# 27 Lebanese civilians dead after the airstrike on the Lebanese international airport



## Zhongda (Jul 13, 2006)

> Beirut's Rafiq al-Hariri airport has been closed after Israeli air strikes on the runways, according to a Lebanese aerounautic source.
> 
> The closure of the airport on Thursday came after witnesses reported at least two strikes on a runway while Lebanese anti-aircraft batteries fired at Israeli fighter jets.
> 
> ...


That's one of Ichigo's friends.
cewl


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 13, 2006)

f'd upppppppppp


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 13, 2006)

> at least 22 civilians were reported killed



make that 47.
i wonder how many more innocent lives will be taken for the sake of the 2 Israeli jerks.

among the victims was a Kuwaiti a man and his son.
is it ok for the Kuwaiti government to get revenge and launch some rockets at Israel now?
or is that excuse works only for Israel?

God damn the Israeli government
God damn all the people who support it 
i hope they lose their families and homes to get a little taste of their own medicine.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 13, 2006)

ana b9ra7a manee gadra at7amal akthar min chethi 
o 7atta law ana haddait ro7ee hum ra7 yegollon enna e7na 3a6efeen o erhabeen o kell el kallam el fathee malhom. ya3nee elmowtho3 mo wagef 3alay ana broo7ee

5alhom yegollon kell elly yaboonah ana mo 5ayfa illa men elly 5alagny


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 13, 2006)

exellent, kawney major 3loom siyasiya a3erf shlon at3amel ma3a man6e"9hom wa a5aley 'ilfalta' feehom think twice. 
5aleehom 3alay, io da2iman tithakeray... isabab laysh il 3arab  lohom nathrah mota5alifah howa bisabab 3a6ifatnah (masra3 ma ri7na in6amer bishiware3... aw nirfa3 il 3igil fee majlis il oma >.>)
Lan nasta6ee3 an nata"9adam ka sha3b, in lam no7akim 3"9oolana "9abla 3a6ifatoona. Adrey sayir chiney modares lo'3a 3arabiya  bas hatha il wa"9e3, wa yajib 3alayna 7al hathihi al moshkilah.

Anyway, you say it's 47?
hmm... since it's escalating, i wonder what figure will be reached.


----------



## opie (Jul 13, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> make that 47.
> i wonder how many more innocent lives will be taken for the sake of the 2 Israeli jerks.
> 
> among the victims was a Kuwaiti a man and his son.
> ...



i wish you long, painful death. you fricking stupid kid who has no idea what he's talking about.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 13, 2006)

> i wish you long, painful death. you fricking stupid kid who has no idea what he's talking about.



oh look 
the little child feels insulted

well, i got news for you 
the innocent lebanese kids who died by the Israeli rockets got more hurt than you

so i suggest you shut your big mouth


----------



## Shogun (Jul 13, 2006)

ah, another touchy subject, well, this sounds like a bit of a tragedy to me. I feel sorry for those pool Lebanese folks.


----------



## opie (Jul 13, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> oh look
> the little child feels insulted
> 
> well, i got news for you
> ...



"poor innocent lebanese kids who died by the cruel, thoughtless, evil israeli rockets"
those kids were educated since they were born that their goal in life is to kill israelian people, give them some demolutions and they would try to sneak in israel and bomb theirselves up so they can kill the most israelis/tourists they can. their family wouldn't care also. since they know they're now in heaven partying with virgins.

what about the 3 familys of the kidnapped soldiers? they don't even know if their sons are dead or alive. the arabs gave israel a deadline to release 1000 arab prisoners, which they're all with blood on their hands or they supported and organized terror acts happened in israel. 3 israelis for 1000 arabs.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 13, 2006)

> those kids were educated since they were born that their goal in life is to kill israelian people



so you kill them?
great logic

then why do you cry and screem like a bitch when innocent Israeli people die?
Israel teaches those people to hate muslims 
so it`s alright to kill them. that`s your logic right?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 13, 2006)

I said it once and I'll say it again... You fuck with Israel you're screwed... and btw...


----------



## Shogun (Jul 13, 2006)

loL, you guys actually messed with anyone tough you would get fucked over, if you lost your US backing the same would happen. so don't act smug, if you ever had a war with the big UK you would all be dead, keep that in mind...you little shit.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 13, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> loL, you guys actually messed with anyone tough you would get fucked over, if you lost your US backing the same would happen. so don't act smug, if you ever had a war with the big UK you would all be dead, keep that in mind...you little shit.


Why would the the big UK fight with us? They're busy fighting some other damned damn Arabs in another place...
As for us messing with someone, lemme quote a wise man from another thread.


			
				Ekshtrim said:
			
		

> Pardon?
> I got a link to this thread and I couldn't notice and not reply after I've seen the ignorant of some people here
> Israelis terrorizing the Arabs?
> Let me teach you some history
> ...


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 13, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> I said it once and I'll say it again... You fuck with Israel you're screwed... and btw...



Didn't I explain to you in a post earlier on how you shouldn't be allowed to procreate or make any mention of your harsh generalisation on Arabs and Muslims?

This might sound cruel, but if Israel wasn't backed by the US, you would be posting this picture.


*Spoiler*: _Not nice_ 



Gone.







And Jews bought properties in Palestine? So what?

Let me explain something. If some Chinese people bought a lot of properties in Texas, could they then turn that into their own sovereign nation? 

Common sense idiot, use it.


About the partition plan. Why should Palestinians give away their land? Who was it that massacred the Jews during WWII? It was the Germans you tit, not the Arabs. Face it, Israel is stolen land.

Common sense retard, use it.


And here's something else. You (understandably) condemn terrorist acts which involve innocent Israeli's caused by rogue Palestinians, yet when Israeli _military_ get hit and they retaliate with a result of 50 innocent Lebanese civilians killed *in a fucking airport*, you commend it? With a, "You fuck with Israel you're screwed" and a picture of nice little fighter jets? Fucking disgusting, you're the savage here. Hipocrite and double standards at its finest.

Common sense moron, use it.


Now, why don't you go back to your little corner, and do what people of your mental capacity should only be allowed to do, you know? Like posting retarded pictures of your penis you fucking joke.


----------



## Naruto_Rasengan_ (Jul 13, 2006)

how cruel!


----------



## opie (Jul 13, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Didn't I explain to you in a post earlier on how you shouldn't be allowed to procreate or make any mention of your harsh generalisation on Arabs and Muslims?
> 
> This might sound cruel, but if Israel wasn't backed by the US, you would be posting this picture.



and if US didn't come to help against german in World War 1, what would happen?

and if Israel's gouverment wasn't afraid of the world respond to their acts against the arabs, what would she do? 


P.S.
You should get banned for that picture.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 13, 2006)

Well....

Hezbollah started this conflict by crossing the Blue Line and kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers. Thus breaking any sort of peace in that area. Hezbollah is directly connected and part of the government of Lebanon. So when Israel responded to this act of war by launching a sneak attack and kidnapping 2 soldiers, attacking spots vital to the Lebanese government is necessary.

Airports provide transportation and communication to a government. In war, it really is not uncommon for the airports to be one of the first targets. America targetted them in both Gulf wars, Britain in the Falklands, Iraq in its war against Iran, etc..

Lebanon has started a war with Israel...Why shouldn't Israel conduct a proper military operation?

And Jedi Mind Tricks, your contribution to this thread is over. You're acting like a fucking 5 year old. Don't give me any "waaah he started it!". What you did has to rank among the most idiotic and disgusting things this forum has ever seen.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> What you did has to rank among the most idiotic and disgusting things this forum has ever seen.




It's not idiotic.

I've done what he just posted (just without US backing). That is the case with Israeli jets, they fly over Palestine and airports and just drop them on innocents, and you're saying that's not disgusting? Double standards maybe? Him commending the death of innocent Lebonese is fine, but me using the Holocaust in an argument while at the same time condeming it is disgusting? I don't regret what I posted, and if you don't like the reality, then don't look.

I've taken it down though because it obviously hit a nerve Megaharrison.
The point was made, it you think I'm wrong, prove it wrong.




			
				Opie said:
			
		

> and if US didn't come to help against german in World War 1, what would happen?



What has that got to do with the US funding an organisation that stole land from people already living there?


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> Hezbollah started this conflict by crossing the Blue Line and kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers. Thus breaking any sort of peace in that area. Hezbollah is directly connected and part of the government of Lebanon.



Yeah 3 members who basically have no say in the running of the government it would be like blaming the whole of the british gov for something one non important member went and kidnapped an irish soldier or french



			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> So when Israel responded to this act of war by launching a sneak attack and kidnapping 2 soldiers, attacking spots vital to the Lebanese government is necessary.
> 
> Airports provide transportation and communication to a government. In war, it really is not uncommon for the airports to be one of the first targets. America targetted them in both Gulf wars, Britain in the Falklands, Iraq in its war against Iran, etc..
> 
> Lebanon has started a war with Israel...Why shouldn't Israel conduct a proper military operation?



Lebenon did not start a war, Hezbollah did, like i said they had members in gov but they are non important areas.  And before you say the Lebonese army should disarm them by force you do know that it would lead lebenon into another civil war.  Its better for everyone there to let them be than to see thousands killed in needless fighting again


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 13, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> It's not idiotic.



Mocking the deaths of 11 million people (FORGET that they're Jews for a minute, as 50% of the victims you just mocked were not Jewish) is idiotic, I'm sorry. But ah well...

Anyway.



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> Yeah 3 members who basically have no say in the running of the government it would be like blaming the whole of the british gov for something one non important member went and kidnapped an irish soldier or french



Hezbollah's leader said they planned this. Hezbollah is a direct part of and is connected to the Lebanese government. It has also been allowed to exist in Lebanon for decades. I believe America attacked Afghanistan because it harbored Al Qaeda. What Israel is doing is the exact same thing but with Hezbollah.



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> Lebenon did not start a war, Hezbollah did, like i said they had members in gov but they are non important areas. And before you say the Lebonese army should disarm them by force you do know that it would lead lebenon into another civil war. Its better for everyone there to let them be than to see thousands killed in needless fighting again



The Lebanese government is responsible for the kidnappings and the incursion across the Blue Line. As I said before, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government has allowed them to operate openly within Lebanon. This means Lebanon is RESPONSIBLE for the acts Hezbollah does, no excuses.

If Lebanon was to return the soldiers and disarm Hezbollah, they wouldn't be a target.


----------



## Crowe (Jul 13, 2006)

When we see news about american soldier killing people in Iraq, you always here "not all soldiers are like that" ,when someone asks for the head of the american soldiers. 

But when a few terrorists does something noone cares to defend those who weren't in any part of this


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Mocking the deaths of 11 million people (FORGET that they're Jews for a minute, as 50% of the victims you just mocked were not Jewish) is idiotic, I'm sorry. But ah well...
> 
> Anyway.




I can't believe I need to explain this?

Get that shit out of my face Moshi. If I was to post that image without that idiot Omnistrifes original Shalom Arab friends picture along with his disgusting attitude and apathy towards the innocents killed in that airport, I would be mocking.

That isn't the case. I even added the fact that the content of the picture was cruel and 'not a nice thing'. I showed my disgust for it and I'm insulted that you think I have some sort of hatred for Jews.


*Plain English Moshi: Around 50 innocent people were killed in an air-strike, your little friend posted a "don't fuck with Israel slogan" along with fighter jets saying Shalom Arab friends. You had nothing to say about him swinging Israel's dick when they bombed those innocent people at that airport. I decided to point out (rather crudely) that there was a time when the people killing the innocents now, were getting killed themselves a while ago, just know that you can do it now because your backed by the US.*

If I wanted to mock anyone, I would admit it, but that's fucking low and again I say, I'm insulted that you think I would do that...

In all, your moronic friend Omnistrife was the one mocking innocent deaths, not me.


----------



## Cece (Jul 13, 2006)

I was just reading the BBC monitoring of Israeli newspapers, and was shocked to see that they had actually written a precise fact...



			
				ISRAEL'S NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY'S HATZOFE said:
			
		

> ... and the people of Israel, a *pathetic* people,


----------



## schism (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Hezbollah started this conflict by crossing the Blue Line and kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers. Thus breaking any sort of peace in that area. Hezbollah is directly connected and part of the government of Lebanon. So when Israel responded to this act of war by launching a sneak attack and kidnapping 2 soldiers



Don't forget they killed 8 other Israeli soldiers in the process of kidnapping these.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 13, 2006)

Even though i normally have pro Israeli views i to have to question the wisdom behind this act. Bombing bridges and airfields arent likely going to make the hostages free since they have other means for transporting them. So Instead of shelling South Lebanon i think they would be more fortunate to aquire intelligence to the location of these soldiers(with moderate elements in the Lebanese government as informants) and then do a commando raid in freeing these hostages from their capturers(remember what the Israelis specialforces did when a airplaine with Israelis was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists and landed in Uganda i 1976, when they stormed the airplane and got most of the passengers out safely). Hezbollah can then be dealt with in more diplomatic ways such as strengthening the Lebanese government institusions to challenge them and rid themself of elements that support terror. One can pressure Iran and Syria to stop their financial, strategical and logistical support of the group. Of course modest military solutions would also needed to be considered to use in partnership with diplomacy. 

Ironically by going on a full scale assault Israel is playing right into Hezbollahs trap. Ever since Israel left South Lebanon a couple of years ago Hezbollah have faced a problem with how to legitimate its existence now that Israel has been driven off out of that particular area(which was the organizations main goal in the first place) and also withstanding the pressure in regards to turning its weapons in(as stated by UN resolutions). With this attack i however fear that they might get bigger legitamacy and support among many Lebanese(at least those who are Shia Muslims) when they see Israels aggresion.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 13, 2006)

shogun said:
			
		

> loL, you guys actually messed with anyone tough you would get fucked over, if you lost your US backing the same would happen. so don't act smug, if you ever had a war with the big UK you would all be dead, keep that in mind...you little shit.



actually UK is the source of the problems from there actions from years ago.

Hezbollah is the only group to come to the aid of the Palestinians.  Is it a coincidence that after Hamas took an Isreali soldier , Hezbollah follows up the same way and links there demands to the Palestinian demands? No, they are in defense of Palestianians getting trounced on, and now they are getting bombed as well.

If Isreal wasn't so brutal to the palestinians these few weeks probably Hezbollah wouldn't get involved..


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Mocking the deaths of 11 million people (FORGET that they're Jews for a minute, as 50% of the victims you just mocked were not Jewish) is idiotic, I'm sorry. But ah well...
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> ...



Hezbollah role in the government is minimal at best, 3 members out of over a hundred they don't represent the entire thing therefore you can't blame the entire government for it.

Anyway this whole Lebenon must rein in and disarm hezbollah stuff.  How do you expect they do it, by sending in their own forces?  If they did lebenon would be back to 20 years ago when it was in a bloody civil war.  Anyone who has lived through that will tell you that they want to avoid it AT ALL COSTS.  And if that means a few militant groups are still armed then so be it, it is better than the 3 groups killing each other again.  Basically the disarm hezbollah by force model you want is not feasable at all


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 13, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Mocking the deaths of 11 million people (FORGET that they're Jews for a minute, as 50% of the victims you just mocked were not Jewish) is idiotic, I'm sorry. But ah well...


Yeah, mocking Jews is definitely deserving of airstrikes that destroy major infrastructure and kill dozens of civilians.



> Hezbollah's leader said they planned this. Hezbollah is a direct part of and is connected to the Lebanese government. It has also been allowed to exist in Lebanon for decades. I believe America attacked Afghanistan because it harbored Al Qaeda. What Israel is doing is the exact same thing but with Hezbollah.


Timothy McVeigh was a member of the American military.  Is it the American military's fault for the Oklahoma City bombing?
Hezbollah has no significant power in the government, and *KEY POINT* did not use their government influence to do that!  These aren't government soldiers here.  Guerrilla fighters != government's fault.



> The Lebanese government is responsible for the kidnappings and the incursion across the Blue Line. As I said before, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese government has allowed them to operate openly within Lebanon. This means Lebanon is RESPONSIBLE for the acts Hezbollah does, no excuses.


Doesn't work that way, unless you want to blame the entire US government for fucking Monica Lewinsky.
Also,  whatever happened to any sense of equivalency?  They killed 8 soldiers and took two prisoner.  They didn't threaten to torture and kill them.  They just offered a prisoner exchange.



> If Lebanon was to return the soldiers and disarm Hezbollah, they wouldn't be a target.


Okay, so you want Arab governments to go kill their own citizens, and then you'll stop bombing them to hell.
Do you realize that if the governments kill these terrorists, they will lose all support because it would be giving in to Israel's military terrorism?

That's right.  Israel's military is using terrorism right now.  Trying to induce fear by destroying critical landmarks to force other countries into doing what they want.  The only difference between them and the Arab factions is that they have money for warplanes instead of suicide bombers.  And where did they get that money?  The US gave it to them.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 13, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Timothy McVeigh was a member of the American military.  Is it the American military's fault for the Oklahoma City bombing?
> Hezbollah has no significant power in the government, and *KEY POINT* did not use their government influence to do that!  These aren't government soldiers here.  Guerrilla fighters != government's fault.
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way, unless you want to blame the entire US government for fucking Monica Lewinsky.



Those were both isolated cases. Hezbollah has 23 out of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and has been allowed to operate freely for decades within Lebanon. Al Qaeda had no organized presence in the Taliban government, yet the American justification (and rightful justification at that) was that the Taliban was helping Al Qaeda, thus they were also enemies. 

But, because Hezbollah exists in the Lebanese government, the Lebanese government is also an enemy of Israel. 



> Also,  whatever happened to any sense of equivalency?  They killed 8 soldiers and took two prisoner.  They didn't threaten to torture and kill them.  They just offered a prisoner exchange.



They attacked Israeli troops along the Blue Line in an act of aggression, it started a war. Israel has every right to strike back when it's attacked like that.



> Okay, so you want Arab governments to go kill their own citizens, and then you'll stop bombing them to hell.



Correct. If Lebanon would destroy the Hezbollah presence within their government and start taking anti-Hezbollah actions, Israel would no longer treat Lebanon as an enemy. Same as if German units began turning on the Nazi party in WW2.



> Do you realize that if the governments kill these terrorists, they will lose all support because it would be giving in to Israel's military terrorism?



Losing political support is better then fighting a losing war, I'd say. Lebanon should make the decision that's better for its citizens. And supporting Hezbollah is not the better option.



> That's right.  Israel's military is using terrorism right now.  Trying to induce fear by destroying critical landmarks to force other countries into doing what they want.



Apparently, you do not understand the importance of airports to a nation. As that's most likely what's you're referring to. They provide vital transportation and communication abilities. In every modern war fought since WW2, and especially since the mid 1970's, airports are usually the first target. America hit airports in Afghanistan and both Gulf wars, Russia in its war with Afghanistan, Britian in the Falklands, and so on. Israel is now in a war due to this attack. It is ok for it to take effective military action.



> The only difference between them and the Arab factions is that they have money for warplanes instead of suicide bombers.  And where did they get that money?  The US gave it to them.



As I've explained before...

