that there isn't any looming wars for Europe right now. I think there are plenty of reminders in many European cities of how terrible the wars really were. I'm just wondering if the Middle East needs to ruin themselves to that level to finally get over whatever it is....again...the people always loose.This may be callous...but I'm of half a mind to let them just fight it out. It took Europe quite some time under the guise of modern warfare to finally realize that full out armed conflict just rains down death and destruction on your cities till there are only bits of rubble to pick up when the war is finished. Maybe then there will be peace because everyone is sick of fighting...maybe. I realize its a different dynamic.
Ice, I see what you're saying but its a COMPLETELY different dynamic. Germany was a wasteland, France had no military or government to speak of, the surrounding nations were economically bust due to either fighitng such a long war or being occupied; Britain had burned out the Empire trying to fight Germany. No one had the ability, let alone the will, to make war at this stage. With the development of the new superpowers Europe had to spend more time recovering, and making sure they chose the right side in the cold war, than blowing each other up. Once that was over, they still needed their collective power to have any sway in the world economy (with the appearance of the China and the other developing economic powers).
Not meaning to be pedantic, but it is a pretty poor example of people "choosing" to move away from violence. "Fighting it out" rarely ends the agression.
No one. We sink the entire place into the Med and give ourselves a second Suez Canal.How did we go from discussing a pressing modern political & military issue, to discussing supervillainy?!
So far, everything the terrorist organizations have done (Kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, assassination, Capture/kidnaping) I've seen Israel do on an even larger scale.
If Israel does give back the West Bank/Golan Heights/Gaza, then they do have something that they're sorely lacking at the moment: the moral high ground.
If keeping the palestinian territories result in violence, and giving the territories away would result in violence, at least Israel could wash its hands and say that it has done everything in its capacity short of ceasing to exist (which no one would seriously expect it to do) in helping palestinians on to their feet.
That would significantly weaken the position (moral and otherwise) of many of the political organizations against israel in the region, improve world opinion of israel, and give israel the authority to properly defend itself.
As for a solution to the problem:Agreed. But history also proves that when you strike and eliminate terrorism hotspots, such as the various explosives labs in Jenin, the attacks are reduced drastically. On the other hand, giving in to their desires (Gaza) just spawns more attacks.
Everyone here was talking about the American war in Iraq (and against Terrorism on the whole) only feeding the potential threats down the road. How for every terrorist you kill, 2 will rise from the collateral damage you cause. Israel is not some kind of magical exception.
If they would undertake serious humanitarian initiatives in the occupied territories, and showed the palestinian people that Israel was not out for their total annihilation or subjugation. Increasing the quality of life in the territories will give people a future, and give them something to lose. Reminds me of an old addage: "A man who has nothing to give can still give his life."
After all, how do you think entities such as Hamas and Hezbollah became so popular in their respected territories?
Firstly, we all know Israel can't end the Hezbollah threat with military might; to repeat a phrase used by a British officer about the Taliban it's like 'punching water'. no matter how hard you hit, it'll always ripple back. And that's something proven right many times through history.
And on top of that, the bombing of South Lebanon is scarcely going to dull any anger against Israel, is it? It's only going to strengthen Hezbollah, because we've seen time and time again that bombing campaigns force populations to band together rather than demoralise; the famous 'blitz spirit', for example. Sure, there are other ethnic religious groups that want rid of Hezbollah - but they always did. And all this is doing is weakening any possibility - if not already removed - for peaceful disarmament.
So far, everything the terrorist organizations have done (Kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, assassination, Capture/kidnaping) I've seen Israel do on an even larger scale.
There's killing civillians, and there's targeting civilians. And yes, I admit that according to all reports, we killed some of those civillians we told to flee. I have no clue why that happened; I've been out of touch with local news here, so I haven't heard any explanations, mistake or otherwise. But that is one instance - an exception - up against how many suicide bombings targeted on civilians... attacks which, I might add, are not "mistakes".
Destruction of infrastructure happens in any war. We just have more weaponry. I make no apologies for Israel's destruction of bridges, etc. You want to (figuratively) cry over a bridge? Go right ahead. I'll be laughing at the bomb-wrapped terrorists standing helplessly on the other side because they can't swim. :D
We did that. Gaza, remember? Israel's top military officers warned against it, that Gaza would become a breeding ground for terrorism, that we'd see Kassams falling on Askhelon and other cities. But we went ahead anyway, and whaddya know? It became a breeding ground for terrorism and Kassams started falling on Ashkelon and other cities. Sur-freakin-prise!- Creating a palestinian state is only part of the solution (Israel didn't even attempt helping palestinians politically organize in gaza). You seem to agree with the helping palestinians get on their feet, but have no problem with Israel dumping Palestinians in Gaza and calling it a day. They're still poor, radicalized, ripe for rebellion, and the land STILL isn't theirs. Their borders are controled by Israel and their ports are controled by Israel; its no wonder why Gaza is known as the world's largest prison. Without any sort of government, all the people that had failed them before stepped up to the plate and failed them again.
Call Gaza a trial run. We - and the rest of the world, if you'd bother to notice - saw what happens when you let them have free reign. Hell, HAMAS, the organization that had been denounced world-wide as a terrorist organization, was democratically voted into power. Hel-loooo?
Agreed. But history also proves that when you strike and eliminate terrorism hotspots, such as the various explosives labs in Jenin, the attacks are reduced drastically. On the other hand, giving in to their desires (Gaza) just spawns more attacks.
Firstly, we all know Israel can't end the Hezbollah threat with military might; to repeat a phrase used by a British officer about the Taliban it's like 'punching water'. no matter how hard you hit, it'll always ripple back. And that's something proven right many times through history.
Just like our invasion of Jenin in 2002 didn't cause any sort of noticable plunge in terrorist acts immediately afterward, right? Yeah. :rolleyes:
And on top of that, the bombing of South Lebanon is scarcely going to dull any anger against Israel, is it? It's only going to strengthen Hezbollah, because we've seen time and time again that bombing campaigns force populations to band together rather than demoralise; the famous 'blitz spirit', for example. Sure, there are other ethnic religious groups that want rid of Hezbollah - but they always did. And all this is doing is weakening any possibility - if not already removed - for peaceful disarmament.
In case you failed to notice, we were perfectly willing to wait Southern Lebanon out for 6 years. Wait for the situation to improve, for Hezbollah to perhaps lose moral standing in Lebanon because "Hey, Israel's not in Lebanon anymore!" But nothing changed, and then they started rocketing our towns and cities. F*** that. They had a chance at peace, at normalizing the situation. They want to screw with us? They'll learn that there's a heavy price to pay.
And yes, paying that price will generate more hatred of us. More Hezbollah recruitees. More anti-Israel sentiment. We can only hope that somewhere down the line, the blind and ignorant bleeding-hearts will get slapped in the face by someone with their eyes open to what's been happening, and realize that being "nice" doesn't fracking work with the Arab mindset - especially not when when fueled by the Islamic "First the saturday people, then the sunday people" way of thinking. They want us dead. They want you dead, too. I don't plan on giving in to those desires.
The Middle East is one giant, piece of crap that won't flush down the toilet, no matter how hard you try to plunger it.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit....it's the only way to be sure. :p
I mean, I remember figures showing a significant dip in terrorist activities concurring with negotiations during the Oslo accords....and this (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439) doesn't show any sort of long term decreasing trend concurring around 2002; just a spike in deaths followed by a return to the norm.
So why **** over an entire country for the crimes of a few thousand nutcases? What justifies 'turning the clock back 20 years' in response to a third party action? If, say, a Zionist terrorist group was to emerge, kidnap some (say) Egyptians or Syrians, would that be a casus belli for a war on Israel?
That graph is cumulative - it will never show a dip of any sort. But look through those graphs. Significant escalations in the angle of the line (cumulative is really a stupid and possibly misleading way of representing this kind of information IMO) on the Israeli side in Feb-March (when the series of bombings went off that triggered our Jenin offensive), followed by a near-flatlining in the months that follow (the result of knocking out so many explosives labs in Jenin and other places).
If Israel had repeated opportunity to deal with such a terrorist group and never did so - never even showed any desire to? If Israel continued to allow said group to launch repeated rocket attacks on Cairo or Damascus? Sure, I'd not be surprised if they took matters into their own hands.
This was very interesting: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
EDIT;The price of Israeli peace of mind.
what I mean is; this is bringing peace?
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_beirut_destruction/img/1.jpg)
Just the south.
...and yes I do condone the nuclear option on both of these hotbeds of religious fundamentalism.
Or we send them to the Ori.
Eep, that photo reminds me of the old pictures of London during WW2.
This is what this feels like: A never-ending war. The Battle that will never end, mainly because the Israelis are willing to Kill to stay alive, and because the arabs are willing to die to kill them. I don't think Peace is possible, mainly because you need a common ground for peace, and a level of acceptable losses. The Israelis will always reach a point where their losses become unacceptable, and they will push for Peace. Not for our side. Our acceptable losses are limitless, as long as we win. When your acceptable loss is your own death, what is there to compromise on?
Aldo: "This" was a page full of graphs. Perhaps you'd like to specify which graph(s) you were referring to? I think it's quite possible you misread or misattributed things on those graphs, possibly due to them not indicating exactly when Operation Defensive Shield took place.