U.S. economic aid to Israel amounts to $662,000,000 per year. The Israeli GNP is $155,000,000,000. This of course means U.S. economic aid to Israel is around .004% of the total Israeli economy. I suspect Israel can make due with .004% capital if it really had to.



But regardless of that, by looking at history we see that even when the Arabs have equipment as good as or even superior to Israeli equipment (war of independence, six day war, yom kippur war) the outcome still ended in an Israeli victory, normally a one-sided one at that.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 14, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Losing political support is better then fighting a losing war, I'd say. Lebanon should make the decision that's better for its citizens. And supporting Hezbollah is not the better option.


You don't seem to uunderstand what I mean by "lose support".
There will be no more government.

All Israel is doing is giving them a choice between being blown to hell with honor and being blown to hell as treasonists.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

ns from link provided said:
			
		

> Why would you call attention to the 477 million on economic grants (and this is alot by the way, for a country you claim is doing so friggen well ) and not the 2.1 billion on military grants in that same year!? As a matter of fact read the chart closely, of that 105 billion given to Isreal by US, at least half has been explicitly for military purposes.
> 
> And saying Germany and Japan got trillions in aid is irrelevant. US didn't bomb Isreal, they did level Germany and nuked Japan, and killed hundreds of thousands of those citizens. Those countries should get more.
> 
> ...




Rock Paper Scissors No Jutsu

u r like a broken record sometimes Megaharrison....do i have to put this in my sig to not reference it so much?


----------



## Cece (Jul 14, 2006)

I don't really think even if you paste that link here 10 times MH is gonna read/believe it soon.

Why?

If you read what the Zionists believe is the truth, you'd die on the ground laughing.  I don't understand why the Zionists still don't use this as a tool of mass destruction.

Here is an example.

The great title of the website: 'was yasser arafat homoexual aids gay dead died illness'
(Please take into account the gramatical mistakes if you think that you want to support this article)

Link removed
A 'Zionist Youth' website



> After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."
> 
> "If true, Arafat would have a great deal to conceal from his people and his murderously anti-homosexual supporters in the Islamic world," writes Frum, suggesting that Arafat was airlifted to France for medical treatment because he "could trust the French to protect his intimate secret."





EDIT:

Also, I still don't understand why Mengde still isn't banned after posting that image _and_ making a generalization 'Arabs'.  I'll assume that all of the mods are having internet problems.

I was and still am very tempted to post a picture of 'Isralies' after Hitler was done meeting with them.
And write, 'These preteen *Jews* had it coming. Kudos to our German comrades'

However, then I thought that if I posted something like that all of the mods' internets would immedeatly start working and they would all be very tempted to read this thread.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 14, 2006)

^

That would explain why his wife moved to Paris.


----------



## Trias (Jul 14, 2006)

Lebanese People =/ Hezbollah.

 Yes, that was an enlightening sentence for many people here.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> u r like a broken record sometimes Megaharrison....do i have to put this in my sig to not reference it so much?



How typical, you ignore the fact that the Israeli economic engine is the only economy not based on oil in the ME that manages to actually do well. They do pretty goddamn well for themselves considering their size and utter lack of natural resources.

Nevermind the fact that the 2.5 billion in economic aid is about the same that it's neighbour Egypt gets, and that previously mentioned figure is a very small amount of the Israeli total GDP. Look at it another way. That cash shoveled either way (more so to Egypt who needs it) was begun under Camp David which:

A. Gave the Egyptians less incentive to attack Israel.
B. Put the Egyptians in the US camp instead of the Soviet one.

Let's take a quick look at economic disparity between neghbours and receivors of aid:





Look at the disparity. Israel does well for itself. 

But ok, let's bite on other things. 1 billion given to a customer who buys a lot of US equipment? Oh shock, look it's the federal government trying to give defense contractors a shot in the arm. 

Nevermind the fact that Israeli indigenous military industry is more then sufficent to equip itself at this point (well, outside of aircraft). Take a quick look at IDF OOB. Merkeva IV FTW. 

In short, STFU.

But let's take one this gem:



> And saying Germany and Japan got trillions in aid is irrelevant. US didn't bomb Isreal, they did level Germany and nuked Japan, and killed hundreds of thousands of those citizens. Those countries should get more.



They deserve no aid at all. They started wars of aggression and paid for it. The US graciously gave them money to rebuild, if giving away trillions to powers which waged war upon the US a scant few years ago, why is gving a few billion away to help ensure the peace verbotten? 

Typical pothead disregard for logic.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

nos guy said:
			
		

> They deserve no aid at all. They started wars of aggression and paid for it. The US graciously gave them money to rebuild, if giving away trillions to powers which waged war upon the US a scant few years ago, why is gving a few billion away to help ensure the peace verbotten?



Well that's just your belief, we did kill thousands and thousands of their civilians and leveled non-military targets.  But I guess you shouldn't complain since you are saying it's okay to punish civilians for what their military/government does.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Well that's just your belief, we did kill thousands and thousands of their civilians and leveled non-military targets.  But I guess you shouldn't complain since you are saying it's okay to punish civilians for what their military/government does.



No, that's not my belief, those are the facts. Total war means cities burn dipshit, learn that. 

FYI, the Nazis started burning cities first. The Japanese raped entire cities, they deserved no mercy.


----------



## Windy (Jul 14, 2006)

Jin-E said:
			
		

> Even though i normally have pro Israeli views i to have to question the wisdom behind this act. Bombing bridges and airfields arent likely going to make the hostages free since they have other means for transporting them. So Instead of shelling South Lebanon i think they would be more fortunate to aquire intelligence to the location of these soldiers(with moderate elements in the Lebanese government as informants) and then do a commando raid in freeing these hostages from their capturers(remember what the Israelis specialforces did when a airplaine with Israelis was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists and landed in Uganda i 1976, when they stormed the airplane and got most of the passengers out safely). Hezbollah can then be dealt with in more diplomatic ways such as strengthening the Lebanese government institusions to challenge them and rid themself of elements that support terror. One can pressure Iran and Syria to stop their financial, strategical and logistical support of the group. Of course modest military solutions would also needed to be considered to use in partnership with diplomacy.



Yeah, I also think the whole mindless bombing thing is weird.... Like I said in another thread, the best thing would be some secret focused operation, with minumum noise and bombing, using commandos, ninjas, whatever. It would also be good if Israel could co-operate with the Lebanon government on this, since the whole fiasco is hurting their economy, and having hizballa around is really not beneficial anyway. XP
Though in order to do that I guess both side will have to put their grudges and whatnot away - whether it's "the arabs only want to kill us" or "the zionists are evil" and adopt a more practical thinking that would be beneficial for both.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> If you read what the Zionists believe is the truth, you'd die on the ground laughing.  I don't understand why the Zionists still don't use this as a tool of mass destruction.
> 
> Here is an example.
> 
> ...



Err... extermists and idiots exist everywhere. Do you really think this represents the views of most Israely youth?
..
...
...sad...


Anyway - from reading around forums, it seems to me people not from Israel get completely different images from the word "zionism" than we Israelis do - it's more like, loving the country, embracing your jewish identity or whatever and wanting to move here, rather than any extreme views. (zionism is not  considered a political view!) I dunno, but the word zionism - tsionut for me doesn't really connect with any extreme political views. (just some socialism)
'Zionism' isn't and interchangable term for 'extreme right wing views', like some people use it...


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> FYI, the Nazis started burning cities first. The Japanese raped entire cities, they deserved no mercy.



But guess what, *Japan and Germany Lost the war!!!*  Isreal actually won it's wars with American equipment, and all we do is give them more and more money.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 14, 2006)

Windy said:
			
		

> Anyway - from reading around forums, it seems to me people not from Israel get completely different images from the word "zionism" than we Israelis do - it's more like, loving the country, embracing your jewish identity or whatever and wanting to move here, rather than any extreme views. (zionism is not  considered a political view!) I dunno, but the word zionism - tsionut for me doesn't really connect with any extreme political views. (just some socialism)
> 'Zionism' isn't and interchangable term for 'extreme right wing views', like some people use it...



Yet the very religion that is apparently the justification for the state also prohibits the founding of that very state. Israel was taken by violence and human avarice, an abomination before the eyes of G-d. No messiah led the people to this land, but atheists masquerading as pious Jews. Some charedi realize this, and oppose this desecration. But money is the god of Israel. And I'm pleased to see the Israeli markets down 10% the last 3 days.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 14, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> Also, I still don't understand why Mengde still isn't banned after posting that image _and_ making a generalization 'Arabs'.  I'll assume that all of the mods are having internet problems.


What?



> I was and still am very tempted to post a picture of 'Isralies' after Hitler was done meeting with them.
> And write, 'These preteen *Jews* had it coming. Kudos to our German comrades'
> 
> However, then I thought that if I posted something like that all of the mods' internets would immedeatly start working and they would all be very tempted to read this thread.


The mod already reading this thread would likely find that highly amusing.




> That NOS Guy]How typical, you ignore the fact that the Israeli economic engine is the only economy not based on oil in the ME that manages to actually do well. They do pretty goddamn well for themselves considering their size and utter lack of natural resources.


How typical, you forget the US gave Israel billions of dollars to build modern infrastructure that made such an economy possible in the first place.



> Nevermind the fact that the 2.5 billion in economic aid is about the same that it's neighbour Egypt gets, and that previously mentioned figure is a very small amount of the Israeli total GDP. Look at it another way. That cash shoveled either way (more so to Egypt who needs it) was begun under Camp David which:
> 
> A. Gave the Egyptians less incentive to attack Israel.
> B. Put the Egyptians in the US camp instead of the Soviet one.
> ...


Total aid to Israel from the US, 1949-1997:  $84.9 billion.
Total aid to Egypt in the same time:  $45.7 billion.
Population of Israel:  6.3 million.
Population of Egypt:  78.9 million.
Per capita US aid to Israel, 1949-1997:  $13,500.
Per capita US aid to Egypt, 1949-1997:  $580.

I do seem to see a bit of a problem with your comparison there.



> Nevermind the fact that Israeli indigenous military industry is more then sufficent to equip itself at this point (well, outside of aircraft). Take a quick look at IDF OOB. Merkeva IV FTW.


Because aircraft totally aren't far and away the most difficult pieces of military technology to research, develop, build, and maintain.
And Israel isn't entirely dependent on aircraft for most attacks or anything like that.



> They deserve no aid at all. They started wars of aggression and paid for it. The US graciously gave them money to rebuild, if giving away trillions to powers which waged war upon the US a scant few years ago, why is gving a few billion away to help ensure the peace verbotten?


Germany and Japan didn't deserve any aid to rebuild?  Ridiculous.  You clearly haven't bothered to factor in that it was the rest of the world's fault Hitler came to power (it never would have happened if the Versailles Treaty hadn't been designed to punish Germany ridiculously harshly), or that people are very easily brainwashed by propaganda, especially under a powerful leader.  The people of Germany and Japan were not at fault for WWII--only their leaders, who were, by the time we started offering aid, dead.



> Typical pothead disregard for logic.


Bit angry there, eh?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

vash said:
			
		

> Because aircraft totally aren't far and away the most difficult pieces of military technology to research, develop, build, and maintain.
> And Israel isn't entirely dependent on aircraft for most attacks or anything like that.



Bravo!!!!!  

Nosguy so easily disregards that Isreal's sir superiority, which is the only superiority that counts at this time, is provided to them by Americans!


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 14, 2006)

Israel has an independently made fighter series called the Kfir series. They're in reserve now due to being 1970's and 1980's era technology, but those jets are certainly far and above anything the Lebanese or Syrians have. Especially considering Israel wiped out the Syrian air force in the invasion of Lebanon in the 1980's.



The jets are still considered modern though. Today  they can be found being used by the air forces of El Salvador, Venezuela, South Africa, Argentina, and a number of other South American countries.

I'm sure if you took away the F-16's and F-15's Israel could be bombing Beirut with Kfir's. Sure they're not as good but they get the job done. Especially considering air-to-ground bombing is a task so simple that even a MIG-21 could do it right as long as the pilots were trained.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> But guess what, *Japan and Germany Lost the war!!!*



Yes, after they started it. Punishing their cities in wartime by their own measure is simple fair game.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Isreal actually won it's wars with American equipment, and all we do is give them more and more money.



Why is that the people who know nothing of equipment and battles are always the ones to spout this?

Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

A quick look at things shows that French/UK/Czech equipment was the norm and standard in weapons sales to Israel until the 1960s. After those the US began selling Israel weapons, but there's a catch.

WE STARTED SELLING SURPLUS 2ND RATE MATERIAL.

Is an M4 Sherman a credible MBT in 1967? Fuck no, not even with the M50 Super Sherman upgrade the IDF applied. The only thing that made it decent was the gun mod, and that only made it a sniper, not a mainline offensive unit.

Hell, the ratio of Centurian to M60 units is proof enough that the US still wasn't giving copous amounts of first grade equipment (Which was paid for, unlike the Soviets who virtually armed the Arab armies at their own expense) compared to other foreign sources.

Even then what did the IDF air force consist of? French Mirages and Dassualts.

The US didn't really get into giving credible first-rate systems until after the '72 Yom Kippur war. 

Let's take a look at things now shall we?

You'll have to look for the IDFs air force to see a backbone of US equipment, and even then it's still mixed with other nations kit. Furthermore Israeli Military Industries (IMI) has developed credible aircraft (in fact it's Lavi program forms the basis for the Chinese J-10).

The IDF won all of it's wars with a mixed bag of indigenous and foreign equipment. A look at weapons and equipment now (especially with the Army and Navy) shows indigenous weapons outnumbering foreign weapons by a more then small margin. 

Why do you people make such a point in lying about blantantly obvious history?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Snip on aid



Fail. You're skewing the numbers by showing it over such a vast period of time. Israel began building infrastructure long before it declared independence, you make it sound as as if they started from the ground up solely on US funds.

In addition, what's 100 billion in aid to build infrastructure? Hell, we had that much in relief for Katrina alone (FOR ONE CITY). Israel isn't just one modern city.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Because aircraft totally aren't far and away the most difficult pieces of military technology to research, develop, build, and maintain.
> And Israel isn't entirely dependent on aircraft for most attacks or anything like that.



Funny, their arty does a wonderful job. Oh wait, Israel has developed their own damn aircraft upgrades and new ones. Ever hear of the Lavi? Look for it in the J-10. Kfir? Mirage III complete re-build. 



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Germany and Japan didn't deserve any aid to rebuild?  Ridiculous.  You clearly haven't bothered to factor in that it was the rest of the world's fault Hitler came to power (it never would have happened if the Versailles Treaty hadn't been designed to punish Germany ridiculously harshly), or that people are very easily brainwashed by propaganda, especially under a powerful leader.  The people of Germany and Japan were not at fault for WWII--only their leaders, who were, by the time we started offering aid, dead.



I never said the Marshall plan wasn't a good course of action. From your standpoint we shouldn't give aid to countries that are controversial, yadda, yadda. Why the hell should we give it to nations with killed 1/2 a million Americans under the same logic?

Germany still must bear the ultimate cost of responsibility. No one made them accept Hitler, and go the course they dud.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Nosguy so easily disregards that Isreal's sir superiority, which is the only superiority that counts at this time, is provided to them by Americans!



Why, because they bought things? Oh gee, I'm going to wag my finger at them for using money wisely. Y'know, it's kinda funny. People see a big number like 2 billion and they think that's where all Israel's air power comes from.

I'll give you a hint, simple allocation and maintance costs for one F-15C is around 30 million (and that's disregarding ordiance, fuel, all many of other costs.) You can't field forces like Israel has under that much. Of course, you people make the generous assumption that all the aid is spent on Israeli air power.

Oh God, I love you guys. You people completely disregard the main force behind Israeli sucess has been armor, of which is almost entirely Israeli origin.


----------



## Windy (Jul 14, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Yet the very religion that is apparently the justification for the state also prohibits the founding of that very state. Israel was taken by violence and human avarice, an abomination before the eyes of G-d. No messiah led the people to this land, but atheists masquerading as pious Jews. Some charedi realize this, and oppose this desecration. But money is the god of Israel. And I'm pleased to see the Israeli markets down 10% the last 3 days.




Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiight.......... Yeah, whatever you say.

.......
Now _this_ is the reason why I usually prefer not to come into these threads... I just don't know what came over me.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Why, because they bought things? Oh gee, I'm going to wag my finger at them for using money wisely. Y'know, it's kinda funny. *People see a big number like 2 billion and they think that's where all Israel's air power comes from.*
> I'll give you a hint, simple allocation and maintance costs for one F-15C is around 30 million (and that's disregarding ordiance, fuel, all many of other costs.) You can't field forces like Israel has under that much. Of course, you people make the generous assumption that all the aid is spent on Israeli air power.
> 
> Oh God, I love you guys. You people completely disregard the main force behind Israeli sucess has been armor, of which is almost entirely Israeli origin.


yeah the figure is 2 billion dollars per year buddy, alsmost 3 billion total when u count Mega's .004% or whatever he calls it....



			
				nosguy said:
			
		

> In addition, what's 100 billion in aid to build infrastructure? Hell, we had that much in relief for Katrina alone (FOR ONE CITY). Israel isn't just one modern city.



We can take all of isreal's aid, the modern self functioning do it all doesn't need anybody temple state, and give it to New Orleans! *and that would be a better use of american tax dollars!*


----------



## Aman (Jul 14, 2006)

I just feel sorry for the kids that died...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> yeah the 2 billion figure is per year buddy, alsmost 3 billion total when u count Mega's .004% or whatever he calls it....



No shit sherlock. You still can't equip an air force the likes of which Israel has on that. You're still relying on the assumption all aid goes that way.

Learn something about military equipment and history then get back to me.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> I'll give you a hint, simple allocation and maintance costs for one F-15C is around 30 million (and that's disregarding ordiance, fuel, all many of other costs.) You can't field forces like Israel has under that much. Of course, you people make the generous assumption that all the aid is spent on Israeli air power.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


ok, let's say your 30 million maintains an F-15 for a year...you can maintain how many now....?  My math tells me 33 F-15's can be maintained a year with that money and leaves 10 million left over .... Mind you all this money is paid to Isreali soldiers/mechanics/Air Force/pilots.  When those mechanics/pilots go back to there homes they take parts of that 30 million with them, and they spend it, thus returning US defense aid into the Isreali economy. 

It's nice to have a huge military as a basis for ur economy right! 

edit : haha, my math was incorrect (i only calculated for 1 billion in aid)  66 F-15's can be maintained with 2 billion in aid, leaving 20 million left over...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Snip on 66 F-15s



Congrats, you have a wing and change of F-15s. _A wing_ Oh yes! This will defend Israel, but this assumes your math is reasonably on par.

You math doesn't account for replacements, weapons, training, only base unit cost.

Israel ordered 30 -I versions (custom built, but then again all of their aircraft have numerous add-ons and mods which cost a bundle) and look at the costs:

_Israel selected the F-15I in January, 1994 after evaluating a variety of aircraft to meet its defense needs. The government of Israel initially ordered 25 F-15I Thunders, powered by two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 low bypass turbofan engine. This foreign military sale was valued at $1.76 billion dollars. The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I aircraft in January 1998. On 22 September 1998 the US Department of Defense announced the sale to the Government of Israel of 30 F-15I aircraft; 30 AN/APG-70 or AN/APG-63(V)1 radar; and 30 each LANTIRN navigation and targeting pods. Associated support equipment, software development/integration, spares and repair parts, flight test instrumentation, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, US Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related requirements to ensure full program supportability will also be provided. The estimated cost was $2.5 billion. _

FAS

Fail.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 14, 2006)

Windy said:
			
		

> Rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiight.......... Yeah, whatever you say.
> 
> .......
> Now _this_ is the reason why I usually prefer not to come into these threads... I just don't know what came over me.



You knew what you were getting yourself in to when you browse Chat.  

Anyway I'm not the only one who believes this. I know a few older people who consider this to be Torah. And a secular analysis of Israel's position reveals that they are the client state of larger, global powers. Israel was created around the time that the US and Britain (and their corporations) were just realizing that oil was the ultimate resource, and they needed an attack dog who could be influenced by western powers to keep the region pumping oil. Israel is nothing more than a pawn in the highest stakes game in the world: resource control. Most Israelis don't know this, but the ones who do control the country.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Anyway I'm not the only one who believes this. I know a few older people who consider this to be Torah. And a secular analysis of Israel's position reveals that they are the client state of larger, global powers. Israel was created around the time that the US and Britain (and their corporations) were just realizing that oil was the ultimate resource, and they needed an attack dog who could be influenced by western powers to keep the region pumping oil. Israel is nothing more than a pawn in the highest stakes game in the world: resource control. Most Israelis don't know this, but the ones who do control the country.



You do realize the Arab countries would have still produced oil as long as their was a market for it right? Nevermind the NATO powers would shoot themselves in the foot by allying themselves with enemies of the oil-producing country. Nevermind all Israeli major conflicts have been defensive in nature and measure. 

The western powers are clearly governed by Homer Simpson if this is their cause for supporting Israel.

Also, FYI the USSR recognized Israel before the US.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Congrats, you have a wing and change of F-15s. _A wing_ Oh yes! This will defend Israel, but this assumes your math is reasonably on par.
> 
> You math doesn't account for replacements, weapons, training, only base unit cost.
> 
> ...




you fail, what r u trying to say exactly?  Looks to me like US could have financed ISreal's war planes for them and financed their maintained with 2 billion a year in military aid.



> You do realize the Arab countries would have still produced oil as long as their was a market for it right? Nevermind the NATO powers would shoot themselves in the foot by allying themselves with enemies of the oil-producing country. Nevermind all Israeli major conflicts have been defensive in nature and measure.



which brings to mind a fantastic question, where is Isreal getting the fuel for it's military actions?


----------



## Zodd (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> You do realize the Arab countries would have still produced oil as long as their was a market for it right? Nevermind the NATO powers would shoot themselves in the foot by allying themselves with enemies of the oil-producing country. Nevermind all Israeli major conflicts have been defensive in nature and measure.
> 
> The western powers are clearly governed by Homer Simpson if this is their cause for supporting Israel.
> 
> Also, FYI the USSR recognized Israel before the US.



Actually, this is the whole reason for the energy crisis during 73. They shut down supply, and we had gas lines. You're also looking at this from hindsight. At the time in the 40's, many colonial powers had relinquished control of Mid East interests. The importance of oil became apparent around WWII. The US was already on record as not supporting the creation of Israel, at least it was a promise made to the house of Saud's leader Abdal Aziz (iirc) and Faisal understood it to be an agreement. Then Truman reversed policy abruptly during the UN vote. Why? The realization that I outlined above. 

Also, you seem to lack understanding of power. Power is the control of the resources directly or indirectly. If you have sufficient control or military capabilities, it does not matter whether you piss off those countries: you can bribe the dictator, overthrow one dictator and replace it with your own (the shah and Hashemites), or as a last resort use force. Israel is the last resort. If all Arab countries decided to punish the world by stopping oil production (after all it's a commodity and can be stored and sold at any future time) you'd see a shutdown of industry and economic collapse. Israel is the ultimate insurance policy. 

I don't know where you get the idea that this idea is illogical. You need to reduce the world to simple desires and rules (that it has never conformed to in the past) to conclude that only Homer Simpson understands this. In fact, you're very useful to those who benefit from this arrangement. 

As to your third point, it barely dignifies a response. The Jewish terrorist organization Haganah and it's sister organizations launched unprovoked attacks against Arabs and the British troops there. Yes, some attacked British troops. Then they threw people out of their houses to make way for Israeli settlers. When those people try to take it back, you can't categorize it as "defensive in nature." If you were thrown out of your home because you weren't Episcopalian, and then tried to arm yourself to take it back, would the Episcopalians be described as "defending themselves." WTF?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> you fail, what r u trying to say exactly?  Looks to me like US could have financed ISreal's war planes for them and financed their maintained with 2 billion a year in military aid.



Except you're making that assine assumption that all aid invariably goes to single projects. You must prove a connection first. Of course you can't, so why bother?

This still does little to answer my rebuttal. Israel did not win all of it's critical battles with American equipment, so bloody well concede.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> which brings to mind a fantastic question, where is Isreal getting the fuel for it's military actions?



Being rocketed daily isn't good enough?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Actually, this is the whole reason for the energy crisis during 73. They shut down supply, and we had gas lines. You're also looking at this from hindsight. At the time in the 40's, many colonial powers had relinquished control of Mid East interests. The importance of oil became apparent around WWII. The US was already on record as not supporting the creation of Israel, at least it was a promise made to the house of Saud's leader Abdal Aziz (iirc) and Faisal understood it to be an agreement. Then Truman reversed policy abruptly during the UN vote. Why? The realization that I outlined above.



So they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot? How does putting yourself on bad terms with the supplier work to your advantage again? 

The great powers wanted a new state so bad Britain turned away shiploads of would be immigrants.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Also, you seem to lack understanding of power. Power is the control of the resources directly or indirectly. If you have sufficient control or military capabilities, it does not matter whether you piss off those countries: you can bribe the dictator, overthrow one dictator and replace it with your own (the shah and Hashemites), or as a last resort use force. Israel is the last resort.



Oh just like they did with the embargos. Oh wait.....



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> If all Arab countries decided to punish the world by stopping oil production (after all it's a commodity and can be stored and sold at any future time) you'd see a shutdown of industry and economic collapse. Israel is the ultimate insurance policy.



How so? The IDF is not desgined for occupation or even to take over enemy countries, it simply does not fit with it's doctrine. That calls for breif high-intensity conflicts in defense of Israel. If the IDF was so aggressive we would've seen more then a few countries coming under Israeli domination by now.

Provide evidence that Israel has some sort of pact to invade Arab countries in the event of this. 

I kindly suggest you reconsider what the hell you're saying. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> I don't know where you get the idea that this idea is illogical. You need to reduce the world to simple desires and rules (that it has never conformed to in the past) to conclude that only Homer Simpson understands this. In fact, you're very useful to those who benefit from this arrangement.



Logic revolves around thinking with evidence at hand. Fail. The world is not simple and orderly, assuming that is throughly childish.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> As to your third point, it barely dignifies a response. The Jewish terrorist organization Haganah and it's sister organizations launched unprovoked attacks against Arabs and the British troops there.



Oh what's this? Strawmanning and red herrings? Don't say so!

Good thing the PALMACH and SNS were formed as a result of Arab riots that ended up dragging Jews through the streets. Also, nevermind they often worked in conjunction with British forces (See Gen. Wingate) through a good portion of their history. It only turnmed violent after the war when tensions were at their highest.

Even then, the militias that formed up _before_ the state of Israel do not count as ones who have fought Israel proper's battles.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Yes, some attacked British troops. Then they threw people out of their houses to make way for Israeli settlers. When those people try to take it back, you can't categorize it as "defensive in nature." If you were thrown out of your home because you weren't Episcopalian, and then tried to arm yourself to take it back, would the Episcopalians be described as "defending themselves." WTF?



I can categorize that. The state of Isreal's wars and conflicts:

-War of independence: Arab armies attacked first
-1956: Egyptians cut off the Suez thus threatening Israeli trade. In conjunction with Anglo-French forces.
-1967: Pre-emptive strike against gathering Arab armies
-1973: Suprise attack by Arab forces
-1982: Moving to secure the frontier of Lebanon after sufering near daily rocket/artillery attacks from irregular forces there.

Where's one that's open, clear, and non-provoked action?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> Where's one that's open, clear, and non-provoked action?
> ...
> 
> Except you're making that assine assumption that all aid invariably goes to single projects. You must prove a connection first. Of course you can't, so why bother?
> ...



i guess all of them were provoked, seeing as how easy it is to provoke isreal 

2 billion in military aid, well where would i put it knowing how modern military strategy works? hmm *duh!!!!!!!!* I'll invest it in my air forces...


----------



## Hoshi (Jul 14, 2006)

What I'm personally waiting for is when the US denounces Israel's actions, ignoring how similar it is to how we bombed Afghanistan because Al-Queda was there.


----------



## Cece (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> The great powers wanted a new state so bad Britain turned away shiploads of would be immigrants.



Did it ever occur to you-- Maybe the 'great powers' just didn't want _*these*_ immigrants?  

You would be probably thinking that I'm spurring off some 'Turkish propaganda' but... I'm just saying what was written in my history book in the US, and what is also written in a UK history book which my Int. school uses now.

Or of course you could believe your little story and think that the great powers loved these people who did not even have a country before they were given one; people that think that only they are the 'Chosen'


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

Hoshi said:
			
		

> What I'm personally waiting for is when the US denounces Israel's actions, ignoring how similar it is to how we bombed Afghanistan because Al-Queda was there.


US rarely speaks against Isreal. US would denounce UK b4 Isreal, why is a great mystery.

And the situation wasn't similar, Al-Qaeda and Taliban were lovingly holding hands in Afghanistan.  Same thing is happening in Somalia as we speak (US is afraid to do anything in Africa, so they won't prevent it)


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> US rarely speaks against Isreal. US would denounce UK b4 Isreal, why is a great mystery.
> 
> And the situation wasn't similar, Al-Qaeda and Taliban were lovingly holding hands in Afghanistan.  Same thing is happening in Somalia as we speak (US is afraid to do anything in Africa, so they won't prevent it)



The situation is exactly the same as Afghanistan. Hezbollah has 23 seats in the Lebanese parliament, government offices all over the country, and is allowed to operate private mobs by the Lebanese government (which they in turn are a pat of).

In fact, Hezbollah and Lebanon are MORE unitied then the Taliban and Al Qaeda were. Al Qaeda didn't have representation in the Afghan parliament.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> So they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot? How does putting yourself on bad terms with the supplier work to your advantage again?
> 
> The great powers wanted a new state so bad Britain turned away shiploads of would be immigrants.



Don't think I understand your meaning. There is no good relationship between Arab countries and western countries. The majority of mid eastern countries are under the control of western powers. Your rationale above seems to indicate that it's two countries making their own decisions. Most mideastern countries are owned or kept in power by western powers. A few, like the shah of Iran was overthrown. But the countries today include: Saudi Arabia (largest oil producer in world), Iraq (large oil producer and former home of leader resisting western powers, now deposed by western powers), Egypt, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, etc. Iran is one of the only ones not under the boot of the west, and omg look guess who Bush/Israel wants to war with next.  






			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> How so? The IDF is not desgined for occupation or even to take over enemy countries, it simply does not fit with it's doctrine. That calls for breif high-intensity conflicts in defense of Israel. If the IDF was so aggressive we would've seen more then a few countries coming under Israeli domination by now.



The Israeli military occupied Lebanon for how long? The west is not interested in Israel occupying neighbors that would disrupt oil supply. Why do you think an agreement was hammered out so quickly with Egypt? Occupying Lebanon will not disrupt oil supply. There is no need for Israel to occupy anything for the time being because oil is good. Only if a rogue state stops producing or is overthrown by those who would stop producing. 



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Provide evidence that Israel has some sort of pact to invade Arab countries in the event of this.
> 
> I kindly suggest you reconsider what the hell you're saying.



I'm not going to sit here and retrieve all the evidence for you. Google Noam Chomsky, Finklestein, or others and look for yourself. 





> Logic revolves around thinking with evidence at hand. Fail. The world is not simple and orderly, assuming that is throughly childish.



What, you still think the western powers altruistically said "gee those poor Jews they should have a state" when Jews were treated like shit for so many years by those same people? Notice that they just finished the Holocaust and where did they send Jews? Not to Germany who should have paid with their land (and rich land it is), but to some kibbutz in the godawful deserts of the middle east. 




			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Oh what's this? Strawmanning and red herrings? Don't say so!
> 
> Good thing the PALMACH and SNS were formed as a result of Arab riots that ended up dragging Jews through the streets. Also, nevermind they often worked in conjunction with British forces (See Gen. Wingate) through a good portion of their history. It only turnmed violent after the war when tensions were at their highest.
> 
> Even then, the militias that formed up _before_ the state of Israel do not count as ones who have fought Israel proper's battles.



Strawman? O rly? Your argument concedes that Jews made the first violent attacks against the Brits, sounds like you just proved it to me. The "militias" as you call them were given a different name and are now called the IDF.  




			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> I can categorize that. The state of Isreal's wars and conflicts:
> 
> -War of independence: Arab armies attacked first
> -1956: Egyptians cut off the Suez thus threatening Israeli trade. In conjunction with Anglo-French forces.
> ...



Again, you threw people out of their homes to make way for your own race. Then you call it defense when they want it back. Laughable. You're dismissed. I guess if I drag you out of your house at gunpoint and took it, and you come back to take it from me with a gun, I'm only "defending myself." Pure madness.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 14, 2006)

Im sorry Zodd but posting Finkelstein and Chomsky as credible witnesses on Israel doesnt say much since they blame everything on Israel and USA in the first place. To compare, would me portraying Christian Zionists as candid observers to Israeli history really be credible?

You could have showed others who are more modest and unbiased instead of refering to two of the most radical and leftist Israel critics in existance.   

And seriously, what interest would Israel have in conquering and warring with other Arab nations?  Would anyone honestly believe that Israel intents to cease lands that arent a part of the historical Israel? The Arabs have much more motivation for doing so since they view Palestine as stolen land and view Israel as a convinient scapegoat to distract the attension from their own oppressed people and on more internal matters such as the misrule, torture, poverty and despotism many suffer in those countries.




> Again, you threw people out of their homes to make way for your own race. Then you call it defense when they want it back. Laughable. You're dismissed. I guess if I drag you out of your house at gunpoint and took it, and you come back to take it from me with a gun, I'm only "defending myself." Pure madness.




And you think that if the Arabs had won the war in 1948 they wouldnt have done the exact same thing(in view that thousands of Jews were later robbed and kicked out of Middle Eastern nations wher they had lived for generations, this outome would have been almost certain)? How can a nation survive when cornered by millions bent on your destruction? Besides that doesnt make sense since Most of the forces that attacked Israel on those dates Nos Guy posted didnt have any legitimate claims to Palestine in the first place(with the possible exception of 1948).


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

taliban wasn't even really a govt, it was just a mob, there only real purpose was to let al qaeda reign in afghanistan.  taliban filled a power vacuum after US and Russia left Afghan in ruins.

Even Bush, on the surface of things, doesn't want Lebanon beaten too much, because it may destroy the little democracy they 've been building so far.

Besides ur logic is still backwards.  If Hezbollah has official positions, even limited, in lebanese govt, and lebanon is a democracy, then hesbolla was elected.  Same situation as Hamas in Palestine.  

Lebanese shouldn't be punished for democratically electing someone Isreal doesn't like, and they aren't even the majority power like Hamas.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> i guess all of them were provoked, seeing as how easy it is to provoke isreal
> 
> 2 billion in military aid, well where would i put it knowing how modern military strategy works? hmm *duh!!!!!!!!* I'll invest it in my air forces...



God you're fucking stupid. You must prove all aid goes to air. Then you must over turn nearly 1/2 a century of IDF preformance which places it's primary weapon as the tank. 



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Did it ever occur to you-- Maybe the 'great powers' just didn't want these immigrants?



The great powers wanted to make a nation state with what then exactly?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> You would be probably thinking that I'm spurring off some 'Turkish propaganda' but... I'm just saying what was written in my history book in the US, and what is also written in a UK history book which my Int. school uses now.



Cite your source. Saying "it's in a textbook" is an appeal to authority fallacy. If you really want to get a good source on things I suggest this book. I unfortunately don't have my copy on you, otherwise I'd be citing it left and right.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Or of course you could believe your little story and think that the great powers loved these people who did not even have a country before they were given one; people that think that only they are the 'Chosen'



I don't think the great powers had any love for the idea of Israel, especially Great Britain which not only armed all the surronding armies, but made contrary claims to both sides.

The great powers loved the Israelis so much they had to beg, borrow, and steal to get started, and even then their arms suppliers one day would embargo them the next. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Don't think I understand your meaning. There is no good relationship between Arab countries and western countries. The majority of mid eastern countries are under the control of western powers.



Ah, I had forgotten who flailing tried to appease the other. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Your rationale above seems to indicate that it's two countries making their own decisions. Most mideastern countries are owned or kept in power by western powers.



Well, you're almost right there. The various states are kept in power by the money western powers throw at them for oil.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> A few, like the shah of Iran was overthrown. But the countries today include: Saudi Arabia (largest oil producer in world), Iraq (large oil producer and former home of leader resisting western powers, now deposed by western powers), Egypt, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, etc. Iran is one of the only ones not under the boot of the west, and omg look guess who Bush/Israel wants to war with next.



Yes, because the US has already moved against the Saudis because of their clear connection to terrorism. Oh wait. If the other countries were under the US' boot heal, I wouldn't have to pay 50.00 bucks to fill up my tank.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> The Israeli military occupied Lebanon for how long? The west is not interested in Israel occupying neighbors that would disrupt oil supply. Why do you think an agreement was hammered out so quickly with Egypt?



That's funny, I seem to recall 4 wars and nearly 3 decades before that happened. I guess that depends on your defination of "quick" eh? Last I checked Egypt wasn't a big supplier of oil, you're probably thinking of Libya.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Occupying Lebanon will not disrupt oil supply. There is no need for Israel to occupy anything for the time being because oil is good. Only if a rogue state stops producing or is overthrown by those who would stop producing.



If that were true shouldn't your IDF insurance policy of doom toppled Saddam and not the US Army? 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> I'm not going to sit here and retrieve all the evidence for you. Google Noam Chomsky, Finklestein, or others and look for yourself.



Refusal to present evidence denotes there is none. Concession accepted. Yeah, you're citing a poacked house of certified level heads there. That's like me citing the Cato instutite.

Also, appeal to authority.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> What, you still think the western powers altruistically said "gee those poor Jews they should have a state" when Jews were treated like shit for so many years by those same people? Notice that they just finished the Holocaust and where did they send Jews? Not to Germany who should have paid with their land (and rich land it is), but to some kibbutz in the godawful deserts of the middle east.



The kibbutz that they wanted. The Zionist movement was quite prevelant and Jewish land ownership was the goal of quite a few people. The Jews didn't want Germany, don't you realize that?