Anyway, here's another link for you all to ignore: http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2122 :p
And from here (http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/07/20/the-never-ending-war/) (this guy's an Egyptian, I believe):QuoteThis is what this feels like: A never-ending war. The Battle that will never end, mainly because the Israelis are willing to Kill to stay alive, and because the arabs are willing to die to kill them. I don't think Peace is possible, mainly because you need a common ground for peace, and a level of acceptable losses. The Israelis will always reach a point where their losses become unacceptable, and they will push for Peace. Not for our side. Our acceptable losses are limitless, as long as we win. When your acceptable loss is your own death, what is there to compromise on?
Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious which one(s) i meant. (noting the march spike in deaths, of course)
(http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_5.gif)
(http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_6.gif)
an interesting aside one was this
(http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_14.gif)
Showing increased civillian deaths in March (the preceeding graphs also note greater responsibility for the Palestinian 'combatants' in this period; something criticised IIRC in various reports that were also condemning Israels actions at the time )
Um, what's the point of mentioning this?
This is what this feels like: A never-ending war. The Battle that will never end, mainly because the Israelis are willing to Kill to stay alive, and because the arabs are willing to die to kill them. I don't think Peace is possible, mainly because you need a common ground for peace, and a level of acceptable losses. The Israelis will always reach a point where their losses become unacceptable, and they will push for Peace. Not for our side. Our acceptable losses are limitless, as long as we win. When your acceptable loss is your own death, what is there to compromise on?
Yeah, crazy how many civilian deaths result when terrorists under attack hide amongst their own civvies.I'm seeing a lot of Israeli officials reiterating this, but i'm not seeing a whole lot of proof backing it up. I mean, i'm not sure who to believe; the Israelis shelling civilian areas saying Hezbollah is 'hiding' there, or the Palestinian civlians getting shelled by Israel saying Hezbollah 'cares' about them too much to hide amongst the civilian areas.
Sorry, I thought it was quite obvious which one(s) i meant. (noting the march spike in deaths, of course)
[]http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_5.gif[/]
[]http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_6.gif[/]
It's not the spike that is the topic here; it was the effectiveness of March's Op. Defensive Shield. And I think it's extremely clear that the trend in "people killed" (just civvies, or combatants too?) was on the rise well before that March, after which it headed downwards - for BOTH sides. Unfortunately, the graphs only show data up to Jan 2003, which was only a mere 3.5 years ago. But the point remains: Operation Defensive Shield broke the rising bodycount (at a price, to be sure) on BOTH sides.
an interesting aside one was this
[]http://www.ict.org.il/graphics/GraphPics/Graph2_14.gif[/]
Showing increased civillian deaths in March (the preceeding graphs also note greater responsibility for the Palestinian 'combatants' in this period; something criticised IIRC in various reports that were also condemning Israels actions at the time )
Yeah, crazy how many civilian deaths result when terrorists under attack hide amongst their own civvies. March was just that period of time when we decided that stopping the terrorism was more important than preserving Palestinian lives. And I can sleep just fine with that, since I wasn't the one hiding behind my own people.
Um, what's the point of mentioning this?
Besides showing you guys some Arab / Muslim viewpoints?
Let me emphasize what I avoided emphasizing before:
Yeah, crazy how many civilian deaths result when terrorists under attack hide amongst their own civvies.I'm seeing a lot of Israeli officials reiterating this, but i'm not seeing a whole lot of proof backing it up. I mean, i'm not sure who to believe; the Israelis shelling civilian areas saying Hezbollah is 'hiding' there, or the Palestinian civlians getting shelled by Israel saying Hezbollah 'cares' about them too much to hide amongst the civilian areas.
And how many terrorists/Hezbollah were hiding in those two red cross ambulances that blasted to shreds by Iraeli gunships?
Well the world isn't "right" is it. It's all well and good having morals but when the other guy doesn't they're always going to get the better of you unless you stoop to their level. I'm 100% behind the Israelis on this.
Does that justify targeting the civillian population with high explosives in response to a third party action?
Does that justify targeting the civillian population with high explosives in response to a third party action?
They're not "targetting civilians" and you know it. So I won't even bother answering that.
Israel has openly admitted to targeting civilian areas - and by extension the civilians dwelling within - because they believe Hezbollah is hiding within these areas, so answer away.Does that justify targeting the civillian population with high explosives in response to a third party action?
They're not "targetting civilians" and you know it. So I won't even bother answering that.
because they believe Hezbollah is hiding within these areas, so answer away.
Then what do you call targeting the civillian infrastructure?
Then what do you call targeting the civillian infrastructure?
I call it targetting Lebanon's infrastructure :wtf:
Inappropriate prefixing of the word "civilian" aside, Israel clearly believe the country's infrastructure supports those who would attack them and thus is a fair target. It's one of their more debatable decisions but under the circumstances I'm not going to condemn them for it.
So anyway. This thread needs to die now. Everyone has said their bit and are just labouring points now.
They're targeting civilian areas where they think Hezollah is hiding amongst civilians. Regardless of whether or not Hezbollah is actually hiding there, which remains open to debate, the fact of the matter is that Israel is targeting civilians in their attacks, thereby invalidating your earler statement that they are doing no such thing.because they believe Hezbollah is hiding within these areas, so answer away.
So they're targetting Hezbollah then. :wtf:
Everyone has said their bit and are just labouring points now.
If Hez really wanted the best for their people, why hide amongst a population centre expecting some sort of all encompasing safety net, They're just bring the consequences down on innocents, At least have the balls to go away and take it like a man. Dont allow innocents to fall by the hand meant for you...
Right, would the people saying "ZOMG! Thread death is upon us!" just butt out? The thread was doing just fine and this kind of crap just qualifies as "PostCount++;".
Now back to the matter at hand:
Israel is to create a border zone in Lebanon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5214046.stm). They're willing to let international peacekeepers run it. My worry is this: we end up bogged down worse than Iraq and with no exit strategy. Thoughts?
One really really weird thing that I've noticed on TV - for some weird reason, in some of the casualty reports the media is putting out, the Hezbollah are being put in the "civilian" category! I heard somebody say that in some Lebanese villiage, "30 civilians have been killed, INCLUDING SEVERAL HEZBOLLAH FIGHTERS. Since when are the terrorists civilians? :confused:
How the hell will they know who was a "terrorist" or who wasn't?
Since when are the terrorists civilians? :confused:
What excuse is that?
Since when are the terrorists civilians? :confused:
Terrorists are civilians.
Unless, of course, Terrorland now has a standing army.
srael has openly admitted to targeting civilian areas - and by extension the civilians dwelling within - because they believe Hezbollah is hiding within these areas, so answer away.
I believe he's making the distinction between the bystanders caught in the crossfire and those working with Hezbollah.
I believe he's making the distinction between the bystanders caught in the crossfire and those working with Hezbollah.
I don't really think you can make a distinction between civilian and civilian, as though there are 'bad civilians' you kill and 'good civilians' you save.
Regardless, you can't fight ideas with bullets. That's the problem here; easy enough to reduce Nazi Germany to rubble, but can you do the same to an anti-Western ideology? Can you fight a war against an enemy with no soldiers?
They're targeting civilian areas where they think Hezollah is hiding amongst civilians. Regardless of whether or not Hezbollah is actually hiding there, which remains open to debate, the fact of the matter is that Israel is targeting civilians in their attacks, thereby invalidating your earler statement that they are doing no such thing.
but you can still destroy Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
*snip*Oh, I know that Israel isn't targeting civilians alone, otherwise there would be - as you say - a hell of a lot more casualties. What i'm saying is that they are indirectly targeting innocent civilians becuase of their belief that Hezbollah must be hiding amongst them. All I want is some proof for that assertion, a bit of evidence that Hezollah is without a doubt using Palestinian civilians as 'shields' as you say. Not to mention a bit of proof that targeting civilian infrastructure is actually the most effective [it's obviously not really the right thing to do, but since when did right & wrong enter into War] thing to do?
Israeli bomb kills UN observers
Four UN obserevers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland either dead or missing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm
****ing big "Oops"?
Well, who the hell put UN observers in the middle of a warzone? In you're going to put troops between Israel and Hezbollah and expect them to have a life expectancy longer than half an hour, they better be Rambo^2.Just so you know, that UN bunker had been there for ten years. What does that tell of the level of IDF intelligence? And why was it shelled 14 times before one shot hit and blasted the bunker?
It's like the guy who beat another person with a loaded shotgun. In court, the guy was charged with Attempted Murder, but in a precedent-setting ruling, his lawyer got him Aggravated Assault - and for once, it made perfect sense. Why? The argument was that the guy had a loaded shotgun, and had he actually been trying to kill the other person, he could have simply shot him. The fact that he didn't - when he could have - indicated to the judges that the guy was not trying to kill the other person.
The lesson here is that if you want to beat somebody up with a projectile weapon, make sure it's loaded - if not, you may have no basis on which to prove a claim of Aggravated Assault, and may be charged with Attempted Manslaughter.
OMG I can't believe this thread is still going :eek2:
What is this thread hoping to achieve? Is anyone actually deriving any enjoyment out of it? Who else things this thread needs to :headz:
I'm a caring person. I hate to see people winding themselves up for no good reason.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Its a bit extreme i grant, But its their choice, their couintry and their right to defend, as is Hez's right to defend themselves. I suppose attrition may come into it soon......
That still doesn't give them the right to bomb the UN. :PAwwww, what are they going to do about it? :rolleyes:
Stupid thing you just saied.Israel is not an 8 year old boy.I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's not that Israel is trying to kill civilians its that they don't care how many they kill as long as they kill some people from Hezbollah too. The only thing that does prevent civilian casualties is the bad PR it would give them.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has protested to the US about its use of a Scottish airport to transport bombs to Israel.
Amid the Lebanon crisis, Mrs Beckett said it seemed the US was not following the right procedures over arms flights.
Wait, the US is actively supplying arms to Israel during a crisis pretty much the entire world is opposed to?
Israel says diplomats' decision not to call for a halt to its Lebanon offensive at a Middle East summit has given it the green light to continue.
"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.
He said that in order to prevent casualties amongst Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in.
'All southerners terrorists'
He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there can be considered Hezbollah supporters.
"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.
Exactly. But then, they can't exactly solve the problem overnight, and it'd be a tenuous issue indeed to try to take veto powers away from the permanent members.
Actually a frequent complaint leveled at both sides is that they are acting like children.Didnt call u stupid.
And if you insist on calling people stupid just cause they disagree with you without offering any counter argument I'm going to be forced to conclude that you're simply covering for the fact that you don't actually have a counter argument.
For example this is why we released an announcement to leave some vilages because they will be attack soon, and we didnt do it for the terroists im sure.No, they told those civilians to leave the village so the their Airforce would have a nice, clean target as the people ran, rather than having to waste ordinance destroying every building in the village.
*snip*Oh, I know that Israel isn't targeting civilians alone, otherwise there would be - as you say - a hell of a lot more casualties. What i'm saying is that they are indirectly targeting innocent civilians becuase of their belief that Hezbollah must be hiding amongst them. All I want is some proof for that assertion, a bit of evidence that Hezollah is without a doubt using Palestinian civilians as 'shields' as you say. Not to mention a bit of proof that targeting civilian infrastructure is actually the most effective [it's obviously not really the right thing to do, but since when did right & wrong enter into War] thing to do?
Israeli bomb kills UN observers
Four UN obserevers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland either dead or missing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm
****ing big "Oops"?
It's not that Israel is trying to kill civilians its that they don't care how many they kill as long as they kill some people from Hezbollah too. The only thing that does prevent civilian casualties is the bad PR it would give them.
First off, Hezbollah is in Lebanon, Syria, etc. Palestinians are in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Hamas would be the terrorist organization entwined among the Palestinians, and the Lebanese would be the civvies that the Hezbollah is entwined among. Just so we're clearWhoops, yeah, noticed that. Well, that's what I get for making a post on politics at 2am whilst FREDing. :rolleyes:
Now, you say you want proof? Nitpicking here, but do you realize what an absurd desire that is? The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A. Anything else would be you relying upon the claims of someone else, which cannot be construed as proof in your own mind.Please. Stop twisting my words. I wasn't asking for unequivocal proof that each and every civilian that has been killed was or was not a member of Hezbollah, I merely asked for the evidence upon which the Israeli military was basing the assertion that Hezbollah are hiding within civilian areas. I was asking not to make a point, but just because I couldn't find the evidence they were using myself. Sheesh.
Ok, so I'll stop nitpicking now, and assume you mean that you want to hear reasoning and stated "facts" that detail everything from the identification of certain people as Hezbollah thru to their retreating back amongst civillians. Right?
I mentioned this before as well (although in relation to Gaza and that family that got wiped out on the beach... :( ), but for every strike that is authorized, at least 10 don't make the cut due to civilian presence.
The only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.
QuoteThe only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.
Yes Sandwich, that's called Intelligence Gathering. It's a funny thing you do in war to avoid killing the wrong people, and make sure you kill more of the right people.
I mentioned this before as well (although in relation to Gaza and that family that got wiped out on the beach... :( ), but for every strike that is authorized, at least 10 don't make the cut due to civilian presence.
PR.
QuoteThe only way you can get "proof" is by being up there, seeing a group of terrorists launch a rocket at Israel, and follow them back to Civvie Area A.
Yes Sandwich, that's called Intelligence Gathering. It's a funny thing you do in war to avoid killing the wrong people, and make sure you kill more of the right people.
I'm sure the IDF understands the difference between a target with heavy civilian presence with little strategic value than a target with some civilian presence and a high strategic value, such as Hezbollah HQ in Beirut. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is essentially making much of Southern Lebanon a high-priority strategic target because of its widespread presence in the region.
While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.
While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.
Read the first half of my post and you'll get where I'm coming at. Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets from areas with civilian concentration, essentially condemning their countrymen to death when the IDF comes along to take care of the rocket launchers. Believe it or not, the IDF has more of a responsibility to defending Haifa and its other cities than to ensuring that civilians around the rocket launchers are out of harm's way; the Lebanese civilians aren't the only civilians feeling the effects of this, y'know.
I would be a little less caustic if Hezbollah was aiming for high-value military installations, ground forces, or Rictor's reservist soldiers, but they're instead firing blindly into highly-populated Israeli cities with the pure intention of wreaking chaos and panic; that's why they're called terrorists.
While still killing over 600 people who probably had nothing to do with said rocket launchers. It's a disproportionate response and you know it.
Read the first half of my post and you'll get where I'm coming at. Hezbollah chooses to launch rockets from areas with civilian concentration, essentially condemning their countrymen to death when the IDF comes along to take care of the rocket launchers. Believe it or not, the IDF has more of a responsibility to defending Haifa and its other cities than to ensuring that civilians around the rocket launchers are out of harm's way; the Lebanese civilians aren't the only civilians feeling the effects of this, y'know.
I would be a little less caustic if Hezbollah was aiming for high-value military installations, ground forces, or Rictor's reservist soldiers, but they're instead firing blindly into highly-populated Israeli cities with the pure intention of wreaking chaos and panic; that's why they're called terrorists.
You could make - I think a very strong one - argument that doing so isn't any different from 'turning the clock back 20 years' on Lebanon, that such attacks aside from a terrorism purpose also have a legitimate (or at least as legitimate as bombing escape routes to Syria, power stations or the airport) purpose of damaging the Israeli economy (forcing towns and cities to shut down in response) and thus ability to wage prolonged war. In that context, surely you'd have to ask - were the Allies and Axis in WW2 terrorists, or just practicing the best military tactics available to them?
Or maybe Israel isn't composed of cold-hearted bastards that want to kill civilians, as most of the world makes them out to be?
I'm sure the IDF understands the difference between a target with heavy civilian presence with little strategic value than a target with some civilian presence and a high strategic value, such as Hezbollah HQ in Beirut. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is essentially making much of Southern Lebanon a high-priority strategic target because of its widespread presence in the region.
For someone who looks at a group's need for PR, I would have expected that you would've noticed what Hezbollah's doing: embedding themselves in the civilian population, firing off rockets, and then running when the IDF comes after them. The result: some civilians dead, Hezbollah retaliates and is lauded for being protectors of the people from the Israelis. See? Hezbollah is indirectly condemning their own countrymen to death for PR.
I wonder how the opinion of some of you guys might be different if... say... your son or daughter had been killed by a Hezbollah rocket whilst the Lebanese goverment sat their twiddling their thumbs and looking in the other direction. I have this theory that you peace at all cost types that are most likely to cause WW3. I can't be bothered to argue either point though :P.
If Hezbollah are not representative of the country they are operating in then it is a civil matter plain and simple. Israel should be supporting the government in removing Hezbollah not invading and attacking the very government whose job it is to deal with these people.
So Hezbollah are complete wankers for doing that. What's your point? Has anyone said anything that would lead you to believe that this was even an argument worth making?
We all know Hezbollah are a bunch of terrorist wankers. But does that mean that Israel should start acting like terrorists and meting out collective punishments in return? Surely that makes them wankers too?
Maybe you don't quite recall, but the Lebanese government and military was entirely outgunned and overpowered by Hezbollah in the beginning. If the government wanted to do anything to stop Hezbollah, they simply couldn't have; they didn't have the means to.
You can't simply expect the Lebanese government, which in itself is still recovering from the Syrian occupation, to fight Hezbollah effectively. We already know that Syria aids Hezbollah, and that Syria occupied Lebanon for some time. Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government and military, was supplied by the Syrian government during the occupation, and when Syria withdrew, Hezbollah emerged as the dominant force in the country.
I'm saying as long as you're considering Israel's restraint in attacking civilians as a sheer PR move, then why not condemn Hezbollah for pulling off a sheer PR move that results in innocent Lebanese civilians being killed? Of course, I see you have, and that was my whole point of bringing up the argument.
Again, as somebody said earlier in the thread (I believe it was BR), Hezbollah are still essentially civilians too, albeit well-supplied and well-armed. They make just as much use of power plants, roads, and buildings as the Lebanese caught in the crossfire do. Once Hezbollah is disarmed or otherwise forced out of Lebanon, then an international force led by the UN can step in and help rebuild Lebanon's civilian infrastructure.
I hate to break it to you, but there was no real mess-free way of handling this. Syria ****ed up Lebanon with supplying Hezbollah, and now Israel has to get its hands dirty for what Syria did. Once Hezbollah is out of the country and power and stability is returned to the Lebanese government and military, then Israel shouldn't be concerned about its neighbor to the north.