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Strawman? O rly? Your argument concedes that Jews made the first violent attacks against the Brits, sounds like you just proved it to me. The "militias" as you call them were given a different name and are now called the IDF.



I said no such thing. I simply noted when the Haganah and PALMACH attacks against Great Britain forces began. Of course, you still ignore why those units were formed, but I guess misrepresenting arguments is par for course. 

You ignore the fact that the IDF is a unified command structure and a professional force under a soverign nation state. The IDF has it's roots in the movements, but it is not the movements. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Again, you threw people out of their homes to make way for your own race. Then you call it defense when they want it back. Laughable. You're dismissed. I guess if I drag you out of your house at gunpoint and took it, and you come back to take it from me with a gun, I'm only "defending myself." Pure madness.[/



Oh, so that's why the Palestanians rejected the UN offer? It's not like proto-Israelis weren't the ones with the keys to the bank (literally and figuratively).

Then again you ignore the fact that the land that made up Pre-1967 Israel was land taken in _counter-attacks_ against the Arab forces.

Of course, your complete false analogy aside, if you simply must blame someone blame the British who made contradictory promises to both sides. Even at that, the British mandate was lifted, why shouldn't someone declare a nation-state? The UN plan to give both sides a cut was there, your side gambled, you lsot. Deal with it.

There's also the fun tidbit of I don't recall hearing of such an outcry for a Palestanian state when the Jordanians occupied that land, but eh, you people would collapse entirely without something to hate.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 14, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Total aid to Israel from the US, 1949-1997: $84.9 billion.
> Total aid to Egypt in the same time: $45.7 billion.
> Population of Israel: 6.3 million.
> Population of Egypt: 78.9 million.
> ...


hehehe i love this


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> hehehe i love this



hehehe +1 to post count. Care to have anything to add?

Okay, time to have some fun with math.

Taking the 58 years of aid and dividing by the sum total of aid Israel gets 1.48 billion a year. That's quite a bit.

Taking the Camp David accords into effect (where aid to Egypt was mandated and it really started to flow), we have 28 years of aid to Egypt. The sum of the years there is 1.6 billion a year.

Hrm, that's some catch up.

Of course, there's the "per capita" stat which is skewed by Israel's drastivally lower population. Let's remember whose been a US ally against the Soviets longer here folks. It fills in quite a few of the puzzles.

What's equally puzzuling is US aid has been going to Israel since it's inception, but it had an arms embargo on it until 1962. Meanwhile at that same time the US willingly sold of equipment to Arab powers. How 'bout that?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> God you're fucking stupid. You must prove all aid goes to air. Then you must over turn nearly 1/2 a century of IDF preformance which places it's primary weapon as the tank.



ok, ok, rudeboy, I'll give u the benefit of the doubt. Not all that aid goes to Air "Defense".  Tell me mr smarty pants, if u know, how much it cost to maintain the average Isreali tank?  My initial off the wall guess is that....it cost much less than maintaining an F-15!! therefore even more Tanks can be maintained with US aid if u skip some of those 66 F-15's and use the money for tanks and maintenance.

Besides you ignored the fact that that military aid money turns into domestic revenue after the Isreali military members take that money home , buy food and clothes with it and give it to their kids ....


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> ok, ok, rudeboy, I'll give u the benefit of the doubt. Not all that aid goes to Air "Defense".  Tell me mr smarty pants, if u know, how much it cost to maintain the average Isreali tank? My initial off the wall guess is that....it cost much less than maintaining an F-15!! therefore even more Tanks can be maintained with US aid if u skip some of those 66 F-15's and use the money for tanks and maintenance.



What was the point of this again? The sun is bright?



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Besides you ignored the fact that that military aid money turns into domestic revenue after the Isreali military members take that money home , buy food and clothes with it and give it to their kids ....



You do realize that at most the US only foots about 1/10th of the bill right? You also realize the IDF is based around a small core of professionals and a lot of reservists right?

When something is .004% of an economy, how much appreciable revenue do you really turns out too? I didn't address it because it's largely irrelevant.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> What was the point of this again? The sun is bright?



funny cause it's u who bought up tanks in the first place and don't answer the question about tanks when asked?


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 14, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Of course, there's the "per capita" stat which is skewed by Israel's drastivally lower population.


It's not skewed by Israel's drastically lower population.  It's adjusted for Israel's smaller population (and smaller size).

There is a difference between splitting a dollar between ten people and a hundred.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 14, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> funny cause it's u who bought up tanks in the first place and don't answer the question about tanks when asked?



I was trying to figure out your question. Tanks are _relatively_ cheaper then planes, but still expensive peices of machinery. You're still using that destroyed example of 66 F-15s as a centerpiece.

How much "an average" tank costs to maintain is pretty damn hard to determine when tank types vary wildly. You'll have to be more specific then that.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 14, 2006)

myself said:
			
		

> Tell me ... if u know,* how much it cost to maintain the average Isreali tank?*




i know you can read mr nosguy, my question was very specific and i bolded it for u just now



			
				nosguy said:
			
		

> When something is .004% of an economy, how much appreciable revenue do you really turns out too? I didn't address it because it's largely irrelevant.



it doesn't matter how much , it's free money for isreal from the US (actually, we know nothing's free).  Any amount of money is better spent domestically.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 14, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> ...I have read a bit more on the situation now and it is starting to look like Israel is just handing out reasons on why it should get attacked by Iran and Cyria....and then US attacks Iran(if that happens, that could be a start of truly serious and global shit)...lalala



Iran attacking Israel is unlikely...As.

1.)Iran can't attack Israel with aircraft. Good luck getting over American occupied Iraqi, Jordanian (which hates Iran), or Saudi (which also hates Iran) air-space. Not to mention their aircraft would never make it past Israeli air defenses, or probably even get there given the miserable condition of the Iranian air force.

2.)Any sort of Iranian missle attack would worsen its already terrible situation with Europe and America GREATLY. Iran can say goodbye to any chance it has to a nuclear weapon if it launches a missle at Israel. Also, Israel has an anti-missle defense system that could deal with Iranian ballistic missles. Iran on the other hand, can not defend against Israeli aircraft or missles.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 14, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> What about Syria?



Last time Syria fought Israel, in the 1980's, they had their entire air defense network wiped out by the Israeli air force. In addition, over 80 Syrian fighter jets were shot down by the Israeli air force without a single IAF lose. On the ground, Syrian tank formations were mauled by Israeli ground troops and helicopter gunships. All in all Syria and its allies suffered around 10,000 casualties as opposed to around 500 Israeli.

Syria still hasn't really recovered from the beating it took. I doubt they want a repeat preformance of the 1st Lebanon war. They'll stay out of any direct involvement out of fear mostly.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Last time Syria fought Israel, in the 1980's, they had their entire air defense network wiped out by the Israeli air force. In addition, over 80 Syrian fighter jets were shot down by the Israeli air force without a single IAF lose. On the ground, Syrian tank formations were mauled by Israeli ground troops and helicopter gunships. All in all Syria and its allies suffered around 10,000 casualties as opposed to around 500 Israeli.
> 
> Syria still hasn't really recovered from the beating it took. I doubt they want a repeat preformance of the 1st Lebanon war. They'll stay out of any direct involvement out of fear mostly.


jeez, if only the past predicted the future with certainty...b4 9/11 no enemy, especially not even a military, had landed an attack on continental american soil  yet...they managed to figure out someway didn't they


----------



## Mastermind (Jul 15, 2006)

For those who blames Israel i wish all of you would get a missiles onto your house until you understand that Israel action is right,Amen
(Yeah,i know it's a stupid comment,but you are getting up on my nerves with that ignorance)


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 15, 2006)

Mastermind said:
			
		

> For those who blames Israel i wish all of you would get a missiles onto your house until you understand that Israel action is right,Amen
> (Yeah,i know it's a stupid comment,but you are getting up on my nerves with that ignorance)



I think it is right that Isreal should do something but a war and innocent people that are dead? They could try with a better resolution instead of this pointless war.

And about the blaming part. I think both sides are to blame for this, but this won't bring back lifes of all the people that died already.


----------



## Mastermind (Jul 15, 2006)

Sesqoo said:
			
		

> I think it is right that Isreal should do something but a war and innocent people that are dead? They could try with a better resolution instead of this pointless war.
> 
> And about the blaming part. I think both sides are to blame for this, but this won't bring back lifes of all the people that died already.


Right now,Israel is bombing a strategic places in Lebanon,and don't aim for civilians at all,unlike the Hizbullah that are launching missiles at a random places all over North Israel just to kill as much Israel's civilians as possible

And don't take seriously my previous post,it's just annoying how much Anti-Israel peoples are in this forums


----------



## Shogun (Jul 15, 2006)

a lot has been said about america's constant backing of isreal regardless of the situation. But for the benefit of those who don't know (including myself) can someone please explain why this is the case?


----------



## Windy (Jul 15, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> a lot has been said about america's constant backing of isreal regardless of the situation. But for the benefit of those who don't know (including myself) can someone please explain why this is the case?



OK, I told myself I won't participate in these threads anymore, so I'll just make this post and leave. >_<

America's government, obviously, isn't going it out of the goodness of it's heart, but to maintain it's interests in the area - Israel is a democratic country, an ally of the US and strongly loyal to it, so it benefits the US government to have Israel there in this not so friendly to the US area.
Also, the financial backing apparently benefits the US economy in some complicated way from what I heard, but I don't know exactly how.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 15, 2006)

Mastermind said:
			
		

> Right now,Israel is bombing a strategic places in Lebanon,and don't aim for civilians at all,unlike the Hizbullah that are launching missiles at a random places all over North Israel just to kill as much Israel's civilians as possible
> 
> And don't take seriously my previous post,it's just annoying how much Anti-Israel peoples are in this forums



Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Isreal is aiming to kill people but even if you don't do that there is always a chance on getting someone killed thats why they should be leaning towards other methods that may hopefully leave civils outside and same goes for Hizbollah*, I'm definetly not saying the bombing they doing is right, but since this bombing gave most victims I was talking about Isreal. Someone needs to take the first step to a better solution. Isreal having experienced and kinda still is experiencing war with Palestina, which gave great losses too should try to do something to not make they people suffer even more.

As for your previous post, which I qouted. I didn't really take it seriously , but many do think the way you posted so I qouted you in a hope the people who do think like this should  think again, because war is never a good action, as many think it is.


----------



## Crowe (Jul 15, 2006)

Mastermind said:
			
		

> For those who blames Israel i wish all of you would get a missiles onto your house until you understand that Israel action is right,Amen
> (Yeah,i know it's a stupid comment,but you are getting up on my nerves with that ignorance)


For those who think what Israel is doing is right I wish all of you would get missiles...



			
				Sesqoo said:
			
		

> leave civils outside and same goes for Lebanon,


*Hizbollah


----------



## niko (Jul 15, 2006)

We got the Americans liberating people to heaven, and now these people come along and decide to take a few innocent lives to get even.


----------



## Cece (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Iran attacking Israel is unlikely...As.
> 
> 1.)Iran can't attack Israel with aircraft. Good luck getting over American occupied Iraqi, Jordanian (which hates Iran), or Saudi (which also hates Iran) air-space. Not to mention their aircraft would never make it past Israeli air defenses, or probably even get there given the miserable condition of the Iranian air force.
> 
> 2.)Any sort of Iranian missle attack would worsen its already terrible situation with Europe and America GREATLY. Iran can say goodbye to any chance it has to a nuclear weapon if it launches a missle at Israel. Also, Israel has an anti-missle defense system that could deal with Iranian ballistic missles. Iran on the other hand, can not defend against Israeli aircraft or missles.



I dunno what you were thinking while writing that but that is just complete sh*t.

The Jordanians and Saudies would of course let Iran use their airspace if they were attacking Israel... In fact, they would be the ones giving Iran the petrol to do so.  I'll just ignore the sentence-- 'miserable condition of their air force'  .  While writing that you didn't actually except a response... right?

Now to your second point.  As it stands, the EU or the US have already said countless times that it would not let Iran develop nuclear technology the way it wants.  The idea that the EU or US selling Iran the things needed to create Nuclear Powerplants is just a complete joke to Iran.  Iran _will_ get the nuclear technology it wants.

I also do not see the US/Israel attacking Iran anytime soon.  US/Israel is also controlling a great part of the ME.  Russia and China, not to mention the rest of the world (everyone other then westeners--Be happy Iseraleiissss! I'm counting you as westeners too!) are not at all happy with the US controlling a good part of the ME.  Russia in fact, has directly told the US and Israel not to attack Iran.  Other islamic nations other then the ones in the ME have told Israel to stop their offensive to the Arabs.  

If I was Israel, I would follow this piece of advise, or, if the Israeli army is feeling capable of defending Israel against all of the islamic nations, not to mention the helping hand of Russia and China combined then I would totally ignore it.  Seeing that Israel is totally ignoring it, I would assume that the Israeli army is very confident.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 15, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> i know you can read mr nosguy, my question was very specific and i bolded it for u just now



That was my exact question asshole. There exists no such thing. The IDF operates a very wide variety of AFVs. Of course you ignore then manintance on it's large armored forces stacks up.

For example, a new mech division with 250 Merkeva IVs and 250 Bradley IFVs clocks in at around 2.5 billion. Not cheap, and that's just the downpayment. How much do you think you throw into a car for maintence, fuel, etc. over a lifetime? It's leagues more for any sort of armoured vehicle.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> it doesn't matter how much , it's free money for isreal from the US (actually, we know nothing's free).  Any amount of money is better spent domestically.



It's free money that doesn't do nearly as much as you credit it for. When the Israeli economy is already doing that well, a mere 2 billion in aid isn't as much as incentive as it is to say the Egyptians.

Of course, if we believe our intrpeid moderator Vash?! it's spent domestically anyway since it built up the infrastructure. I love you guys, you can't figure out that aid money is pretty much evenly dispersed between spending and economic incentives.

It's not like I'm sitting here going "RARARA Isreal!" because I'm some kneejerk fundie asshole (I'm atheist actually), it's simply because this nation was quintessentially built from scratch in the midst of hostile neighbours who did everything in their power to destroy it. Also, they continue to uphold a general democratic postion (there's still much room for improvement) as opposed to the utter despotic regimes in the region. 

They really started getting US aid _after_ 1973, which is after they had essentially secured the nation's survival in the long-term. They won their existance not with first-rate American equipment like you people insist, they won it by a wide and varied mix of equipment and weapons.

The only real reason the Isreali air force generally operates US jets is because:

A.) They're essentially paid not to develop new airframes (see Lavi)
B.) They're subsudized in their purchases.

Key words folks. Subsidies are not complete underwrites. Even then, the subsidies are not in the absurd range. 

There's also the additional fact the American government likes to have export customers for its nation's aircraft and if they can stroke the market a little by giving aid that was promised to both sides under camp david anyway, why not?

And Vash?!, wouldn't a smaller population base work against Israel? We note that strong economies are usally matched by equally strong populations. The 17th century Dutch were small but used their skills wisely and effectively, that is of course until overreach came into effect.

Egypt has the potential to massively increase its economic potential with he aid given to it (nearly the same as Israel I might add), yet it doesn't. 100 billion looks like a big fancy number until you realize that's what was brought up for one city after Katrina. Even at that, a good portion of that money goes to defense, which cuts into it.


----------



## Cece (Jul 15, 2006)

Someone already posted why Egypt did not massively increase its economic potential a few hours ago...  But seeing that you forgot to read it I'll write up an example, just for you.

If you gave $1b to Kuwait, they would 'massively increase its economic potential' however if you gave it to China, it wouldn't make that much of a difference...

See, because Egypt gets much less aid then Israel gets, and because it is much bigger landwise, and because it's population is more then 11x Israel's they were unable to use the aid the way Israel used it...

Next you're gonna start saying 'The largest number of gay people is in China'


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

> Im sorry Zodd but posting Finkelstein and Chomsky as credible witnesses on Israel doesnt say much since they blame everything on Israel and USA in the first place. ... torture, poverty and despotism many suffer in those countries.



The ?middle path? is a logical fallacy. It assumes that the most logical path is the one between two arguments, which is not the case. During the Holocaust, one could have told Hitler not to kill all the Jews. Your logical conclusion would have been the ?middle path? or half the Jews. They only seem radical in thought by comparison to the moneyed interests you see as talking heads every day on tv. 400 years ago a radical thought would have been the abolishment of slavery in the Americas. Radical does not mean wrong, they back up everything they say with facts and reason. 

The citizens of Israel probably have little interest in such a thing, but it has been done to Lebanon before so your point is negated by historical evidence. My goodness man, didn?t you read my post? Those countries suffer through despotism and poverty because they were former colonies of western powers. Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, most of North Africa, Iran, etc. were all controlled by western powers. And they still are, except they?ve found good native thugs in those countries who haven?t a care in the world how their people are ruled, but instead on palaces and underage girls. 



> And you think that if the Arabs had won the war in 1948 they wouldnt have done the exact same thing(in view that thousands of Jews were later robbed and kicked out of Middle Eastern nations wher they had lived for generations, this outome would have been almost certain)? How can a nation survive when cornered by millions bent on your destruction? Besides that doesnt make sense since Most of the forces that attacked Israel on those dates Nos Guy posted didnt have any legitimate claims to Palestine in the first place(with the possible exception of 1948).



Why are you presenting historical ?what if?s?? If they won the war in ?48 I don?t know what they?d do. Now you?re basing present policy on your crystal ball and divination of hypothetical history. Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Jews still live in Iran and other Arab countries. They are given special protection in Iran. So to assume that Arabs and Muslims will automatically massacre Jews is quite imperialistic of you. Those groups did not have legitimate claim, but neither does Israel. And in the Islamic perspective, one is better than the other. The Palestinians were perfectly willing to accept help in their struggle. So it can better be viewed as an alliance rather than usurpers. 



> Ah, I had forgotten who flailing tried to appease the other.



Okay. You know, if you turn down the sarcasm you might actually make a point in some of these statements. What is this supposed to mean? Who are you talking about? Your world isn?t as easy for others to see as you might think. 



> Well, you're almost right there. The various states are kept in power by the money western powers throw at them for oil.



Yes, and those states do the bidding of those foreign powers. It is not only that they are kept in power due to the money, but also military bases, weapons deals, and assassinations. 



> Yes, because the US has already moved against the Saudis because of their clear connection to terrorism. Oh wait. If the other countries were under the US' boot heal, I wouldn't have to pay 50.00 bucks to fill up my tank.



Do you understand basic economics and business in general? That $50 to fill up your tank is mostly going to oil companies! They are making record profits. And they are completely under the US boot. Let me introduce basic economic theory: If we wanted to pay less than $70 a barrel, we would need to run our military in and steal it. Which we could easily do. But then the price of extracting the oil would include the cost of housing a military and disruptions by insurgents. We COULD do it, but it?s much cheaper to bribe dictators we?ve already established. The oil companies already have very cozy arrangements and they would be VERY angry at any attempt to reduce your price at the pump. And above all else they do not wish an interruption in supply. Suggested reading: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. These details I?ve outlined are well-known and established almost 50 years ago. 