Hezbollah are a terorist organisation operating in Southern Lebanon. They aren't democratically elected and they aren't doing what they do with the consent of the majority of the Lebanese people. You could make the same argument that the IRA were in Northern Island as an excuse for sending the tanks into NI and it would be just as wrong there.
If Hezbollah are not representative of the country they are operating in then it is a civil matter plain and simple. Israel should be supporting the government in removing Hezbollah not invading and attacking the very government whose job it is to deal with these people.
I disagree. First of all, they (with allies) hold about 1/4 of the seat in the Lebanese parliament. Secondly, I've read recent surveys which say that something like 75%-80% of Lebanese sympathize with hezbollah. It may not be a peticularly appealing concept, but Hezbollah does indeed enjoy widespread support, just like Hamas.
So, **** hit the fan this morning eh?The **** has not so much hit the fan as the fan has been buried in 10 tonnes of excrement air-dropped from a very high height
:no:
Thats all i have to say, as sandwich said above me, there was an unexplained time-gap the the IAF cant
explaine. As the IAF said they were reacting to the launching that was happing in that area(showed evidence of missles launching from there aswell), The third strike was the one happend in that area. The IAF though cant explaine how 7 hours after the strike the building had another explosion and collapsed. How the hell in that 7 hours after the strike there were still children and women (the suprising thing no men there,i mean WTF) there that didnt run out, our human insticnt say we should run after somethling like that happens. People in here speaking of consiparcy with so many question, 7 hours later?,only women and children?,maybe its a stock of missles that got trigged 7 hours later and made the building collapse,maybe its a scheme to make the world pressure israel and therfore let the terroist regather thier forces, or maybe it really happend from the israel strike.Either way shame, but that gives no excuse to stop IAF for a duartion of 48 hours, such a bad decision.
Is there an online version of that story mate? I couldn't find one myself.
So wait a second. Now we're hearing the story that people in Lebanon waited until a building had been shelled, filled it with their own women and children and then collapsed it so as to cause widespread international condemnation?
No wonder Israel finds it so easy to get people to support the invasion if they can get people to buy that kind of paranoid fantasy.
It was basically analysing the Israeli broadsheets and pointed out how the Israelis were being shown a different war to the rest of the world, with little or no reporting of civillian casualties, the massive international criticism, the aid crisis, etc. It was quite shocking, really, because it did appear there was very little 'balanced' reporting of the consequences, even in comparison to how British papers cover/ed the war in Iraq.
Finally, a quote matching the stupidity of 'this is an act of war' in relation to the Gitmo suicides.Cant find why though, please enlight me why .Or are u just mad i called u a retard 3 pages ago?
Finally, a quote matching the stupidity of 'this is an act of war' in relation to the Gitmo suicides.Cant find why though, please enlight me why
So wait a second. Now we're hearing the story that people in Lebanon waited until a building had been shelled, filled it with their own women and children and then collapsed it so as to cause widespread international condemnation?
No wonder Israel finds it so easy to get people to support the invasion if they can get people to buy that kind of paranoid fantasy.
Or are u just mad i called u a retard 3 pages ago?
I believe Kara explained it succinctly;So wait a second. Now we're hearing the story that people in Lebanon waited until a building had been shelled, filled it with their own women and children and then collapsed it so as to cause widespread international condemnation?
No wonder Israel finds it so easy to get people to support the invasion if they can get people to buy that kind of paranoid fantasy.
:no:
Thats all i have to say, as sandwich said above me, there was an unexplained time-gap the the IAF cant
explaine. As the IAF said they were reacting to the launching that was happing in that area(showed evidence of missles launching from there aswell), The third strike was the one happend in that area. The IAF though cant explaine how 7 hours after the strike the building had another explosion and collapsed. How the hell in that 7 hours after the strike there were still children and women (the suprising thing no men there,i mean WTF) there that didnt run out, our human insticnt say we should run after somethling like that happens. People in here speaking of consiparcy with so many question, 7 hours later?,only women and children?,maybe its a stock of missles that got trigged 7 hours later and made the building collapse,maybe its a scheme to make the world pressure israel and therfore let the terroist regather thier forces, or maybe it really happend from the israel strike.Either way shame, but that gives no excuse to stop IAF for a duartion of 48 hours, such a bad decision.
I find it pretty clear what is being insinuated; blame the victim, deny responsibility, conspiracy, blame the victim..... in that order.
I find it pretty clear what is being insinuated; blame the victim, deny responsibility, conspiracy, blame the victim..... in that order.
Yeah, pretty much. If true, is that a bad thing? If you're falsely accused of something, do you not defend yourself?
None of us are denying IDF responsibility in the Qana disaster. All we're saying is that nobody has yet explained the 7-8 hour time gap. Investigations are under way, and I'd prefer to wait until the smoke clears (no pun intended) before reaching a conclusion. Since, as we all know, the claims of Islamic terrorists do not always (http://pqarchiver.nypost.com/nypost/access/114306711.html?dids=114306711:114306711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+17%2C+2002&author=&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=028&desc=THE+MASSACRE+THAT+WASN%27T) match (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/218vnicq.asp) reality (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687909/posts).
Yeah, pretty much. If true, is that a bad thing? If you're falsely accused of something, do you not defend yourself?
What the hell has that got to do with blaming the victim? It's like blaming a guy who was shot for jumping in front of a bullet.
No-one has even verified an 8 hour gap; local eyewitness reports say it took place instantly (single bomb, ten min gap, second bomb and the the collapse).
Sadly my last edit got nixed by the stupid little bottom RHS button thing (gah), but just look at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html for example; this is the kind of bias I've been talking about, look at how little attnetion it gives to the casualties, international reaction, i.e. anything beyond the IDF claims of justification-stroke-innocence.
My point is that they have inflated ther own reports before, as well as shown a callous disregard for human life. I'm not blaming anyone until we find out what happened when, all I'm saying is that I find it concieveable that it could be a conspiracy. If you have a problem with what I think is possible, then you have the problem, not me. ;)
And BTW, it wasn't "blame the victim", it was "blame the Hezbollah".
Ahh, I see what may be the problem. It's partly cultural, partly because it's local vs. world news.
Cultural, because Israelis don't like dancing around a topic - they get right to the point. Short and succinct.
That matters because of the local vs. world news factor. We're reporting on this stuff that's happening in our national backyard, so to speak, so it is getting a LOT of media attention. Not just headlines, but most of the other reports, too. This means that the apparent disregard in that article for the Lebanese casualties, the horror, the disaster, etc, is not disregard at all. That article is simply about the time gap, not the Qana disaster.
This article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283311,00.html) is about the Qana disaster.
And yes, we all know that the time gap has not been verified yet. That's why I'm reserving judgement.
So not 'take responsibility'? Me, I'd think the automoatic presumption would be - Israeli bomb hits building, building collapses, it's probably down to the IAF.
but even if you look at that article, by the 5th or 6th paragraph it's moving onto the justification and whatnot for the strike. There's nary a mention of the massive international outcry and condemnation, and the only exterior news source mentioned is Al-Jazeera, who clearly will be easier for the reader to ignore as 'biased'.
Finally, a quote matching the stupidity of 'this is an act of war' in relation to the Gitmo suicides.Cant find why though, please enlight me why .Or are u just mad i called u a retard 3 pages ago?
But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?
That was our automatic presumption as well, and we apologized for the matter. No, apologies don't really cover things like that, I know. But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?
Ok, Aldo? Gimme a break. You want everything on one single article? I said already, this is our life, and the reporting related to it is vast and detailed. One look at the main News section of that site should satisfy your desire to see that "Hey, yes, us Israelis are shown what the rest of the world thinks of us."
I mean, seriously, what do you expect? Us to cram EVERYthing about this war between Israel and the Hezbollah into one single article? Of course not - I don't think for a moment that you'd really expect that. So why all the grief just because any given article doesn't cover everything there is to be said about this issue?
BTW, who was looking for evidence that Katyushas were being fired from that building?
Aldo if you ever going to blame or point a finger to anyone try to explain why, its just getting the other side confused,angry and so on, if you cant or fell 2 lazy to post why one-man post is idiotic in your taste fell free to not-posting.
I never denyed the IAF responsibltiy , you people are putting words in my mouth and rumble on for 2 pages about it without me even having a chance to reply.
next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something
next time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something i heared
Well it certainly looked like you were replying to me, consdiering the fact that my post was only 3 post above, considering that you replyed to the conspiarcy which only i untill that time talked about.
Ah, here we go, front and center. I wonder how soon non-Israeli news sources will run this story.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744332.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292036218&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
The summary is that the IDF struck the building that collapsed between 12am and 1am local time, and yet the building only collapsed at 8am. They are so far unable to explain the time gap.
so yes you did replyed to me oh here is a simple thing that will come along with my posts to you from now on:Quotenext time read agian and reply untill you are certain if i posted a fact or an opnion or something
So the international condemnation is relegated to a (very much optional) side-story, which is my whole point.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).
This article, on the other hand, is all about condemning Israel and implying that Israel bombed the building for no other reason than to slaughter Lebanese civilians.
If you have two criminals. One murders people while the other murders them then rapes the dead bodies. Does that make the first one any less guilty in any way? Could the first one in his trial say "But I didn't rape the dead bodies so you shouldn't accuse me of any crime!"
Pointing at someone else and saying "But he's worse" is no defence when it comes to this matter.
Furthermore the fact is that this offensive has killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Does that mean that if the terrorists only targetted military targets and did apologise after killing civilians that would make them better than you?
QuoteThat was our automatic presumption as well, and we apologized for the matter. No, apologies don't really cover things like that, I know. But let's keep a single standard here; has any terrorist organization ever apologized for killing or injuring Israeli Arabs in their targeting of Israeli Jews?
What exactly is your point, here?
So the international condemnation is relegated to a (very much optional) side-story, which is my whole point. Every neutral party reporting of the story includes international response, not sidelining it as a 'special section' type arrangement. One of the most important factors - the geopolitical implications (something that only serves to strengthen the influence of Hezbollah - is simply omitted from the main story item.
For example, contrast the first link to the initial BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm).
On a side note, Fear, this may be the time to take a breather and just leave the thread alone. You don't have to blow a stack at kara or aldo just because they're arguing the opposite opinion and you don't like it.I was just thinking about the same things toward them, i am angry i have proven why, im waiting kara to prove that he didnt replyed to me.
Perhaps you should read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm if you want information about - shockingly - the current crisis.
EDIT2; not to mention Hezbollah is killing nowhere near the amount of civillians that Israel is, which is why Israel killing civillians will be appearing more prominently; I mean, it's not like we value one civillian life in one country over another, is it?
That we presumed it was an IAF strike that brought down the building and killed all those innocent Lebanese, and apologized for it. But we also haven't managed to reach any sort of final conclusion on what exactly brought down the building, so I refuse to lay blame on either side.
Wait a second there, i only read the headline(could be a problem though) but all it metioned in the links sand gave is the time-gap, while in your post you talked about filling the building with women and children,and collapsing it for "widespread international condemnation" which was only mentioned in my post as something people have been wondering about here. Puff. oh so yea, you posted to me.
It's not supposed to be a defense at all. It's a cry for equal standards to be applied to Israel and the rest of the world. And no, I'm not really expecting my cry to be answered. I just toss it out there so that hopefully, someone somewhere will start to wonder why indeed such a double-standard is applied when it comes to Israel.
Where is the international condemnation and media-wide uproar at the literally (I do not exaggerate) hundreds of rockets hitting northern Israel, hmm?
It does not report what is as yet groundless speculation (with as much evidence as claiming Israel deliberately targeted that building), no, but are you suggesting news-agencies should not show images of the true cost of this war? And yet the article you link yourself - and I'd advise you to look at the dates - does mention exactly that 'missile base' type arguement.Perhaps you should read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm if you want information about - shockingly - the current crisis.
I see nowhere on that page or in any of its articles that this may have been an intelligence foul-up or that Hezbollah was indeed using that or any adjacent buildings as a launch point. Even the article reporting the investigation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5229932.stm) gave no arguments for this; only emotional images that suggest that Israel intended to murder 50+ civilians, including children, in cold blood.
QuoteEDIT2; not to mention Hezbollah is killing nowhere near the amount of civillians that Israel is, which is why Israel killing civillians will be appearing more prominently; I mean, it's not like we value one civillian life in one country over another, is it?
True, but exploding the fact that 50+ civilians died in an air raid while the survivors are utterly grief-stricken but not mentioning that several hundred residents of Haifa are being treated for shock and shrugging off Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel shows some element of bias, no?
QuoteThat we presumed it was an IAF strike that brought down the building and killed all those innocent Lebanese, and apologized for it. But we also haven't managed to reach any sort of final conclusion on what exactly brought down the building, so I refuse to lay blame on either side.
True. To use someone else's argument from earlier, the WTC towers stood for nearly an hour after being hit, and then they collapsed. For a Lebanese building to stand for nine hours after being bombed nearly as intensely the survivors described would make that building an absolute feat of engineering. Make of it what you will, but I think there's a little more going on than what's been reported.
The reason you get international condemnation is because we expect Israel to act to a higher standard than a bunch of terrorists. You're a soverign nation not a bunch of terrorists with a stupid racist ideology. Are we being unfair by expecting you to act to the standard that requires? If you want fairness and balance then should we claim that Israel are wankers too and cease to be surprised at their general bad behaviour? Should we sanction you? Should we freeze your international accounts? Cause that's what we do to Hezbollah for their general wankeryness.
It does not report what is as yet groundless speculation (with as much evidence as claiming Israel deliberately targeted that building), no, but are you suggesting news-agencies should not show images of the true cost of this war? And yet the article you link yourself - and I'd advise you to look at the dates - does mention exactly that 'missile base' type arguement.
Intelligence foul up != Israel sinking to the level of Hezbollah.
The IAF claims that they had no prior knowledge of the civilians in the building, and I, for one, am willing to believe them. They also claim that Hezbollah was launching rockets from the same building occupied by 50+ civilians, and I believe them. Why the world is off on Israel for this incident is beyond me; they were targeting rocket launchers, and they got the rocket launchers, without prior knowledge of civilians inhabiting the buildings.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah intentionally and with the full knowledge of civilian presence, fires rockets into crowded Israeli cities with the intent of creating panic and terror. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't claim that the IAF's bombing of the Qana building, which Israel had not known was inhabited by anything but Hezbollah rocket launchers, and the subsequent, accidental deaths of 50+ civilians justifies claiming that Israel is sinking to the same level as the terrorists that it's fighting. It makes no sense, and you know it.
And what do you say to the fact that the 50+ civilians hiding the building were nearly all women and children? Where were the men during this whole mess? Maybe Hezbollah knew that the building was going to collapse, and instead of evacuating all of the refugees to a different building, recruited all of the men and simply left the rest of them to die?
Ah, citing an opinion piece on a blog as evidence of bias. How FOX-ish.
(and this is a blog which, after a random perusal, actually praises something said by Robert Kilroy-Silk!)
Ah, citing an opinion piece on a blog as evidence of bias. How FOX-ish.
(and this is a blog which, after a random perusal, actually praises something said by Robert Kilroy-Silk!)
You may be right, but can you prove that the BBC's coverage on this incident isn't biased? Even CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/30/qana.reaction/index.html) reported the missile base argument, despite CNN being left-biased as well.
The Israeli cabinet has agreed to widen the country's ground offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
The decision, made at a closed door session, received unanimous approval, according to a senior political source.
At least that way I'd have the moral high ground. Might even get the rockets to stop falling. Would certainly get world opinion on my side.
Can you prove it is? You're the one presuming guilt here, after all.
Give back the West Bank. In fact I would have done that as the first act upon becoming president so that the majority of Palestinians would view me favourably.
At least that way I'd have the moral high ground. Might even get the rockets to stop falling. Would certainly get world opinion on my side.
Nowhere in that article or any other article on the current conflict does the BBC report that Israel claimed that the Qana bombing was based on reports that Hezbollah was launching rockets from that building. Every single article, as far as I've read, focus entirely on the viewpoint that Israel bombed a building and killed 54 civilians in cold blood. Every other news source (CNN, local Israeli news, FOX) report that the Israelis believed that Hezbollah was firing rockets from that building. Unless BBC TV said something along this line, then I'll have to assume that this is either very poor journalism or bias.
Yes, you'd have the moral high ground. No, you still wouldn't have the world opinion on your side; the world simply doesn't like Israel in the first place. Europe created it to keep the Jews out of Europe, which they had been attempting to do for hundreds of years.
What makes you think that the bombings will stop if Israel gives back the West Bank? The Palestinians aren't just going to forgive and forget and be happy with the land they have, after all. The conflict goes much, much deeper than just the West Bank and Gaza; it's anti-Semitism. Arabs want Israel wiped off the map, period. No giving back land, just completely gone.
The Lebanese website LIBANOSCOPIE , associated with Christian elements in the country and which openly supports the anti-Syrian movement called the "March 14 Forces,"
I never said the bombings would stop but this hasn't stopped them either. Nor will it stop them. Having the UN come in and help the palestinian people would do more to stop the bombings than any number of military solutions like this one.
It was the Jews who wanted their own homeland. It wasn't as if the other Europeans came up with a plan to evict the Jews from Europe. You can't be surprised that Europe wasn't willing to give up their land, very few countries were in the first place. Those who didn't want to go stayed. I've got no idea why you're trying to come up with some massive conspiracy to remove the Jews from Europe when that is actually what they themselves wanted to do.
Of course, none of that equates to anything beyond speculation.....
But doesn't it even register as a possibility that Hezbollah intended for this to happen? Isn't it just too convenient that women and crippled children happened to be in a building that Hezbollah used for rocket attacks against Israel, and in the same town that a similar incident had occured some years before?
If the UN wants to try to do something to stop this, they can jump in with a peacekeeping force whenever they feel like it, since their diplomatic attempts to stop the violence don't seem to be working so far.
QuoteIf the UN wants to try to do something to stop this, they can jump in with a peacekeeping force whenever they feel like it, since their diplomatic attempts to stop the violence don't seem to be working so far.
You try telling Israel that.
QuoteIf the UN wants to try to do something to stop this, they can jump in with a peacekeeping force whenever they feel like it, since their diplomatic attempts to stop the violence don't seem to be working so far.