> That's funny, I seem to recall 4 wars and nearly 3 decades before that happened. I guess that depends on your defination of "quick" eh? Last I checked Egypt wasn't a big supplier of oil, you're probably thinking of Libya.



That was the same year as the ?79 energy crisis. And Egypt controls the transportation lane (Suez) that allows the oil to be shipped. It, along with Hormuz, is essential to oil transportation. I?m not thinking of Libya. 



> If that were true shouldn't your IDF insurance policy of doom toppled Saddam and not the US Army?



No, because there was no reason to do this while the US military was already in the Mid East. If Israel had done this it would have created more problems. However, if the US were for some reason unable to do this, Israel would most certainly. 



> Refusal to present evidence denotes there is none. Concession accepted. Yeah, you're citing a poacked house of certified level heads there. That's like me citing the Cato instutite.
> 
> Also, appeal to authority.



No concession offered. There have been tens of thousands of pages written in books about the subject. Those books source thousands more articles spanning 50 years. It is not my job to educate you on the subject. It is not my obligation to fill the gaps in your learning and understanding. I cannot transcribe hundreds of pages from books for you, sorry. If you want to discuss Chomsky?s works read one, we will go to a chat room and debate sources and reasoning. You can use reason or you can keep up with these childish zingers like ?concession accepted.? All style, no substance. 



> The kibbutz that they wanted. The Zionist movement was quite prevelant and Jewish land ownership was the goal of quite a few people. The Jews didn't want Germany, don't you realize that?



The kibbutz was a concession drawn among world powers. It was strategically located and under Brit control, which the Brits didn?t particularly favor any longer. The Zionist movement?s founders actually debated whether Palestine was the best choice, and considered other regions of South America and even Africa because they were fertile. It is most likely that had not Balfour (a secular Brit minister) chosen for them, they would have been overjoyed to accept fertile regions of Europe or South America. 



> I said no such thing. I simply noted when the Haganah and PALMACH attacks against Great Britain forces began. Of course, you still ignore why those units were formed, but I guess misrepresenting arguments is par for course.
> 
> You ignore the fact that the IDF is a unified command structure and a professional force under a soverign nation state. The IDF has it's roots in the movements, but it is not the movements.



You just said that elements of Haganah attacked the British. And it is a fact that the IDF was formed from Haganah. To say that the state hasn?t formed yet is no defense. A perfect parallel would be to say that the Revolutionary Army in the US during the Revolution is not backed by a sovereign state and isn?t responsible for their actions before the state formed. Ludicrous. 



> Oh, so that's why the Palestanians rejected the UN offer? It's not like proto-Israelis weren't the ones with the keys to the bank (literally and figuratively).
> 
> Then again you ignore the fact that the land that made up Pre-1967 Israel was land taken in counter-attacks against the Arab forces.
> 
> ...



I don?t understand: why should one accept compromise in this instance for the sake of justice. Okay, let?s say that after I kicked you out of your house the police showed up and offered you a great (in my opinion) compromise: we both get half. After all, the neighborhood supports it, so it must be right. Ha, good laughs. 

There was no such thing as ?Arab forces? until they started being evicted from their homes. To say that they had already formed a military and attacked Jews at random is simply incorrect. And it follows the illegal concept of collective punishment. 

My side huh? I see, now it?s the winners who have moral superiority and the losers are obviously wrong. What does that have to do with what is right? Nothing. They could have declared a state (not a nation state) with both Jews and Muslims living together as they had since the early Medieval period. 

Who?s ?you people?? I?m not Islamic or of Arabic or North African heritage. Now your arguments are looking so bad you have to resort to this type of classification including ?you people.? Nice and classy. It?s the whole ?we won you lost? rationalization of morals and it is very counter-productive to your argument.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

Windy said:
			
		

> OK, I told myself I won't participate in these threads anymore, so I'll just make this post and leave. >_<
> 
> America's government, obviously, isn't going it out of the goodness of it's heart, but to maintain it's interests in the area - Israel is a democratic country, an ally of the US and strongly loyal to it, so it benefits the US government to have Israel there in this not so friendly to the US area.
> Also, the financial backing apparently benefits the US economy in some complicated way from what I heard, but I don't know exactly how.



Haha, you can't stay away. 

The "only democracy in the region" argument has no meaning. Why does the US care if there is a democracy in the region? It certainly hasn't inspired anyone to go democratic, and many of those dictatorships in the region (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, etc.) have the FULL backing of the US government, and in some instances are being kept in power by US money and US bases. If we wanted Israel to serve as a model, why are we investing resources in keeping dictators in power? You got the strong and loyal part right, however. 

Israel is insignificant in terms of its contribution to the US economy. None of its stocks are prominent, its stock market is very small and mostly ignored. In fact most foreigners couldn't name an Israeli stock or a single Israeli export. I can barely think of a couple.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 15, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I dunno what you were thinking while writing that but that is just complete sh*t.
> 
> The Jordanians and Saudies would of course let Iran use their airspace if they were attacking Israel... In fact, they would be the ones giving Iran the petrol to do so.  I'll just ignore the sentence-- 'miserable condition of their air force'  .  While writing that you didn't actually except a response... right?



You don't have much understanding of Iranian-Arab relations do you?

Saudi Arabia and Jordan fear Iran. Because:

Iran was a monarchy controlled by a brutal king, it was supported by the U.S. both financially and militarily and had a large population of poor, miserable, and oppressed peasants. Islamic extremism appealed to these people and the monarchy was overthrown, putting a brutal theocracy which changed little into power.

Now lets look at Saudi Arabia and Jordan

They are both monarchies controlled by brutal kings, supported by the U.S. both financially and militarily, and have a large population of poor, miserable, and oppressed peasants. Islamic extremism appeals to these people and Saudi Arabian and Jordanian leaders do not want to be overthrown. Therefore Saudi Arabia and Jordan do 2 things:

1.)Do not do anything that would destabilize their country (like piss off Israel or America).

2.)Do not support a nation like Iran. Iran has shown a desire to produce more Islamic states throughout the middle east by means of inciting revolutions. 

The Saudi's and Jordanian goverments rightfully view Iran as a bigger threat then Israel and do not support Iran. Israel doesn't attack surronding countries unless provoked, while Iran has been trying to overthrow Middle Eastern monarchies for decades.

The Arab world is hardly unitied against the evil Jews as you seem to think. Far more Arabs have been killed by other Arabs then by Israel since 1948 after all (the Iran-Iraq war alone proves this, nevermind the Lebanese civil war, Egyptian-Yemen war, Sunni and Shiite conflicts, etc.). They're constantly fighting each other.



> Now to your second point.  As it stands, the EU or the US have already said countless times that it would not let Iran develop nuclear technology the way it wants.  The idea that the EU or US selling Iran the things needed to create Nuclear Powerplants is just a complete joke to Iran.  Iran _will_ get the nuclear technology it wants.



Iran has been offered deals where it can get nuclear power but not equipment to produce nuclear weapons. Iran has refused this, making their desires obvious. If Iran continues to try to produce a nuclear weapon it will be confronted by America, the European Union, Israel, and others.



> I also do not see the US/Israel attacking Iran anytime soon.  US/Israel is also controlling a great part of the ME



I don't either, but Irans economy can be crippled by any sort of American or European sanctions. Be reminded these said countries are the economic centers of the world.

Also, America and Israel hardly occupy any of the Middle East. Israel takes up a tiny, almost non-visible piece of land while Iraq is basically running itself by this point.



> Russia and China, not to mention the rest of the world (everyone other then westeners--Be happy Iseraleiissss! I'm counting you as westeners too!) are not at all happy with the US controlling a good part of the ME.  Russia in fact, has directly told the US and Israel not to attack Iran.



As I said, these countries hardly control any part of teh Middle East. As for Russia...It has enough of its own problems (a collasping economy and society, quagmire in Chechnya, etc.) to actually do anything.

Israel is also the 2nd largest weapons supplier to China. With China's ambitions to make itself a superpower, it won't want to risk its relationship with Israel.



> Other islamic nations other then the ones in the ME have told Israel to stop their offensive to the Arabs.



The Arabs condemn everything Israel does regardless of what it is. Israel doesn't care.  



> If I was Israel, I would follow this piece of advise, or, if the Israeli army is feeling capable of defending Israel against all of the islamic nations, not to mention the helping hand of Russia and China combined then I would totally ignore it.



XD, this is funny. Your "united Islamic nations" is completely unrealistic. Arab nations distrust each other enormously. Not to mention most of Israels neighbors are dependent on the U.S. and Europe for military equipment,  political stability, trade. Any sort of attack on Israel and they can say goodbye to those benefits.

Also...You think the Islamic nations actually WANT to help Lebanon? Besides Syria, none of them really care. I doubt king Abdullah or Mubarak lost any sleep last night over Lebanon. They make their little political rantings and condemnations but nothing past that. Also the Arabs tried a unitied front against Israel 3 times, and each one was a complete disaster for the Arabs. Do the Arabs want another humiliation?

Remember, Israel waged a MUCH larger war with Lebanon in the 1980's, which included nearly 90,000 Israeli ground troops directly involved in the country, and the Arabs did nothing.



> Seeing that Israel is totally ignoring it, I would assume that the Israeli army is very confident.



As it should be. You should read about the preformance of the IDF vs. its neighbors in all previous wars as well as the current state of the IDF vs. its neighbors. Also, a united Arab attack on Israel just won't happen due to reasons stated above, no matter how much you want that war to occur.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 15, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> That was my exact question asshole. There exists no such thing. The IDF operates a very wide variety of AFVs. Of course you ignore then manintance on it's large armored forces stacks up.
> 
> For example, a new mech division with 250 Merkeva IVs and 250 Bradley IFVs clocks in at around 2.5 billion. Not cheap, and that's just the downpayment. How much do you think you throw into a car for maintence, fuel, etc. over a lifetime? It's leagues more for any sort of armoured vehicle.


Shit-for-brains calls me an asshole.  Go reread my question 10 times, and think about wether u answered it or not, because it seems to me you just asked me my own question back.  It doesn't matter, because us funding can buy your tanks and maintain them.

The bulk of aid comes after 73?  A shitload of aid comes b4 73 too!  Do I have to point to that stupid chart I keep showing Megaharrison for u now too?


----------



## Blue (Jul 15, 2006)

> That was my exact question asshole.





> Shit-for-brains calls me an asshole.


Keep flaming, see what happens.

Those claiming that Israel is only able to dominate it's neighbors due to Western financial and military aid aren't really seeing the actual picture. Unlike some other countries, like, say, France, England, Japan, South Korea... Israel manufactures the majority of it's own military equipment, with the exception of military airframes, which like every other wealthy country, it purchases from the US. In fact, the US Government stopped lending aid to certain sectors of the Israeli military after Israel cooperated with China in building a new Chinese fighter jet. Israel's military is independantly more technologically advanced than that of China.

*So to summarize:* Israel would kick ass with or without US aid. In fact, someone in the beginning of the thread mentioned that Israel would lose a war against the UK - well, no. The UK has little ability to project force, and what force it could project would be easily disposed of by the significantly more advanced and experienced Israeli military.

As for the moral aspects of the situation, I'll deal with that on a post by post basis.

EDIT: I should also note that Israel is one of the very few countries the US actually imports weaponry from.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 15, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Israel is insignificant in terms of its contribution to the US economy. None of its stocks are prominent, its stock market is very small and mostly ignored. In fact most foreigners couldn't name an Israeli stock or a single Israeli export. I can barely think of a couple.



Most people can't name a single Indian product or export at a glance, it doesn't mean they aren't there. You are aware that purchases in the billions of equipment/services/the like do have effects? The only reason it's not standing out is because of the vastness of the US marketplace. I'm sure if one looked that puts them high up on the list when one gets to non-world powers.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> The middle path is a logical fallacy. It assumes that the most logical path is the one between two arguments, which is not the case. During the Holocaust, one could have told Hitler not to kill all the Jews. Your logical conclusion would have been the middle path or half the Jews. They only seem radical in thought by comparison to the moneyed interests you see as talking heads every day on tv. 400 years ago a radical thought would have been the abolishment of slavery in the Americas. Radical does not mean wrong, they back up everything they say with facts and reason.



You have read "American Hegomony" right? God that was a piece of shit. Of course the person who quoted did not suggest a middle path. Of course, you fundamentally ignore the meaning of the golden mean fallacy which means it is a fallacy to insist there always is a median answer, not that there exists no such thing as a middle path.

Can I cite Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly? Can I cite Pat Robertson? I can claim they back up everything with logic and reasoning, but a quick look at their track record shows a heavilly biased sample and willingness to ignore anything and everything that opposes them, truth or not.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> The citizens of Israel probably have little interest in such a thing, but it has been done to Lebanon before so your point is negated by historical evidence. My goodness man, didnt you read my post? Those countries suffer through despotism and poverty because they were former colonies of western powers. Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, most of North Africa, Iran, etc. were all controlled by western powers. And they still are, except theyve found good native thugs in those countries who havent a care in the world how their people are ruled, but instead on palaces and underage girls.



Then it's still the people's fault. There's only so long you can rely on the victim complex. One can start from scratch and still build a decent working country, look at the Israelis. The Jews were persecuted for nearly two millenia after the diaspora, but they actually made something work from nothing.

Most of these former colonies had infrastructure and a valuable natural resource to work with. What did they do? Waste it. Exactly what the PA did in Gaza.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Why are you presenting historical what ifs? If they won the war in 48 I dont know what theyd do. Now youre basing present policy on your crystal ball and divination of hypothetical history. Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Jews still live in Iran and other Arab countries. They are given special protection in Iran. So to assume that Arabs and Muslims will automatically massacre Jews is quite imperialistic of you. Those groups did not have legitimate claim, but neither does Israel. And in the Islamic perspective, one is better than the other. The Palestinians were perfectly willing to accept help in their struggle. So it can better be viewed as an alliance rather than usurpers.



Nevermidn the fact that Arabs frequently discriminated against Jews who legitmately came to Palestine. Your version is a complete and utter lie.

Oh, that's why the PLA has vowed to destroy Israel when they were pulling out of Gaza and eyeing a West Bank withdrawl?

Have you taken a look at anything said or done in Iran? Holacause denials, vows to wipe Israel off the map, propoganda videos praising sucide bombers killing civilians. Oh gee, they enjoy "special protection", how many Jews actually live in Iran? Not many.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Okay. You know, if you turn down the sarcasm you might actually make a point in some of these statements. What is this supposed to mean? Who are you talking about? Your world isnt as easy for others to see as you might think.



The western powers have gone out of their way to appease Arab oil producers. Remember the US sidelining Israel during the first gulf war?



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Yes, and those states do the bidding of those foreign powers. It is not only that they are kept in power due to the money, but also military bases, weapons deals, and assassinations.



Oh, that's why OPEC has traditionally put the screws to the US when it felt like it. That's some bidding you've got going there.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Do you understand basic economics and business in general? That $50 to fill up your tank is mostly going to oil companies! They are making record profits. And they are completely under the US boot. Let me introduce basic economic theory: If we wanted to pay less than $70 a barrel, we would need to run our military in and steal it. Which we could easily do. But then the price of extracting the oil would include the cost of housing a military and disruptions by insurgents. We COULD do it, but its much cheaper to bribe dictators weve already established. The oil companies already have very cozy arrangements and they would be VERY angry at any attempt to reduce your price at the pump. And above all else they do not wish an interruption in supply. Suggested reading: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. These details Ive outlined are well-known and established almost 50 years ago.



Oh, so that's why the oil companies were barely making ends meet under 99 cent gasoline in the 80s and 90s. Ficticious. You are aware only two of the seven major energy companies are American right? If someone's making orders, it's probably not an American company.

Of course, you also ignore the fact that oil is over 70.00 dollars a gallon for a variety of reason. Yes, there's gouging. There's also rising demand, lack of refinery space, and a massive amount of speculation in the market. We don't have to steal jack and shit for under 70.00 a barrell, that's historically fallacious. When peak oil is hit, now then you may have a case.

Then there's the aspect that if we've already bribed/continued to bride Arab countries then the oil should be sent to the US priority, and the rest of the world should feel the pinch, not us, since after all they're under our boot heel and they do exactly as we tell them. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> That was the same year as the 79 energy crisis. And Egypt controls the transportation lane (Suez) that allows the oil to be shipped. It, along with Hormuz, is essential to oil transportation. Im not thinking of Libya.



Camp David was in '78. Fail.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> No concession offered. There have been tens of thousands of pages written in books about the subject. Those books source thousands more articles spanning 50 years. It is not my job to educate you on the subject. It is not my obligation to fill the gaps in your learning and understanding. I cannot transcribe hundreds of pages from books for you, sorry. If you want to discuss Chomskys works read one, we will go to a chat room and debate sources and reasoning. You can use reason or you can keep up with these childish zingers like concession accepted. All style, no substance.



If we want to start saying "well, there's a lot of information out there!" and refuse to cite specific sources you clearly have no grasp of logic. At all. It is your job to provide evidence asshole, and if you cannot I must assume it doesn't exist.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> The kibbutz was a concession drawn among world powers. It was strategically located and under Brit control, which the Brits didnt particularly favor any longer. The Zionist movements founders actually debated whether Palestine was the best choice, and considered other regions of South America and even Africa because they were fertile. It is most likely that had not Balfour (a secular Brit minister) chosen for them, they would have been overjoyed to accept fertile regions of Europe or South America.



Cite your source. Now. That's why various international Jewish groups setup projects for settlers in Palestine, pre-dating WWII they clearly wanted somewhere else. That's why all the dispariate groups of Jews tried to go where?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 15, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> You just said that elements of Haganah attacked the British. And it is a fact that the IDF was formed from Haganah. To say that the state hasn’t formed yet is no defense. A perfect parallel would be to say that the Revolutionary Army in the US during the Revolution is not backed by a sovereign state and isn’t responsible for their actions before the state formed. Ludicrous.



You're still failing. Haganah was one of the many groups that eventually made up the IDF. Okay, the PA is connected to Black September who commited acts of terror against Israel, therefore a justifable state of war pre-exists. Let's really work this example.

Of course, saying "Well, the Haganah commited a few terrorist acts against the British!" still negates that was one of many roles for organization. There's also that funny little aspect that Arabs had been attacking British authorites and Jewish settlers for far longer. I never claimed the IDF/Israel is perfect and just, but you're not taking the bigger picture into effect. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> I don’t understand: why should one accept compromise in this instance for the sake of justice. Okay, let’s say that after I kicked you out of your house the police showed up and offered you a great (in my opinion) compromise: we both get half. After all, the neighborhood supports it, so it must be right. Ha, good laughs.



Except for the fact that Israeli settlers bought their land, and any land that made up pre-1967 Israel was taken in COUNTER-ATTACKS during the War of Independence. I'm tired of people making the Jewish settlers out to be the barbarian horde who just walked in one day.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> There was no such thing as “Arab forces” until they started being evicted from their homes. To say that they had already formed a military and attacked Jews at random is simply incorrect. And it follows the illegal concept of collective punishment.