You try telling Israel that.
QuoteIf the UN wants to try to do something to stop this, they can jump in with a peacekeeping force whenever they feel like it, since their diplomatic attempts to stop the violence don't seem to be working so far.
You try telling Israel that.
What, that diplomacy with terrorists doesn't work? Doesn't their present course of action lead you to believe that maybe they've figured that out?
Conspiracy theory!
Maybe Hezbollah know that their demands for the release of prisoners will not be met - perhaps their goal was, all along, to goad Isreal into attacking Lebanese civilians.
This sways international public opinion against Israel, and by extension the USA. This will be a more effective strategy against Israeli occupation (and the Western world) in the long term.
And all at the cost of a few hundreds of lives and several thousands of livelihoods! Diabolical!
The head of the British army has cast doubt on the practicality of UK ground troops joining any future international peacekeeping force in the Middle East.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson said commitments in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan meant he doubted it would be "sensible" to offer troops to such a force.
Any UN resolution to censure Israel is veto-ed by the US.I swear, I will literally jump for joy the day the UN finally gets the galls to stand up to the US and say "No veto for you!!".
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm)
Any UN resolution to censure Israel is veto-ed by the US.I swear, I will literally jump for joy the day the UN finally gets the galls to stand up to the US and say "No veto for you!!".
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm)
Any UN resolution to censure Israel is veto-ed by the US.I swear, I will literally jump for joy the day the UN finally gets the galls to stand up to the US and say "No veto for you!!".
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm)
I'll do the same when the US finally gets the galls to stand up to the UN and say "Screw this, we're outta here!"
Quite so, but you ain't leaving until you pay the cheque...
Just have to send in the repo men, I guess.Followed closely by Bush appearing on Television all over the world with his finger poised over a button marked 'Nuke the World', shouting "C'mon! I dare you, I double dare you mother****ers!!".
Just have to send in the repo men, I guess.Followed closely by Bush appearing on Television all over the world with his finger poised over a button marked 'Nuke the World', shouting "C'mon! I dare you, I double dare you mother****ers!!".
Natch. :lol:Just have to send in the repo men, I guess.Followed closely by Bush appearing on Television all over the world with his finger poised over a button marked 'Nuke the World', shouting "C'mon! I dare you, I double dare you mother****ers!!".
Knowing Bush, he'd probably miss the button.
It has been revealed that the bombs used in the attacks Israel launched on the southern Lebanese village of Qana were produced by the US.
At least 60 civilians, most of whom were children had been killed in the attack.
The British newspaper Guardian reported that the bombs used in the attacks were laser-controlled BSU 37/B bunker busters manufactured by the US.
Yeah, we'll contract out the same guys that did the Berlin Wall. They did good work.
Yeah, we'll contract out the same guys that did the Berlin Wall. They did good work.
Nah, we'll just drill diagonally into the deposits from outside the quarantine area. Y'know, Mr Burns 'Slant-drilling Co.' style. :yes:Yeah, we'll contract out the same guys that did the Berlin Wall. They did good work.
And we can buy the stones from Africa, thus reinvigorating their economy!
This sounds a better and better idea every minute :D
(we can stick in pipes for getting the oil out, of course. Or maybe a little doorway they can stick a hose through)
Well then, our objective is clear. We must kill David Hasslehoff!Yeah, we'll contract out the same guys that did the Berlin Wall. They did good work.
Yeah it took David Hasslehoff to bring that one down.
So that's how you got 20,000+ posts; drunken spam! :rolleyes:
ach, let's face it. We all know what each other think, we've all said our piece several times over by now, we all know the fan has been buried in **** by now, so why not concentrate on the removal of the thread posed by the Hoff?
ach, let's face it. We all know what each other think, we've all said our piece several times over by now, we all know the fan has been buried in **** by now, so why not concentrate on the removal of the thread posed by the Hoff?
ach, let's face it. We all know what each other think, we've all said our piece several times over by now, we all know the fan has been buried in **** by now, so why not concentrate on the removal of the thread posed by the Hoff?
The penny finally drops. :lol: Nice one Aldo.
ach, let's face it. We all know what each other think, we've all said our piece several times over by now, we all know the fan has been buried in **** by now, so why not concentrate on the removal of the thread posed by the Hoff?
It's funny. I tend to agree with aldo more when he's drunk.
:nervous:
Get this man more alcohol! :D
Something that's been bothering me for awhile and I thought should be pointed out is the disparity in the coverage of Israels' "Atrocities" vs. that of America's in Iraq. Am I the only one that notices that theres is very little negative press about Israel, from Israel and throughout the world, while for America they are literally being slaughtered in the media campaign, with a new scandal practically every day.
Granted Israel may not be as bad...or they may be. For instance, I just read that they hit the mayor's house with an air strike and killed his "son, brother, and five other relatives" (source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_696;_ylt=AjwbuS2ygejIRmkFyO48izUUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) - if the US did that, I'd think the media would be all over it as a "massacre of great ineptitude and mistargeting, obviously implicating the US in killing innoccent civilians on purpose." Now, I'm not taking one side or the other, I'm just pointing out an interesting bit of social commentary. :)
So has anyone tracked down Hasslehoff yet? We need to get started on the wall. It also needs a catchy name. "The Middle East Wall" doesn't really work for me. How about "The Great Wall of Sanity"?
You know I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the guy. How the mighty have fallen.
'Enclosure where only True Believers Can Reside'.
Cheese Donuts
1 cup bisquick
1/2 cup lightly packed cheddar cheese
1/2 cup milk
1 tbsp onion flakes or 2 tbsp bacon bits or both
1 egg
Stir all ingredients together for 1 minute. Bake in preheated donut maker for 5 minutes. Makes 10 donuts.
Variation: use 2/3 cup of corn meal mix and 1/3 cup bisquick
Variation: substitute 1 tbsp poppy seed, caraway seed, or sesame seed for the onion. Or omit onion and bacon bits and use 1/4 cup chopped nuts.
Cheese Donuts
1 cup bisquick
1/2 cup lightly packed cheddar cheese
1/2 cup milk
1 tbsp onion flakes or 2 tbsp bacon bits or both
1 egg
Stir all ingredients together for 1 minute. Bake in preheated donut maker for 5 minutes. Makes 10 donuts.
Variation: use 2/3 cup of corn meal mix and 1/3 cup bisquick
Variation: substitute 1 tbsp poppy seed, caraway seed, or sesame seed for the onion. Or omit onion and bacon bits and use 1/4 cup chopped nuts.
Isn't that closer to being a bagel?
Cheese Donuts
1 cup bisquick
1/2 cup lightly packed cheddar cheese
1/2 cup milk
1 tbsp onion flakes or 2 tbsp bacon bits or both
1 egg
Stir all ingredients together for 1 minute. Bake in preheated donut maker for 5 minutes. Makes 10 donuts.
Variation: use 2/3 cup of corn meal mix and 1/3 cup bisquick
Variation: substitute 1 tbsp poppy seed, caraway seed, or sesame seed for the onion. Or omit onion and bacon bits and use 1/4 cup chopped nuts.
Isn't that closer to being a bagel?
Are you insulting my cheese donuts?
Cheese Donuts
1 cup bisquick
1/2 cup lightly packed cheddar cheese
1/2 cup milk
1 tbsp onion flakes or 2 tbsp bacon bits or both
1 egg
Stir all ingredients together for 1 minute. Bake in preheated donut maker for 5 minutes. Makes 10 donuts.
Variation: use 2/3 cup of corn meal mix and 1/3 cup bisquick
Variation: substitute 1 tbsp poppy seed, caraway seed, or sesame seed for the onion. Or omit onion and bacon bits and use 1/4 cup chopped nuts.
Isn't that closer to being a bagel?
Are you insulting my cheese donuts?
Is being called a bagel an insult?
srael earlier dropped leaflets in the Lebanese capital saying: "After the continued launching of Hezbollah terrorist rockets... the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] intend to widen their offensive in Beirut."
The suburbs of Haret Hreik, Bir Abed, Hay Madi and Roweiss were named in the Arabic-language warning.
Israeli aircraft had resumed bombing of the city on Wednesday night after a lull of several days.
That had sparked a response from Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, who said in a televised speech: "If you bomb our capital Beirut, we will bomb... Tel Aviv."
"Our" capital? Someones getting a bit cocky I'd say.Well, Lebanese civilians are getting killed just as much as Hezbollah, so we shouldn't be surprised to see some empathy growing in there.
"Our" capital? Someones getting a bit cocky I'd say.Well, Lebanese civilians are getting killed just as much as Hezbollah, so we shouldn't be surprised to see some empathy growing in there.
And Hezbollah only wants what's best for the Lebanese people.Aside from the whole 'death to Israel' thing? Sure, I guess that'd be pretty accurate.
"Our" capital? Someones getting a bit cocky I'd say.Well, Lebanese civilians are getting killed just as much as Hezbollah, so we shouldn't be surprised to see some empathy growing in there.
Yes but I'm sure a good deal of the Lebanese would say "**** off" to that idea were it not for the fact they're running for their lives.But they are running for their lives, running from the evil invading Israelis, the sworn enemy of Hezbollah. So, theoretically, as they're being attacked by the enemy of Hezbollah, would you not expect them to side with Hezbollah? Sure, Hezbollah are inciting the shelling, but when you're being shelled, you tend to blame the people shelling you.