Which is why we note a five-nation army marching against Israel during it's declaration of independence. Those are Arab forces from outside of the country.

The Palestanians are the real pawns here. Whenever the Arab powers need someone to rally around what happens? "The Jews are opressing our brothers!" while at the same time no one allows them into their country.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> My side huh? I see, now it’s the winners who have moral superiority and the losers are obviously wrong. What does that have to do with what is right? Nothing. They could have declared a state (not a nation state) with both Jews and Muslims living together as they had since the early Medieval period.



Which is nice since I didn't invoke a might makes right fallacy. Your example is utter shit. How many Jews were there in Palestine under the Ottomans? Not many. 



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Who’s “you people?” I’m not Islamic or of Arabic or North African heritage. Now your arguments are looking so bad you have to resort to this type of classification including “you people.” Nice and classy. It’s the whole “we won you lost” rationalization of morals and it is very counter-productive to your argument.



"You people" is your entire apologist ridden position and it's supporters, not a racial slur. It really says something that you're trying to portray me as racist now, then again your argument doesn't leave much alternative.

Are you done misrepresenting anything and everything I've said?



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> The bulk of aid comes after 73? A shitload of aid comes b4 73 too! Do I have to point to that stupid chart I keep showing Megaharrison for u now too?



Which is nice, but irrelvant to your charge. You upheld the position that Israel won it's battles with US equipment, a demonstratably false position.

We don't notice the US pouring on the coal until after Yom-Kippur when it became clear the US could not court the Arab world like it tried to do with it's Arms embargo against Israel.

You're still trying to aska question which is too broad. There is no such thing as "an average Israeli tank" given the vast bredth of material the IDF operates.


----------



## Woofie (Jul 15, 2006)

Israel's responses seem far too heavy-handed and disproportionate at the moment... responses like this will *never* help the situation, they will only make it worse. It seems so obvious to me, I don't know what the hell they're doing, unless they actually _want_ conflict to escalate.

Also, the way this topic has gone is pretty sad, it seems like any topic about the Middle East descends into the same stupid arguments about who would win a theoretical war, who's to blame for things that happened half a century ago, et cetera... who _cares_ who would win a war, I can't believe that people are discussing this like they would discuss a fucking Naruto fight in the battledome or something. And yes, the past might have some relavence, but people should be moving on from that, not holding grudges and bringing it up every time some minor new conflict arises. Maybe it's just because I'm neutral (well, I'd generally side with Israel, but not enough to overlook thir wrongs... like these attacks), but seriously, I don't know what the heck is wrong with you guys.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 15, 2006)

@nos guy :i don't know the details of ur ISreali tanks, so if you can't give an average figure, give a range, if u can't give a range just say u don't know.
By the way, you sidestepped a question on where Isreal get's it's fuel for these military operations from.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Most people can't name a single Indian product or export at a glance, it doesn't mean they aren't there. ...I'm sure if one looked that puts them high up on the list when one gets to non-world powers.



Actually most people know of India's involvement in the service and technology sector. They write much of the code we see, and every time you phone a bank you're talking to an Indian. In fact I'm sure virtually everyone in the US has heard of a case of outsourcing to India. They are 4th in the world in GDP. Their economy is 23 times larger. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> You have read "American Hegomony" right? God that was a piece of shit.... not that there exists no such thing as a middle path.



Uh, okay. I just pointed out that the moderate path is not necessarily the correct one. But rant further if you feel the need. 



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Can I cite Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly? Can I cite Pat Robertson? I can claim they back up everything with logic and reasoning, but a quick look at their track record shows a heavilly biased sample and willingness to ignore anything and everything that opposes them, truth or not.



You can cite Pat Robertson or any of them. But Pat Robertson is not considered a great mind. And neither are the shock jocks. You can't judge the correctness of the argument simply by observing the political spectrum. If Hannity proposed a logical solution, he might be credible despite how you view him personally. Chomsky is an MIT professor credited with making some of the most substantial contributions to science in the 20th century. His famous book Syntactic Structures is considered one of the 100 most influential of all time. He has credentials that Hannity et al do not. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Then it's still the people's fault. There's only so long you can rely on the victim complex. One can start from scratch and still build a decent working country, look at the Israelis. The Jews were persecuted for nearly two millenia after the diaspora, but they actually made something work from nothing.



Are we discussing the victim complex? I think not. I am discussing whether the action of throwing people out of their homes is right or wrong. I'll leave it to you to rationalize what these people should do. 



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Most of these former colonies had infrastructure and a valuable natural resource to work with. What did they do? Waste it. Exactly what the PA did in Gaza.



I think you're missing the point. When a foreign power sets up a puppet regime, it can be difficult for the people to assert their will in the matter. You blame it on them, yet the controllers are the western powers. Egypt has no elections and is ruled by a dictator for life. Neither does Saudi Arabia. Or Jordan. Qatar. Etc. 




			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Nevermidn the fact that Arabs frequently discriminated against Jews who legitmately came to Palestine. Your version is a complete and utter lie.



Oh now it's discrimmination. You know, blacks in the US faced discrimmination before the civil rights movement. Would it have been right for them to do to us what the Jews did to the Muslims? Again, you advocate collective punishment and force that is disproportionate. If Jews are discrimminating, it's a free country too bad. If there are laws against discrimmination, then prosecute the offendors. If there is violence against Jews, go through the court system. These are basic ideas of law. 



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Oh, that's why the PLA has vowed to destroy Israel when they were pulling out of Gaza and eyeing a West Bank withdrawl?
> 
> Have you taken a look at anything said or done in Iran? Holacause denials, vows to wipe Israel off the map, propoganda videos praising sucide bombers killing civilians. Oh gee, they enjoy "special protection", how many Jews actually live in Iran? Not many.



Now your arguments are silly. I can deny the Holocaust in the USA if I wish to. I could do all those things under freedom of speech. You are advocating war in response to free speech in Iran. And around 30,000 Jews still live in Iran. They are guaranteed one seat in parliament, at a minimum. They are not killed and their right to practice their religion and trade is protected. I don't know what you're getting at. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> The western powers have gone out of their way to appease Arab oil producers. Remember the US sidelining Israel during the first gulf war?



No, the western powers have gone out of their way to ensure that oil supply is not disrupted. That move was made for that very reason. If Israel intervened, oil disruptions were feared. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Oh, that's why OPEC has traditionally put the screws to the US when it felt like it. That's some bidding you've got going there.



No they have not. They have provided oil to companies at far below their possible worth. If they decided to charge $200 collectively they could because there is not substitute as of yet for oil. The thing keeping prices high are speculation (by oil companies buying futures contracts) and fears of depletion. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Oh, so that's why the oil companies were barely making ends meet under 99 cent gasoline in the 80s and 90s. Ficticious. You are aware only two of the seven major energy companies are American right? If someone's making orders, it's probably not an American company.
> 
> Of course, you also ignore the fact that oil is over 70.00 dollars a gallon for a variety of reason. Yes, there's gouging. There's also rising demand, lack of refinery space, and a massive amount of speculation in the market. We don't have to steal jack and shit for under 70.00 a barrell, that's historically fallacious. When peak oil is hit, now then you may have a case.
> 
> Then there's the aspect that if we've already bribed/continued to bride Arab countries then the oil should be sent to the US priority, and the rest of the world should feel the pinch, not us, since after all they're under our boot heel and they do exactly as we tell them.



There are some flaws in your analysis. First, it was a high supply of oil that contributed to those low prices at the pump. Like I said above, higher than anything else is ensuring supply is not interrupted. And supply was most certainly not disrupted. 

It is not $70 dollars a gallon, it's per barrel. Oil prices have nothing to do with refining oil in to gas. There is no shortage of refining except the refinement of oil to gas. I don't understand the rest of that paragraph. Doesn't really make sense. 

Your third argument is also flawed. The US is the largest part, but it is western powers that do this. Oil is traded on the open market. It makes little difference who gets oil from what country, that just frees up oil on the open market to go somewhere else. It's a commodity that is bought by mainly corporations not nations, then those corps sell it. The US ensures there's enough of a commodity for itself. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Camp David was in '78. Fail.



You're right the revolution in Iran began and ended on one day in '79 /sarc. The revolution was apparent before Camp David. The threat had been there for years. The Suez is important to oil supply regardless of whether the revolution occurred or not, but we especially did not want to face a double whammy. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> If we want to start saying "well, there's a lot of information out there!" and refuse to cite specific sources you clearly have no grasp of logic. At all. It is your job to provide evidence asshole, and if you cannot I must assume it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Cite your source. Now. That's why various international Jewish groups setup projects for settlers in Palestine, pre-dating WWII they clearly wanted somewhere else. That's why all the dispariate groups of Jews tried to go where?



Asshole huh? Now you sink to name calling? Uh huh. Okay, how about this: again it's not my job to recite pages from a book for you. If you want to find out what he says, read the book. I have it sitting with me as we speak, and the source list alone is 30 pages long, nevermind the book. It's not my job to fill your educational gaps. This is a forum, I don't come here to teach. If you asked me to prove the Fundamental Theorum of Calculus, my answer would be the same: read a book. I cited one source: Hegemony or Survival. I will not reread the book to you, go find it and read it.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 15, 2006)

Mastermind said:
			
		

> Right now,Israel is bombing a strategic places in Lebanon,and don't aim for civilians at all



RIGHT NOW, 18 MORE Lebanese civilians died by the Israeli bombs.

and PLEASE, don`t try to act innocent. it`s not working.  

- Hezbullah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers in an attempt to exchange them with 1000 prisoner in the Israeli prisons. The Israeli government could`ve negotiated this matter peacefully to reach some kind of agreement. but instead, it refused the offer.

- the Israeli government knew the exact locations of Hezbullah members and could`ve saved many innocent lives by bombing only those locations. but instead, the Israeli government chose to bomb the whole south of Lebanon. i don`t know if it was an act of Nazism or the Israeli government behaved like a silly child trying his new toy. you choose  

- instead of calming things down for the sake of both Israeli and Lebanese civilians, the Israeli government neglected Nasrallah warnings about the continuous bombing on south Lebanon and declared that it was "waging a war" against Hezbullah. Naturally, Nasrallah responded to that declaration with rokets.

- as if the silly Israeli government couldn`t get any sillier, it got angry for the rokets that Hezbullah launched *"which could`ve been avoided if the Israeli government was not so thick-headed" and started bombing other areas of Lebanon.

*"We are not seeking escalation, we don't want to lead the region into war. However, if the Israeli enemy wants escalation, we are ready for the confrontation." Hezbullah. (from BBC news)

Hezbullah used violence as a last resort and after trying to negotiate with the Israeli government.

the Israeli government on the other hand used violence from the begining and without second thinking.


conclusion:
- the Israeli government DOES NOT care about the safety of the civilans as much as it tries to show the world.
- the Israeli government should take most of the blame for the massacres that are happening in both Lebanon and Israel.








			
				Mastermind said:
			
		

> And don't take seriously my previous post,



maybe i should save myself the trouble and just stop taking all your posts seriously  



			
				Mastermind said:
			
		

> it's just annoying how much Anti-Israel peoples are in this forums



and it`s more annoying how many people try to justify the Israeli government`s barbaric acts


----------



## Razgriez (Jul 15, 2006)

I think Israel doesnt give a darn who they hit anymore. I dont see how blowing the International Airport up as anything to do with being an strategic military target.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 15, 2006)

Razgriez said:
			
		

> I think Israel doesnt give a darn who they hit anymore. I dont see how blowing the International Airport up as anything to do with being an strategic military target.



Airports are one of the most strategically important targets these days. They're major communication and transportation hubs.

In basically all conflicts in the post-WW2 world, airports are hit.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 15, 2006)

Razgriez said:
			
		

> I think Israel doesn't give a darn who they hit anymore. I dont see how blowing the International Airport up as anything to do with being an strategic military target.



Blowing up airports and having control over the sea cuts the country off, there are other more important reasons aswell probably that don't know of:S

Airports are usually the first thing that is attacked from the beggining of a war. As for the "don't give a darn where they hit" part, if they wouldn't give a darn they would just aim for the center of the city where it is totally pointless.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 15, 2006)

Razgriez said:
			
		

> I think Israel doesnt give a darn who they hit anymore. I dont see how blowing the International Airport up as anything to do with being an strategic military target.



Too true,  If the where they would not have attacked the civilians fleeing at the Syrian boarder with lebenon and especially not send any rockets into CHRISTIAN areas where the anti hezbollah feelings run the highest in the country.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> You're still failing. Haganah was one of the many groups that eventually made up the IDF. Okay, the PA is connected to Black September who commited acts of terror against Israel, therefore a justifable state of war pre-exists. Let's really work this example.



Er, Black September didn't happen until '72, I don't understand Haganah was pre-48. But yes, those involved in Black September should be prosecuted under German law. But I don't see a parallel. 



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Of course, saying "Well, the Haganah commited a few terrorist acts against the British!" still negates that was one of many roles for organization. There's also that funny little aspect that Arabs had been attacking British authorites and Jewish settlers for far longer. I never claimed the IDF/Israel is perfect and just, but you're not taking the bigger picture into effect.



Okay, I don't really disagree with this. But I just wanted to point out that terrorism isn't limited to Arabs. I happens in all societies when there is an underrepresented group. I'm just saying that those (including Haganah and Arabs) should at most be prosecuted individually, not collective punishment. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that Israeli settlers bought their land, and any land that made up pre-1967 Israel was taken in COUNTER-ATTACKS during the War of Independence. I'm tired of people making the Jewish settlers out to be the barbarian horde who just walked in one day.



Those people received no compensation for their lands, and never agreed to sell. o_O I don't mind the settlers. If they want to purchase land from willing customers, then fine. And I don't view Israel as an either-or when it comes to who should live there. People regardless of race should have legal claim to their homes until they sell it, period. Jews and Arabs lived in Jerusalem for a long time before foreign intervention. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Which is why we note a five-nation army marching against Israel during it's declaration of independence. Those are Arab forces from outside of the country.
> 
> The Palestanians are the real pawns here. Whenever the Arab powers need someone to rally around what happens? "The Jews are opressing our brothers!" while at the same time no one allows them into their country.



I won't argue this. There is no doubt the Arab dictators use the Palestinians to appease the populace. And nobody wants them in their country because of many things, but this includes ancient rivalries and especially that most don't want large numbers of refugees. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Which is nice since I didn't invoke a might makes right fallacy. Your example is utter shit. How many Jews were there in Palestine under the Ottomans? Not many.



There has always been a fluctuating Jewish population since... well since the return from Babylon as far as I know. But when did the argument turn in to "how many?" I just pointed out that they have lived with Arabs for a millenium and longer. 





			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> "You people" is your entire apologist ridden position and it's supporters, not a racial slur. It really says something that you're trying to portray me as racist now, then again your argument doesn't leave much alternative.
> 
> Are you done misrepresenting anything and everything I've said?



Okay. Why are you putting me within a camp of people? Can't you evlaluate the merits (or lack of) of my argument without trying to group me? Is it really important? I didn't call you "Zionist &*^%$ whatever." It's unnecesary and can only be interpreted as malicious. Evaluate my positions, not me or the group you've associated me with. And refrain from calling me "asshole" because someone will no doubt ban you.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Airports are one of the most strategically important targets these days. They're major communication and transportation hubs.
> 
> In basically all conflicts in the post-WW2 world, airports are hit.



http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/mideast_conflict

34 civilians dead as they blow up bridges, roads, airports, and ports. 15 children. That's 34 innocents dead to save the life of 2 men. 

Hey everyone, let's give a round of applause for Israel. Three cheers for war crimes!!!


----------



## Woofie (Jul 15, 2006)

While I don't condone Israel's response in any way, Hezbollah must have forseen this response when they took the actions that they did. The sad thing is that innocent people are dying because one side is overly aggressive in their reactions (as usual), and the other either doesn't give a damn about its own people and the consequences they will face (again, as usual). Still, apparently Hezbollah has a reasonable amount of support in Lebanon for some reason...


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 15, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Hey everyone, let's give a round of applause for Israel. Three cheers for war crimes!!!



*cheers
i guess it is clear now that Israel earned a place deep down in Hell. alongside the rest of the savages and barbarians.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

Blue said:
			
		

> Those claiming that Israel is only able to dominate it's neighbors due to Western financial and military aid aren't really seeing the actual picture. Unlike some other countries, like, say, France, England, Japan, South Korea... Israel manufactures the majority of it's own military equipment,



There is a flaw with this reasoning. Israel receives aid. That aid becomes economic capital to build industries of war. When those industries are self-sustaining, you can't claim that Israel built them. More accurately, they built them with welfare from other nations. If you include interest costs it's well over $100 billion from the US alone. That's over 50 years, it's a ton of cash and can buy lots of capital. And Israel would resemble Jordan if it had not the foreign aid. 

Also, France and England have nukes and friendly neighbors. There's no reason to carry a large army supported by taxes when you have nuclear submarines armed with missiles carrying multiple warheads. And let's not fool ourselves, if Japan wanted an armed forces, they would probably be second to the US as they were in WW2. Their technology is frequently superior to our own in other areas, and so is their industry and scientists. And South Korea could just as easily produce their own if it were not economical to buy them abroad.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 15, 2006)

Woofie said:
			
		

> Still, apparently Hezbollah has a reasonable amount of support in Lebanon for some reason...



Many Lebanese supports Hizb'Allah because they credit them with driving out Israel from the occupation of Lebanon.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 15, 2006)

I wonder how many people needs to die for them to understand that war is not the way to understanding.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 15, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/mideast_conflict
> 
> 34 civilians dead as they blow up bridges, roads, airports, and ports. 15 children. That's 34 innocents dead to save the life of 2 men.
> 
> Hey everyone, let's give a round of applause for Israel. Three cheers for war crimes!!!



I don't see how parading around with collateral damage changes things. Good luck finding me any sort of war in history where civilians weren't harmed. The fact remains that an airport is a strategic target that's always hit, regardless of what nationalities are involved.



			
				tootaa18 said:
			
		

> *cheers
> i guess it is clear now that Israel earned a place deep down in Hell. alongside the rest of the savages and barbarians.



So all 6 million Israeli's are going to Hell? Fucking brilliant logic there.

Also you seem to be ignoring the fact Hezbollah rather recklessly started this mess. They crossed the Blue Line and attacked Israeli forces. Apparently you consider self-defense to be evil....Or it's only evil when Israel does it. Most likely the latter.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 15, 2006)

mh said:
			
		

> airport is a strategic target that's always hit, regardless of what nationalities are involved.



lebanons airport would be a strategic target were it not for the fact that they have no air power to speak of !! and they aren't launching airborne attacks! If there are support shipments they can be destroyed as the arrives, Isreal has a capability to do this, rather than completely destroy lebanons infrastructure, which they have decided to do anyway...


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> So all 6 million Israeli's are going to Hell? Fucking brilliant logic there.



in my earlier post, i never stopped saying that the whole thing was the cause of the Israeli GOVERNMENT. 

i said it at least 10 times to make it clear to the morons such as yourself that i wasn`t talking about the whole Israelis out there. i guess my efforts were in vain.

next time i`ll try to be more careful and write something like:

"i guess it is clear now that 2 thirds of Israel earned a place deep down in Hell. alongside the rest of the savages and barbarians."

happy?  





			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Also you seem to be ignoring the fact Hezbollah rather recklessly started this mess. They crossed the Blue Line and attacked Israeli forces. Apparently you consider self-defense to be evil....Or it's only evil when Israel does it. Most likely the latter.



i don`t recall myself saying that i supported Hezbullah actions. i think you need to get your eyes checked.

and i wasn`t talking about who`s fault it is. i was merely replying to the other guy who was trying to fool everyone into believing that Israel....oops...the Israeli government cares about the safety of the Lebanese.

i wonder why you didn`t reply to that post with one of your silly arguments.
is it because you realize deep down in yourself that Israel "not just the government this time" doesn`t really care about muslims? 

at least I say my feelings in the open without hiding anything.
i don`t try to put all the blame on one side like you always do.

i wonder what more nonsense you will be sharing with us next time.
"oh look, a muslim boy accidentally killed an Israeli cat. i think we should wipe out the evil muslims entirly. oh wait, but that doesn`t mean i hate the muslims". maybe?



Edit:
by the way
didn`t you say to the ones who talked about the Lebanese victims that it`s the fault of the Lebanese government for allowing Hezbullah to bomb Israel?

you punished the whole Lebanese for the mistakes of some.
and now you are angry at me becuase you think that i punished all the Israelis to Hell for the crimes of the Government?

i won`t comment on that becuase you are already humiliated enough in the upper side of the post.  

sleep well my dear


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 15, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> in my earlier post, i never stopped saying that the whole thing was the cause of the Israeli GOVERNMENT.



Ah, well "Israel is going to Hell" would imply the population.



> happy?



I suppose. However the actions the Israeli government has taken don't qualify as such...But ah well.




> i don`t recall myself saying that i supported Hezbullah actions. i think you need to get your eyes checked.
> 
> and i wasn`t talking about who`s fault it is. i was merely replying to the other guy who was trying to fool everyone into believing that Israel....oops...the Israeli government cares about the safety of the Lebanese.



Israel is dropping leaflets currently telling innocent Lebanese civilians to get to safety. That shows at least a minimal care towards the enemy population.



> I wonder why you didn`t reply to that post with one of your silly arguments.
> is it because you realize deep down in yourself that Israel "not just the government this time" doesn`t really care about muslims?



Israel doesn't really care about the population outside of its country (which is mainly all Muslim) I would tend to agree. However Israel certainly cares for the 15% of the Israeli population that is Muslim.



> at least I say my feelings in the open without hiding anything.
> i don`t try to put all the blame on one side like you always do.



Hezbollah violated a ceasefire, crossing the Blue Line, for no apparent reason and attacked Israeli troops. Israel isn't at fault for this conflict.



> i wonder what more nonsense you will be sharing with us next time.
> "oh look, a muslim boy accidentally killed an Israeli cat. i think we should wipe out the evil muslims entirly. oh wait, but that doesn`t mean i hate the muslims". maybe?



When exactly did I call all Muslims evil? Anyway, I would tend to agree that the life of a cat (doesn't really matter what nationality it is) is worth more then that of a member of Hezbollah, or multiple members for that matter.





> Edit:
> by the way
> didn`t you say to the ones who talked about the Lebanese victims that it`s the fault of the Lebanese government for allowing Hezbullah to bomb Israel?



Correct, it is partly the fault of the government of Lebanon for this conflict. They've allowed Hezbollah to operate freely for years and have assimilated aspects of their government with Hezbollah.



> you punished the whole Lebanese for the mistakes of some.
> and now you are angry at me becuase you think that i punished all the Israelis to Hell for the crimes of the Government?



It's called a war. As I've said before, good luck finding me a war in history where civilians weren't killed or civilian Infrastructure wasn't targetted. In order to wage war on a government or an enemy force, you must undertake such actions. War is cruel like that.



> i won`t comment on that becuase you are already humiliated enough in the upper side of the post.
> 
> sleep well my dear



Humiliated? You're the one who didn't make your Hell threats clear enough. And I've seen numerous nuts on this board that actually believe all Israeli's are going to Hell. So you can't be too sure.

and sweet dreams my love.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Israel is dropping leaflets currently telling innocent Lebanese civilians to get to safety. That shows at least a minimal care towards the enemy population.



mmmm...let`s see...

Israel:
Bad deeds: 99.9 %
Good deeds: 00.1 %

something tells me it`s not enough.




			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Israel doesn't really care about the population outside of its country (which is mainly all Muslim) I would tend to agree.



so you agree that Israel doesn`t really care about muslims, but you are trying to say it in a polite way. well...that`s a start. 




			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Hezbollah violated a ceasefire, crossing the Blue Line, for no apparent reason and attacked Israeli troops. Israel isn't at fault for this conflict.



Megaharrison my dear
no one attacks for no reason.

your government is trying to wipe out all of Lebanon for the sake of 2 Israelis
it`s a lame reason. but it`s still a reason.  





			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> When exactly did I call all Muslims evil?



it was just a little example, to show our dear friends which level your nonesense is able to reach. 





			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Correct, it is partly the fault of the government of Lebanon for this conflict. They've allowed Hezbollah to operate freely for years and have assimilated aspects of their government with Hezbollah.


+


			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> It's called a war. As I've said before, good luck finding me a war in history where civilians weren't killed or civilian Infrastructure wasn't targetted. In order to wage war on a government or an enemy force, you must undertake such actions. War is cruel like that.



in other words, you won`t get angry if i damned all the Israelis to Hell for the mistakes of the government. afterall, they are part of the Government. Life is cruel like that. 

but you got angry
so what does that make you? what`s the word?.......hypocrite?  





			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Humiliated? You're the one who didn't make your Hell threats clear enough.



forgive me for thinking that i was talking to adults who have enough brains to link earlier posts with new ones.



			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> and sweet dreams my love.



same to you honey


----------



## kelleh (Jul 15, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the point. When a foreign power sets up a puppet regime, it can be difficult for the people to assert their will in the matter. You blame it on them, yet the controllers are the western powers. Egypt has no elections and is ruled by a dictator for life. Neither does Saudi Arabia. Or Jordan. Qatar. Etc.



*rubs eyes*

Did you say puppet regime in reference to Israel?  Whosajiggawha?

Okay, let's go through this one step at a time, because this is completely bogus bullshit.

In 1947, Britain ceded all of its colonial mandates and the colonies themselves to the UN.  This was post-WWII where they were suffering a depression and couldn't afford to hold onto colonies as assets.  Note what I said: _all of its colonies_ (with the exception of Hong Kong which was on the 99-year lease).  This is not only Israel.

Around the turn of the century, we see the beginnings of the Zionist movement.  This SPECIFICALLY called for a Jewish homeland established at the holy land (Jerusalem) in Palestine.  They wanted what they believed was divinely promised to them in the Old Testament.  Whether you support this or not is moot, but the Zionist movement is very particular.

Now, back in 1947, the UN has complete control over what happens in the establishment of this Jewish state in the Middle East.  The , (NOT just the Western Powers, this is *everybody*) approved the partition of the area into Jewish and Arab states, and we see the establishment of independent Israel.

So far, I see no signs of a puppet government.  Now let's look at practicalities.

Israel is the biggest bullseye on the face of the earth.  It's like being an escaped slave in the 1830s surrounded by a lynch mob.  It's not in a strategic location (read: no oil or natural resources) and it's enveloped by neighbors who would love nothing more than to see them wiped off the map (Jerusalem is their holy land too).

How this would work in our favor in order to sway the Middle Eastern powers is nonexistent.  They are a target.  Everything that Israel has established has been by its own means and its own ingenuity - along with the pressing NEED to establish a strong economy and military in order to sustain itself in the region and ward off the countless numbers of attackers.

We are not the backbone of their economy or their military.  They do not serve our interests (it would be in our best interests if they WEREN'T there, seeing as most Arabs hate us because... we support Israel).  They do not give any of us leverage over OPEC in controlling oil prices.

Suggesting that Israel is some kind of puppet regime would not only make it the most spectacular failure of one, it's just flying in the face of EVERY FACT we have.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 15, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> mmmm...let`s see...
> 
> Israel:
> Bad deeds: 99.9 %
> ...



I hope you mean in this war....Because Israel has contributed significantly to science and such (look up the large number of Israeli nobel prize winners vs. the size of the Israeli population). Israel also did a number of humanitarian operations in Africa in particular (developing land, and rescusing Ethiopian Jews from persecution, etc.)

But in regards to this war, dropping leaflets to warn Lebanese civilians, and the fact Israel is not simply carpet bombing all of Beirut certainly shows a desire to avoid unecessary collateral damage.





> so you agree that Israel doesn`t really care about muslims, but you are trying to say it in a polite way. well...that`s a start.



Well, I said it doesn't care for the populations of its surronding countries that much. It just so happens the vast majority of those populations are Muslim.

I also stated that Israel cares very much for the 15% of the Israeli population that is Muslim. Funny how you left that out.






> Megaharrison my dear
> no one attacks for no reason.
> 
> your government is trying to wipe out all of Lebanon for the sake of 2 Israelis
> it`s a lame reason. but it`s still a reason.



Israel was not bombing Lebanon UNTIL Hezbollah kidnapped the 2 Israeli soldiers and killed 8 others, violating the cease-fire and crossing the Blue Line.





+




> in other words, you won`t get angry if i damned all the Israelis to Hell for the mistakes of the government. afterall, they are part of the Government. Life is cruel like that.
> 
> but you got angry
> so what does that make you? what`s the word?.......hypocrite?



When did I damn the Lebanese civilian population to Hell? They should get out of the major cities and avoid interacting with Hezbollah and Lebanese army groups as much as possible as to avoid being killed in the cross-fire


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 15, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> I hope you mean in this war



by linking the TITLE of the thread and all my posts you should be able to form an idea...hopefully.




			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> But in regards to this war, dropping leaflets to warn Lebanese civilians, and the fact Israel is not simply carpet bombing all of Beirut certainly shows a desire to avoid unecessary collateral damage.



the enemy is located in south Lebanon yet the bombing reached Beirut.
and here you are saying that the Israeli government is trying to avoid unecessary collateral damage.

i think you need to take some kind of therapy....some drugs perhaps?....or maybe a good night sleep?............ANYTHING!!. just do something to cure that nonesense of yours. 






			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Well, I said it doesn't care for the populations of its surronding countries that much. It just so happens the vast majority of those populations are Muslim.



 i wonder...if those muslims out side your border were Americans by any chance....would you have dared to a lay a finger on them? of course not. so enough with the dramatic acts.  







			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> When did I damn the Lebanese civilian population to Hell? They should get out of the major cities and avoid interacting with Hezbollah and Lebanese army groups as much as possible as to avoid being killed in the cross-fire



great suggetion. however, since the Lebanese have no safe shelters against rokets and since the Israeli government is bombing diffirent areas everday, i`m afraid that i would have to ask you to keep your little suggetion to yourself, since it`s not doing the Lebanese any good.


----------



## Freija (Jul 15, 2006)

......my sister is currently in juenieh, swedish goverment is going to evacuate my relatives there though.... *probably* on monday


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 15, 2006)

> The “middle path” is a logical fallacy. It assumes that the most logical path is the one between two arguments, which is not the case. During the Holocaust, one could have told Hitler not to kill all the Jews. Your logical conclusion would have been the “middle path” or half the Jews. They only seem radical in thought by comparison to the moneyed interests you see as talking heads every day on tv. 400 years ago a radical thought would have been the abolishment of slavery in the Americas. Radical does not mean wrong, they back up everything they say with facts and reason.



1. Most of the press in my home country are largely Critical to US and Israeli foreign policy in the first place so they are more on the line of Chomsky and yourself than me.

2. Its true that some of their claims are factual. The point is that they misinterpent the evidence and bend it to conclusions not supported by evidence. This is the case both with Chomskys _Hegemony and Survival   _ and Finkelstains _The Hoocaust Industry_. There have been alot of people who have written well thoughtful and factual rebutal of their claims. 

3. To use your rather "excotic" suggestion, wouldnt it be better if Hitler killed 3 million instead of 6 million?



> The citizens of Israel probably have little interest in such a thing, but it has been done to Lebanon before so your point is negated by historical evidence. My goodness man, didn’t you read my post? Those countries suffer through despotism and poverty because they were former colonies of western powers. Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, most of North Africa, Iran, etc. were all controlled by western powers. And they still are, except they’ve found good native thugs in those countries who haven’t a care in the world how their people are ruled, but instead on palaces and underage girls.



1. From what i can tell the main motivation for Israels invasion 20 years ago was to crush PLO. Not to actually take over the country and implement it in "greater Israel". Do you really think Israel would tolerate more millions of pissed of Arabs within its borders? 

2. The point is that hardly any Arab country show the qualifications that nations that calls itself a democracy must fulfill. Blaming this just because they were colonized seams like a easy escape route from taking responsibility. The point is that most of the Middle east countries didnt have solified democratic institusions and tradisions(such as free press, independence of the courts, free elections, voting rights etc) which made coups and revolutions by dictators almost inevitable. Also while your assertion that America had a cozy relationship with dictators(mostly because they were viewed as cornerstones agains communism) before might be true this is clearly not the case now(after the turning point 9/11)when viewing how much the Bush administrasion stress democratization of the region now this clearly implies that the US foreign policy agenda has changed in that regard. Even longstanding allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have met mild criticism on their democracy shortages which was unheard of before




> Why are you presenting historical “what if’s?” If they won the war in ’48 I don’t know what they’d do. Now you’re basing present policy on your crystal ball and divination of hypothetical history. Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine before the creation of Israel. Jews still live in Iran and other Arab countries. They are given special protection in Iran. So to assume that Arabs and Muslims will automatically massacre Jews is quite imperialistic of you. Those groups did not have legitimate claim, but neither does Israel. And in the Islamic perspective, one is better than the other. The Palestinians were perfectly willing to accept help in their struggle. So it can better be viewed as an alliance rather than usurpers.



The fact that Jews were driven of Arab lands is a well established fact. Also massacres of Jews did occur in Palestine before the establisment of Israel(as f.exaple the Hebron assault in 1929).

That most Jews wouldnt have a bright future is clear by the fact that even today there are states that doesnt recognice Israels right to exist. Furthermore the PA took decades to acknowledge the reality and the party that governs the Westbank and the Gaza today strip still deny Israels right to exist. So the whole polemic about chasing Jews in the sea could have become reality if the 1948 war had a different outcome.

And in view of how demonized Jews are in those countries i would be suprised if much Jews still live there. This is supported by factual evidence as well

 Jewish Populations of Arab Countries: 1948 and 2001 Country or territory 



 Jews 1948:                               Jews 2001:

Aden 8,000                             -       0 
Algeria 140,000                        -       0 
Egypt 75,000[-80,000               -   100 
Iraq 135,000-140,000               -    200 
Lebanon 5,000                         -   100 
Libya 35,000-38,000                 -       0 
Morocco 250,000-265,000         - 5,230 
Syria 15,000-30,000                 -    100 
Tunisia 50,000-105,000             - 1,000 
Yemen 45,000-55,000               -    200 
Total 758,000 - 866,000            - 6,500


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

details of what?

from cnn:

" Americans could be evacuated from Lebanon using an "air bridge" of fast-moving aircraft, U.S. military officials said Saturday.

Pentagon and U.S. State Department officials are working on contingency plans to get about 25,000 people out of Lebanon to escape Israel's military campaign, launched after two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah guerrillas.

An "air bridge" is the term for planes that would move in swiftly and ferry people out in quick succession.

Planners are focusing on flying people from the Lebanese capital of Beirut to the island of Cyprus, officials said. (Watch what options the Pentagon has for the trapped Americans -- 1:59)

But the U.S. military is also looking at other options for any evacuation, considering whether it is possible to dock ships or land aircraft in Beirut, given the large number of Hezbollah militants there.

The Israeli bombing of the Beirut International Airport rendered it unusable, and has complicated planning.

"As of the morning of July 15, we are looking at how we might transport Americans to Cyprus," the State Department said Saturday.

"Once in Cyprus, Americans can then board commercial aircraft for onward travel. Commercial airlines provide the safest and most efficient repatriation options to final destinations," it said."


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 16, 2006)

Here's something interesting:
"Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."


Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."



well, what isreal says go...it's like that when u have guns to back it up.  It's not necessarily right...but it's the fact...


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

Lebanon is a tiny country, where are those people to retreat to? The state of Connecticut is a good deal bigger. So just because there are terrorists hiding in the country the rest of the innocent civilians need to live being constantly bombarded with fear that there is a good chance they could die any moment.

Israel is wrong once again, the pope condemned them with good reason. They like to escalate the situation just as much as the terrorists. For nearly a decade Israel has been led by warhawks hungry for blood. Giving back the gaza strip was a good think, but it was a political move to ensure peace, the palestineans had no say in it, and if there wasnt for the bombings Im sure its something Israel would never have done.

Their soldiers shoot at Cameramen, even those from fox news but its something you dont even hear about on US news for whatever reason, and they shoot Lebanese on sight without discrimination most of the time. The US claims to be a defender of Democracy but when they move in on other democratic nations in the region we just let them have their way. We always pussyfoot with Israel, even when they shot down one of our own airliners years ago, something we wouldve wiped our so called ally at the time, iran off the face of the earth for.

There's people here who will support every action Israel takes, from plunder to genocide, but I when is it time to admit they are wrong? 
Beirut was finally rebuilt and stable, I mean wtf?? Now Israels just created a new generation of people who will hate them for the rest of their lives
Israel might as well go ahead and take over Lebanon and whatever other nearby countries they feel "threatened by" because they may be harboring terroirists that could kill another two of their citizens resulting in the deaths of hundreds of more people.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

seems to me if u have isreal as a neighbor u r fucked


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

Actually come to think of it, itd be nice if some neutral superpower could just take over the land around Israel and create a buffer zone. because this shit is just creating more hatred for Israel and its supporters, most of all the US.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> *rubs eyes*
> 
> Did you say puppet regime in reference to Israel?  Whosajiggawha?
> 
> ...



It obviously is some puppet regime...
Think about it for a second, The united states are basically their big brother. The U.S can't do everything that they want to and they cant get blamed for everything either so they create other political powers just in case. Asia for example. Bush goes to India and let them build nuclear weapons with open hands and then goes to pakistan and forbids it. In case they get into war with china they have some asian countries to do some of the dirty work for them. Same with in the Middle East.  There is more reasons for it being a puppet regime as well and I will tell you them after a good sleep.



> How this would work in our favor in order to sway the Middle Eastern powers is nonexistent.  They are a target.  Everything that Israel has established has been by its own means and its own ingenuity - along with the pressing NEED to establish a strong economy and military in order to sustain itself in the region and ward off the countless numbers of attackers.



lmao own means, how much times do people have to bring up the american aid given to them. It's rediculous to even bring that up. All israel has done in the middle east is create havoc and that is all, also its not surprising that they have countless numbers of attackers. Just look at its false creation and its pathetic politics like right now. Punishing hundreds of civilians and maybe even more tommorrow for a mere prisoner exchange that hezbollah offered not to mention that hezbollah is not directly associated with the Government. They may have some ministers but even they said that they had no idea of the operation. Also, im not agreeing with the prisoner exchange and the kidnapping but I use the term "mere" because of the reaction Israel showed us.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> *cheers
> i guess it is clear now that Israel earned a place deep down in Hell. alongside the rest of the savages and barbarians.