Uno: Peace? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286906,00.htmlI'll believe it when I see it.
Dos: Bias? http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9028.htmYou're right, that is biased.
The newscaster reads out carefully selected "audience comments." Among these are invariably contained some version of the claim that "Israel's attack on Lebanon" will serve as a "recruitment" drive for al-Qaeda.
Dos: Bias? http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9028.htmYou're right, that is biased.
The BBC and other media have carried report after report on the damaged Lebanese tourist industry, but none on the damaged Israeli one, even though at least one hotel in Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, was hit by a Hizbullah rocket. There are reports on Lebanese children who don't know where they will be going to school, but none on Israeli ones.
“Saudi religious leader blasts Hizbullah,” JP, 5 Aug 2006
A top Saudi Sunni cleric, whose ideas inspired Osama bin Laden, issued a religious edict Saturday disavowing the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hizbullah, evidence that a rift remained among Muslims over the fighting in Lebanon.
Hizbullah, which translates as "the party of God," is actually "the party of the devil," said Sheik Safar al-Hawali, whose radical views made the al-Qaida leader one of his followers in the past.
"Don't pray for Hizbullah," he said in the fatwa posted on his Web site.
The edict, which reflects the historical stand of strict Wahhabi doctrine viewing Shi'ite Muslims as heretics, follows a similar fatwa from another popular Saudi cleric Sheik Abdullah bin Jibreen two weeks into the conflict with Israel.
"It is not acceptable to support this rejectionist party (Hizbullah), and one should not fall under its command, or pray for its victory," bin Jibreen said at the time. That fatwa set off a maelstrom across the Arab world, with other leaders and people at the grass roots level imploring Muslims to put aside differences to support the fight against Israel.
There have been daily demonstrations in support of Hizbullah around the region, including in predominantly Sunni and generally pro-western countries like Jordan.
Even the Saudi government, which initially condemned Hizbullah for sparking the fighting by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in "uncalculated adventures," backed down and said it warned the United States the region would be headed toward war unless Washington halted the Israeli attacks.
Last week, al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri issued a videotape that urged all Muslims everywhere to rise up in holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza.
Mohammed Habib, deputy leader of Egypt's largest Islamic Sunni group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, immediately rejected al-Hawali's new religious edict, saying Hizbullah is defending "the whole Islamic nation."
Al-Hawali is receiving medical treatment in Jeddah and could not be reached for comment.
In remarks published Saturday, Kuwait's prime minister, Sheik Nasser al-Mohammed al-Sabah, also warned that if the conflict does not end soon, it could give rise to new radicals.
"I believe that if this Israeli war on Lebanon goes on, it could contribute to creating new terrorists, and that of course would pose a new danger in the area," he told Egyptian magazine el-Mussawar.
BTW, I thought this was interesting and surprising (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525810323&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
When it comes to media bias, most people just say "it's biased" when they don't agree with what is being reported.What? That's outrageous! You're just f***ing bias against people with that opinion!
When it comes to media bias, most people just say "it's biased" when they don't agree with what is being reported.What? That's outrageous! You're just f***ing bias against people with that opinion!
*sigh* I wish we had something like the BBC or ChannelNewsAsia here in Aus, rather than all the "soft news" crap that's flooding the television.
*cough cough*
Oh, and the Qana thing? Done from 60 or so to ~25. Amazing, these miraculous ressurections should be televised - let the whole world know that Allah is raising those women and children up from the dead so they can become involuntary martyrs somewhere else!
Ok, so that may not have been called for. People are suffering, people are dying - on BOTH sides of this conflict.
I'm still posting it though. :D
BTW, I heard half a million Lebanese, and 1 million Israelis, are now refugees. This may not be good for tourisim, but I don't think the hotels out of range of the conflict are suffering much.
Still, let's all laugh at those miscounts, eh? Hoho! Hilarious! Less people are dead than previous said! Let's mock them!
Yes, but anyone with even the slightest shrapnel of brain in his skull can tell between 40 people dead and one person dead. It's not that difficult.
Yes, but anyone with even the slightest shrapnel of brain in his skull can tell between 40 people dead and one person dead. It's not that difficult.
It is when the survivors have hauled themselves off to aid shelters, or to hide in bunkers, or escaped with friends and family, and all you have is a ****ing huge collapsed building. Not exactly hard to figure out that, ooh, might be hard to estimate bodycount when all the bodies are under several tonnes of rubble.
You know, whether the casualty reports are right or not isn't going to change the immediate problem - the danger of escalation.
No, it won't, but it sure begs the question of whether that body count for the Lebanese civilian population is as accurate as people claim it to be. How many of those 800 reported dead were ones that scurried off to shelters or bunkers and how many were ones buried in rubble that the media instantly assumes were killed when the building collapsed?Right! Because 600 civilians dead is just so much better than 800.
but it sure begs the question
Right! Because 600 civilians dead is just so much better than 800.
How gives a flying **** about how many civilians are dead? The fact of the matter is that Israel has killed civlians, thereby sinking to the level of Hezbollah, and thus becoming no more than terrorists themselves. Way to go, Israel. :yes:
You obviously don't give a flying ****. Luckily for the Lebanese, Israel does. Whether that's because we're simply trying to avoid international accusations as much as possible while still beating the **** out of Hezbollah, or whether we truly do try to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties because they're not our targets is left for the reader to decide.I apologise if i've annoyed you, but coming from an outside perspective, the picture looks a little different. Yes, Israel does care about Lebanese civilian casualties, but the fact of the matter is that Israel is prepared to kill Lebanese civilians in order to attack Hezbollah, which is plain as day unless you can show me otherwise. And yet, you seem adamant that Israel is far above Hezbollah from a moral perspective. Let's just think about that for a second.
And stop your utter nonesense about Israel having sunk to the level of the Hezbollah already, m'kay? You're not convincing anybody, and flagrantly false accusations like that just make you look ignorant. Terrorists' aim is to cause terror, to harm and kill civillian populations, in order to achieve a certain goal. Israel's not aiming at civvies, we're aiming at a semi-rogue terrorist organization who are often deeply entrenched among the Lebanese civillian population who are firing hundreds of ball-bearing-filled rockets on our main cities and minor towns per day. Our goal is to kill them, not civvies. The moment our goal turns to killing civvies, I'll let you know, and the you and the rest of the world can call us terrorists without me saying a thing.
Until then, cut the BS.
ter·ror·ismCall me ignorant, pedantic, whatever. By killing civilians in an attempt to destroy Hezbollah, Israel has sunk to their level and is acting [i'll conceed I was out of line to imply they were terrorists outright, I could have worded that better] like the very terrorists they are trying to quell.
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I don't know what you Brits think of George Galloway, but he's one suave mother****er. He's like the Sean Connery of politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
I don't know what you Brits think of George Galloway, but he's one suave mother****er. He's like the Sean Connery of politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
(I think Sean Connery could sue you for that.......)
In general, my view is that he's an arrogent, seedy, egocentric, self-serving little **** whose main 'suave' trait consists of SHOUTING VERY LOUD over peoples questions. Even if he is slagging off Murdoch.
What was he saying about Israel abducting Palestinian political members? Any truth in that?
Israel has detained about 30 MPs and a third of the Palestinian cabinet in the past six weeks.
What the hell? Why?!
I don't know what you Brits think of George Galloway, but he's one suave mother****er. He's like the Sean Connery of politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbkSenator - "Mr Galloway, are you going somewhere with this?"
I don't know what you Brits think of George Galloway, but he's one suave mother****er. He's like the Sean Connery of politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
I don't always agree with his politics but his performance in the US Senate Inquiry made me proud he was a Brit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk
I wish I could find the full length version.
The less said of the cat incident the better... and let us never speak of it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbkSenator - "Mr Galloway, are you going somewhere with this?"
Galloway - "Yes, i'm going to ask a question regarding your policy on Belgium."
Galloway's opinion on this whole issue.......quite interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQV4NLDlT4&mode=related&search=
Galloway's opinion on this whole issue.......quite interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQV4NLDlT4&mode=related&search=
Ugh. Watching that was like watching a British, Hezbollah-siding Bill O'Reilly.
How do you Brits tolerate this guy?
Israel also threatened to attack UN peacekeepers if they attempted to repair bomb-damaged bridges in southern Lebanon. UN officials contacted the Israeli army to inform them that a team of Chinese military engineers attached to the UN force in Lebanon intended to repair the bridge on the Beirut to Tyre road to enable the transport of humanitarian supplies.
"We must be able to have movement throughout the country to deliver supplies. At this point we can't do that," said David Shearer, the humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon. "The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law."
Wow, it's like burning your house down to get a single rat.
Wow, it's like burning your house down to get a single rat.
Valid point, but I meant the house not only as a direct metaphor for Hezbollah & Lebanon, but also as both a microcosm for the Middle-East in general, and a metaphoric representation of the diplomatic progress that has been made in recent years to settle the tensions in the region. In attempting to get the rat [Hezbollah/their own ends], they are effectively putting a torch to the entire house [Lebanon/the Middle-East/diplomatic progress], and whether or not it will light depends on Israel's course of action in the coming weeks and months, because it's pretty obvious the rest of the world can't do **** with the US shielding Israel like they are.Wow, it's like burning your house down to get a single rat.
At the very least you need to change that analogy to be your neighbor's house.
Found a quote the other day that couldn't be more applicable to the current situation... pretty much everywhere:That's very true, and the US did heed that to an extent. Of course, they just changed from bombing children to endorsing embargos that kill children much faster and cost-effectively, but it's all good.
"We will not acheive world peace by bombing each other's children" - President Jimmy Carter
my point was that things like that sound nice and make things seem simple, but they realy do not provide any answers
Hands up who thinks Hezbollah or Israel will listen one jot to a UN resolution?
Anyone?
Albeit it is at least a tentative move forward in resolving this. I'm just very cynical-minded justnow.
Hands up who thinks Hezbollah or Israel will listen one jot to a UN resolution?
Anyone?
Albeit it is at least a tentative move forward in resolving this. I'm just very cynical-minded justnow.
Dieties never give ceasefire orders.Totally agree with you, although the question remains as to how low-fat food is supposed to give orders in the first place?
Wow, it's like burning your house down to get a single rat.
whats wrong with that?
Found a quote the other day that couldn't be more applicable to the current situation... pretty much everywhere:
"We will not acheive world peace by bombing each other's children" - President Jimmy Carter
What are people's opinions on all the false media stuff being exposed (http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp) recently? I know what I think, and I know what some people here think, but what's the general consensus around where you are?
The attached image is NOT REAL (AFAIK), but it's still amusing... sorta... :nervous:
What are people's opinions on all the false media stuff being exposed (http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp) recently? I know what I think, and I know what some people here think, but what's the general consensus around where you are?
Funny, I saw this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys) a while back, and it only reinforces my position that the media tends to do a rather shoddy job with checking its sources in the region and making sure that its news is accurate. Yes, the story is a good few years old, but things don't seem to have changed much recently.
Sadly, nobody seems to really get the fact around where I live that the media is honestly and truly messed up when it comes to reporting the Middle East--yeah, I live in a red state, but there are still the typical liberals and conservatives that will argue whatever they see on CNN, FOX, or read on the BBC (for the more Enlightened Individuals :rolleyes: ) is automatic fact with no room for error. There's very little demand for the agencies to be held accountable for making sure their stories aren't 100% manufactured as a lot of them seem to be.
It's worth me pointing out, I think, that the BBC has a statutory and legal requirement for fairness and truth, unlike US news sources - so there is accountability (this actually applies to all TV and Radio media in the UK, but not paper media such as newspapers).
Johnson has stated many times that he is disgusted with media coverage of the death of ISM activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in Rafah, a town in the Gaza Strip.
Johnson disputes the official account, claiming that Corrie jumped in front of a bulldozer 'while trying to "protect” a house used for drugs and weapons smuggling'
"The driver at no point saw or heard Corrie. She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.
"The driver and his commanders were interrogated extensively over a long period of time with the use of polygraph tests and video evidence. They had no knowledge that she was standing in the path of the tractor. An autopsy of Corrie's body revealed that the cause of death was from falling debris and not from the tractor physically rolling over her. It was a tragic accident that never should have happened.
Critics point to the hyperbolic language, references to violence against Arabs, Muslims, and liberals and ethnic slurs employed by some commenters and charge the webmaster with encouraging groupthink, jingoism, anti-Arabism and "Islamophobia". Supporters argue that using slurs is acceptable, given "there is a fine tradition of dehumanizing the enemy in our foreign wars"
Lets take a close look at those photos. The link you give us is very careful not to show the original while talking about how they were doctored.
Judge for yourselves.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Adnan_Hajj_Beirut_photo_comparison.jpg)
Not the difference that they were trying to make out it was. The report you linked to wants the viewer to form the impression that all the black smoke was digitally added and that there wasn't smoke rising all over the city. But the original picture clearly shows that there was a lot of smoke.
Furthermore it's worth pointing out that Reuters have removed every single picture by Adnan Hajj from there database and said that they are not accepting any further pictures from him. Oddly enough that isn't mentioned in the report.
Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.
It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.
Such a move would make us all safer.
As confusing as it is, you have to remember that the UN is negotiating a ceasefire between nations. They're trying to effectively set up joint operations between Israel, Lebanon and the UN in stopping Hezbollah.
Wait, so 1000+ of their civilians dead isn't enough of a deciding factor? What the hell are these idiots waiting for?!
More than 1,000 Lebanese have been killed in the conflict since Hezbollah militants captured two Israeli soldiers on 12 July in a cross-border raid. Israel's official death toll stood at 163 on Sunday, including 43 civilians.
I'm just calling it as I see it; Israel launching a massive op to try and damage Hezbollah as much as they can before the ceasefire. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a bit off, like it gives off the message that Israel won't acknowledge the invasion was possibly a bad idea, and sees the ceasefire as an obstacle in the persuit of their goals.
Actually they may have accomplished a lot. The problem is nobody's publishing casuality figures for Hezbollah.
The Katyushas, for example; those things aren't exactly stuff you make in your backyard. How many has Hezbollah expended, what was their total supply? You launch them off the back of trucks; how many of the trucks are left, and how many of them got blasted by IDF aircraft or artillery? The mechanics who keep the trucks running?
Furthermore how many years of recruiting has the set back Hezbollah? Everybody else who's fought the IDF has gotten mauled; there's no reason to believe things were any different. They've probably lost hundreds of people; perhaps more. It will take years to make up their losses from the IDF...and they're not exactly out of the woods yet.
I'm just calling it as I see it; Israel launching a massive op to try and damage Hezbollah as much as they can before the ceasefire. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a bit off, like it gives off the message that Israel won't acknowledge the invasion was possibly a bad idea, and sees the ceasefire as an obstacle in the persuit of their goals.
No need to apologise, I didn't know that, and hence I was trying to make an argument with only half the information. But still, you've got to admit that by launching the largest freaking paratrooper deployment in 30 years mere hours before the guns are to fall silent, Israel is sort of thumbing their noses at the ceasefire.I'm just calling it as I see it; Israel launching a massive op to try and damage Hezbollah as much as they can before the ceasefire. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a bit off, like it gives off the message that Israel won't acknowledge the invasion was possibly a bad idea, and sees the ceasefire as an obstacle in the persuit of their goals.Sorry I was pissed earlier. All I meant was that you seemed to be echoing one-sided media reports (as opposed to two-sided, yes, I know they exist). Israel was hit by 250 Katyushas yesterday in a last minute Hezbollah escalation, and yet all you mentioned was Israel's escalation. Just annoys me is all.
Just wondering; has Israel formally occupied Southern Lebanon, or is their stay simply temporary for the duration of the op?
No need to apologise, I didn't know that, and hence I was trying to make an argument with only half the information. But still, you've got to admit that by launching the largest freaking paratrooper deployment in 30 years mere hours before the guns are to fall silent, Israel is sort of thumbing their noses at the ceasefire.
Just wondering; has Israel formally occupied Southern Lebanon, or is their stay simply temporary for the duration of the op?
Staying until a UN force occupies it. I'm not sure, offhand, if that includes the Lebanese army moving into the south.
Since fighting erupted 34 days ago, 166 Israelis were killed - 114 IDF soldiers and 52 civilians.
Lebanon said 791 people had been killed since July 12. According to the IDF, at least 530 were Hizbullah guerillas.
Printed news; didn't buy the paper, just read it while waiting in line at the shop. I know it's far from the most reliable thing in the world, but why would they mention a Paratrooper deployment being the largest since the 1973 something-or-other if there weren't a smigin of truth in it.No need to apologise, I didn't know that, and hence I was trying to make an argument with only half the information. But still, you've got to admit that by launching the largest freaking paratrooper deployment in 30 years mere hours before the guns are to fall silent, Israel is sort of thumbing their noses at the ceasefire.Offhand, where have you heard about this paratrooper deployment? I haven't read a thing.
The attached image is NOT REAL (AFAIK), but it's still amusing... sorta... :nervous:
And how many people do you think are more willing to join Hezbollah now? The whole point is that any terrorist or insurgent network gains support from engaging a larger foe; it's very much the 'plucky underdog' effect that gives them strength, allowing the justification of the likes of terrorist attacks as a response to an inability to fight symmetrically. Terrorists aren't measured in military strength; they're measured in their ability to operate within a civillian population, and with the tacit support of that population. I don't think Israel has done anything to erode that support base - I'd say history proves the opposite will occur, with short term losses being recuperated by the desire for revenge in South Lebanon.
Similarly I never claimed the IDF won; merely that it smashed all who directly tried to oppose it. I know they had much broader objectives then they were given the time to accomplish, but from a purely "who's holding the battlefield" and "who's the kill ratio in favor of" the IDF did win. It was not the complete victory they sought, and perhaps not a political victory at all. But on the battlefield they were victorious.On the basis of the disparity between military resources and capabilities between Hezbollah and the IDF, i'm going to disagree with you on that assertion. Yes, Israel dominated the battlefield wherever Hezbollah chose to fight openly, but the fact remains that the IDF should by all means have been much more effective in their strikes.
A kill ratio of 1-5 isn't too bad considering that the IDF uses state of the art western, while Hezbollah is stuck with 50's and 60's era Soviet stuff.