I don't see how the normal people earned the place in hell because the government act careless.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> 
> 
> Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!


Unlike the Arab terrorists that are the 1st to resort to violence, we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet. Otherwise we would've done it a long time ago in a matter of a few weeks... Israel is constantly being attacked by the sorounding countries even on it's 1st week of existance it was attacked from all sides. The Arabs are those who start the bloodshed, and they will never rest until we're all dead. They should rethink before doing it again, because later they are crying for help.

Vash, open your eyes, the people in Lebanon/Palestine are not like you or me, they don't need a new state, they need a new state of mind. They are driven by hate and by crazy terrorist leaders that can manipulate the common people well.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

okay, we've had our histroy lesson, but there is another point which needs to be argued: how is this thing going to end?
the UN stepping and having a prisoner swap.
all out war
or what?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> okay, we've had our histroy lesson, but there is another point which needs to be argued: how is this thing going to end?
> the UN stepping and having a prisoner swap.
> all out war
> or what?


The IAF will soon stop it's operation of isolating Lebanon and probably soon, unless Hizbollah disarms itself (which is highly unlikely) IDF ground forces will invade Lebanon. After dealing heavy losses to Lebanon the goverment and the Lebanese people will demand Hizbollah to disarm itself completely.


----------



## niko (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Unlike the Arabs, we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet. Otherwise we would've done it a long time ago in a matter of a few weeks... Israel is constantly being attacked by it's "neighbours from hell" even on it's 1st week of existance it was attacked from all sides. The Arabs are those who start the bloodshed, and they will never rest until we're all dead. They should rethink before doing it again, because later they are crying for help.
> 
> Vash, open your eyes, the people in Lebanon/Palestine are not like you or me, they don't need a new state, they need a new state of mind. They are driven by hate and by crazy terrorist leaders that can manipulate the common people well.



This is a complete waste of forum space, you attempted to inspire or relatively change a persons mind by implying such garbage. If you find the tendency to express your hate toward a certain race, join the bunch of fools who believe in liberating people to heaven.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

Hrmm, so you think one way or another Hizbollah is history?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Yassy said:
			
		

> This is a complete waste of forum space, you attempted to inspire or relatively change a persons mind by implying such garbage. If you find the tendency to express your hate toward a certain race, join the bunch of fools who believe in liberating people to heaven.


Just stop it you fail, did you hear what the G8 summit thinks about this conflict? EVERYONE blames Hizbollah for this conflict... Not just the US, Russia and France, but even other Arab countries. It's just some of the idiots here that think that they know better than anyone about this affair and support plain terrorists like they were some kind of freedom fighters... Life is not a fucking comic book, wake up, your problem is not Israel, but the terrorists that, believe you me, hurt you hell of a lot more than they hurt me, the blood of the dead Lebanese civilians is on Hizbollah's hands, not Israel's and each moment that they don't disarm themselves means that they don't give a darn about the casualties in Lebanon.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Hrmm, so you think one way or another Hizbollah is history?


I don't know how it's possible, since it's being breast fed by Syria and Iran, but that seems to be the goal according to Israeli Goverment and even the last G8 summit that also agrees that now is not the time for truce at least not until Hizbollah is disarmed


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 16, 2006)

.............o rly?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> .............o rly?


.....ya rly. Lebanon must help itself by pressuring Hizbollah to disarm itself. After all, didn't you say that they=/=Lebanese goverment?


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

It's very sad. Very ver sad that those lebanese civilians died


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> It's very sad. Very ver sad that those lebanese civilians died


It is, also for the 12 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers that died and 2 kidnapped.


----------



## niko (Jul 16, 2006)

> Just stop it you fail, did you hear what the G8 summit thinks about this conflict? EVERYONE blames Hizbollah for this conflict... Not just the US, Russia and France, but even other Arab countries. It's just some of the idiots here that think that they know better than anyone about this affair and support plain terrorists like they we're some freedom fighters... Life is not a fucking comic book, wake up, your problem is not Israel, but the terrorists that, believe you me, hurt you hell of a lot more than they hurt me.



I don't care what people think about these days, if that is how you conclude your assumptions on certain matters then I do feel sympathetic towards you, if you utterly base your opinions on nothing but just what the media spits on you, then you may be having some seriously flawed judgments. Now, what slightly annoyed me was your absurd use of language when talking about something extremely sensitive, if you have a sense of doubt about something and not completely sure on what to believe then the last thing to do would be jumping on the bandwagon.



> It is, also for the 12 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers that died and 2 kidnapped.



Isreal is the last country to play victim when comparing death tolls between both sides.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> .....ya rly. Lebanon must help itself by pressuring Hizbollah to disarm itself. After all, didn't you say that they=/=Lebanese goverment?



I'm sure after Israel started bombing them without negotiating, Lebanon can't wait to do everything they can to help Israel. They may put pressure on them to save lives, but Israel needs to handle things better.

And yeah Israel was attacked there from early on, but what do you expect, they took over a holy land and forced muslims to flee or expelled them. If they really wanted only peace and quiet they wouldve asked for a stretch of once plentiful US farmland, that couldve been at least twice the size of Israel.  Both the US and the US media treat them with a double standard, they wouldve done it. 

But the Israeli's wanted the land they felt God had mandated them thousands of years before, even if it meant the expulsion of other people. Of course the community hasnt welcomed them, but theyve made no effort to integrate themselves into it, and have only tried to isolate themselves by force and breeding death and hatred.

Israel is one of the main reasons the Middle East is in turmoil currently, and why the US gets half the hatred it does from that region. We should've been doing more to keep them from acting out of control and overdoing things, while we're wasting billions in Iraq, a country that is on the verge of chaos thanks to us. Israel's shows of force has done nothing to end their own bloodshed or help their or our popularity in the region. If we're trying to breed and protect Peace and Democracy we have to start using a heavier hand to control Israel and that region.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> It is, also for the 12 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers that died and 2 kidnapped.


Actually, I can't really 'feel sorry' for the soldiers that died. Soldiers are expected to die. Okay, not expected, BUT it's a high risk that soldiers may die in war. 

For the civilians, wether it be israeli or lebanese, it's very sorry. I also feel sorry for the swedish tourists that are stuck in Lebanon. They are now being evacuated from Lebanon to Syria. Let's just hope that Israel doesn't bomb the busses.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> .... I also feel sorry for the swedish tourists that are stuck in Lebanon. They are now being evacuated from Lebanon to Syria. Let's just hope that Israel doesn't bomb the busses.



Yeah the tourist not only from Sweden that got in the middle of something that has basiclly nothing to do with them other that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and now can die if a bomb/missle lands on the evacuation bus.
That would be very stupid if they indeed were to aim the buses, but I don't see what would be the point thats why there is nothing to be worried about.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> I'm sure after Israel started bombing them without negotiating, Lebanon can't wait to do everything they can to help Israel. They may put pressure on them to save lives, but Israel needs to handle things better.
> 
> And yeah Israel was attacked there from early on, but what do you expect, they took over a holy land and forced muslims to flee or expelled them. If they really wanted only peace and quiet they wouldve asked for a stretch of once plentiful US farmland, that couldve been at least twice the size of Israel.  Both the US and the US media treat them with a double standard, they wouldve done it.
> 
> ...



a.the land was taken from jews in the first place - there *always*
 were jews in israel(palestine) and even if at some point they were forced to become a minority that doesn't mean that this land is no more theirs.

b.if you would care enough to open a history book you would've known that the crisis started like this:*1*.jews start *legaly* purchasing land in palestine from palestinians land owners. *2*.jews start the immigration to palestine and make small town (arabs welcome them with open hands since the jews give them work and help them solve the shit desert that is called palestine). *3*.the arabian population grows concerned by the jewish rapid progress and start working to stop and hurt them. *4*.the 2 state plan is born for separate palestinian and israeli goverment. *5*.*on the first day *of israel 5 MAJOR arabian forces united with the newly emerged palestine invaded israel with the intentions of "war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". *6*.israel won.

c.arabs have the power to bring peace to the middle east rigth now but their foolish leaders won't let them do so. the only reason for the currect violence is the nonstop attacks against israel (by terrorists or otherwise).

notes:
1.jews did not take the land from anyone - they bougth it.
2.the partition map:


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Vash, open your eyes, the people in Lebanon/Palestine are not like you or me, they don't need a new state, they need a new state of mind. They are driven by hate and by crazy terrorist leaders that can manipulate the common people well.


why thank you omni for calling my relatives hateful persons



lets try this, ummmmm Israel has bombed the airports and the docks so no tourists can leave the country, including my sister, swedish minsiters want approval of the usage of docks and roads so they can evacuate the tourists, no approval has been given from Israel, but the Hizbollah on the other hand has given their approval..... 

now why won't Israel approve the tourists to leave the country if they're such a loving country ?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> why thank you omni for calling my relatives hateful persons
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what do you mean by approval?


----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk, when Israel 'bougth' the land they did not say they were buying it to create a country.  Our family has a small spot of land in the US... Can I create my own little country on that spot of land?

Uchiha_Itachi_ means approval, as in they will not attack the tourists leaving the country.  Israel on the other hand does not wish to give approval because they are thinking that because the bus uses the same gas that Hezbollah uses, they might some caucasian terrorists on board.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Unlike the Arabs, we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet. Otherwise we would've done it a long time ago in a matter of a few weeks... Israel is constantly being attacked by it's "neighbours from hell" even on it's 1st week of existance it was attacked from all sides. The Arabs are those who start the bloodshed, and they will never rest until we're all dead. They should rethink before doing it again, because later they are crying for help.
> 
> Vash, open your eyes, the people in Lebanon/Palestine are not like you or me, they don't need a new state, they need a new state of mind. They are driven by hate and by crazy terrorist leaders that can manipulate the common people well.



No, you're failing here. And you had to speak to speak about it again.

Propaganda on the level of Gobbles here, and look how fine that turned out.

Vash provided a link in which Lebanon and the US state that they have no control over Southern Lebanon Hezbollah, and you tell him to clean his eves out while calling *all* Arabs, people out to destroy anyone with your bullshit factually baseless propaganda laced with some of the most racist shit to grace these forum in a sincere manner.
That's what you said. Let me quote it again.



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> *Unlike the Arabs,* we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet.



People of the forums. Would you like to see Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims?

Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims.

Yeah, that really is the voice of reason. You're a fucking modern-day Hitler, and if you don't agree, why don't you try proving me wrong. It'll be fun, not to mention pretty funny.

If this wasn't enough, you also had the cheek to say in earlier threads that Arabs never came up with anything. I'll get the thread for the people to see for themselves.

Omnistrifes views on Arab innovation.


Don't try to the voice of reason here, you're an ignorant racist. You really shouldn't be allowed in the debate and cafe section. Like I said, you'd fair well in areas of the forum where you can act how your are, a moron.
Like I also said, stick to posting pictures of your penis in the picture section and leave the politics to the big boys (and girls). :Amuse




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> b.if you would care enough to open a history book you would've known that the crisis started like this:*1*.jews start *legaly* purchasing land in palestine from palestinians land owners.



What a waste of time. Be grateful that I even gave you the time of day to make a mention of this. 





			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> *And Jews bought properties in Palestine? So what?
> 
> Let me explain something. If some Chinese people bought a lot of properties in Texas, could they then turn that into their own sovereign nation?
> 
> ...


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> a.the land was taken from jews in the first place - there *always*
> were jews in israel(palestine) and even if at some point they were forced to become a minority that doesn't mean that this land is no more theirs.



Because they ruled it thousands of years ago? Thats more than giving Australia back to the Aboriginees, America back to the Native Americans etc. Youre all for it when it involves the jews, but if the situation reverses itself its lunacy.



> b.if you would care enough to open a history book you would've known that the crisis started like this:*1*.jews start *legaly* purchasing land in palestine from palestinians land owners. *2*.jews start the immigration to palestine and make small town (arabs welcome them with open hands since the jews give them work and help them solve the shit desert that is called palestine). *3*.the arabian population grows concerned by the jewish rapid progress and start working to stop and hurt them. *4*.the 2 state plan is born for separate palestinian and israeli goverment. *5*.*on the first day *of israel 5 MAJOR arabian forces united with the newly emerged palestine invaded israel with the intentions of "war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". *6*.israel won.



How far back of a history lesson are you trying to go? Im going back to the balfour declaration from Britain of 1917, declaring Palestine home to Jewish people. It was Zionists who didnt give a shit what the inhabitants wanted that  pressured the brits into mandating that land for them because of their "historical connection.If you want to make some historically accurate claim how about you present all the facts or at least go to the root of the problem.
If youre unfamiliar with any of this its probably because you've been reading biased history books and watching similarly biased news.You can read up on the situation from a different point of view at Omnistrifes views on Arab innovation.



> c.arabs have the power to bring peace to the middle east rigth now but their foolish leaders won't let them do so. the only reason for the currect violence is the nonstop attacks against israel (by terrorists or otherwise).



I'm sure Israel's sanctioned 100 civilian murders for every one of theirs and few if any attempts at negotiation have had nothing to do with the current generations hatred of them. Arafat wanted to talk, and before Israel started electing these right wing extremists things were going alot better between them. They want to act like there is nothing they can do about it but bring about more revenge and bloodshed, and destroy countries like Lebanon which was rebuilding into a solid democracy. If they want to bring about turmoil in Lebanon by destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, its turmoil they'll get in the region.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> Actually, I can't really 'feel sorry' for the soldiers that died. Soldiers are expected to die. Okay, not expected, BUT it's a high risk that soldiers may die in war.


You have to live here to feel sorry for them, cause here they are part of the society, they are 18 years old kids... and they are everywhere here. you can see them sleeping in buses on their way home from bases or walking with their g/friends or their families... They mean no harm to anyone I assure you, since in Israel no one CHOSES to become a soldier, they all have to be soldiers. I less than a year I'll become a soldier myself. 



			
				Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> why thank you omni for calling my relatives hateful persons
> 
> lets try this, ummmmm Israel has bombed the airports and the docks so no tourists can leave the country, including my sister, swedish minsiters want approval of the usage of docks and roads so they can evacuate the tourists, no approval has been given from Israel, but the Hizbollah on the other hand has given their approval.....
> 
> now why won't Israel approve the tourists to leave the country if they're such a loving country ?


Wow... This is problematic... Tourists have the darnest luck, around 8 tourists also died in terrorist attacks in Israel. Also, I didn't mean to offend anyone other than the terrorists and their blind supporters that fail to see that they are the ones doing the harm. In any case it's not as though we don't approve of them leaving, it's just that airports must be bombed, and an enemy country must be isolated as fast as it's possible.

JMT, I'm just a little more radicall than others here, I'm sure you would've been as well if you were inside all of this... In any case what bothers me is than any step towards peace that Israel makes is thrown back in it's face. The Oslo Accords, the Withdrawal from Gaza... Whatever. EVERYTIME it's the Arabs that spit on any agreement and violate it and shed blood 1st.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> I less than a year I'll become a soldier myself.




This is very disturbing, considering, 



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Unlike the Arabs, we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet. Otherwise we would've done it a long time ago in a matter of a few weeks... Israel is constantly being attacked by it's "neighbours from hell" even on it's 1st week of existance it was attacked from all sides. The Arabs are those who start the bloodshed, and they will never rest until we're all dead. They should rethink before doing it again, because later they are crying for help.
> 
> Vash, open your eyes, the people in Lebanon/Palestine are not like you or me, they don't need a new state, they need a new state of mind. They are driven by hate and by crazy terrorist leaders that can manipulate the common people well.



No, you're failing here. And you had to speak to speak about it again.

Propaganda on the level of Gobbles here, and look how fine that turned out.

Vash provided a link in which Lebanon and the US state that they have no control over Southern Lebanon Hezbollah, and you tell him to clean his eves out while calling *all* Arabs, people out to destroy anyone with your bullshit factually baseless propaganda laced with some of the most racist shit to grace these forum in a sincere manner.
That's what you said. Let me quote it again.



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> *Unlike the Arabs,* we're not trying to destroy anyone, we want piece and quiet.



People of the forums. Would you like to see Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims?

Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims.

Yeah, that really is the voice of reason. You're a fucking modern-day Hitler, and if you don't agree, why don't you try proving me wrong. It'll be fun, not to mention pretty funny.

If this wasn't enough, you also had the cheek to say in earlier threads that Arabs never came up with anything. I'll get the thread for the people to see for themselves.

Omnistrifes views on Arab innovation.


Don't try to the voice of reason here, you're an ignorant racist. You really shouldn't be allowed in the debate and cafe section. Like I said, you'd fair well in areas of the forum where you can act how your are, a moron.
Like I also said, stick to posting pictures of your penis in the picture section and leave the politics to the big boys (and girls). :Amuse


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> You have to live here to feel sorry for them, cause here they are part of the society, they are 18 years old kids... and they are everywhere here. you can see them sleeping in buses on their way home from bases or walking with their g/friends or their families... They mean no harm to anyone I assure you, since in Israel no one CHOSES to become a soldier, they all have to be soldiers. I less than a year I'll become a soldier myself.


Are you guys *forced* to be soldiers?  
Civilians > soldiers in terms of sympathy.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> liansk, when Israel 'bougth' the land they did not say they were buying it to create a country.  Our family has a small spot of land in the US... Can I create my own little country on that spot of land?
> 
> Uchiha_Itachi_ means approval, as in they will not attack the tourists leaving the country.  Israel on the other hand does not wish to give approval because they are thinking that because the bus uses the same gas that Hezbollah uses, they might some caucasian terrorists on board.



a.zionists said from the begginging that they want to build a country in palestine. 
b.if the power ruling over the area allows you to build your country then yes, you can create your own country.
c.the palestinian people are not a nation, they never were. they are syrian in all but name. so by your logic they don't have any rigth to demand their own coutry and should be deported to syria.
d.care to point me to your sources? i don't remember israel ever saying that they are going to somehow prevent, attack or do anything to stop any country from evacuating their people.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> c.the palestinian people are not a nation, *they never were.*


 

You gotta be shittin' me? 

At any rate: 

Regardless; they had a nation until some guys chose to take over it. _Take _over it.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

being forced to be a solider is...well, i wouldn't appreciate it. That is for sure.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> Are you guys *forced* to be soldiers?
> Civilians > soldiers in terms of sympathy.


We are.  

and JMT, I'm just a little more radicall than others here, I'm sure you would've been as well if you were inside all of this... In any case what bothers me is than any step towards peace that Israel makes is thrown back in it's face. The Oslo Accords, the Withdrawal from Gaza... Whatever. EVERYTIME it's the Arabs that spit on any measly agreement that is achieved.

Shogun, This area is too problematic and Israel is too small for any other option of recruiting.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

still, if i was in your position i would say, "i am a conscientious objector!!"


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> You gotta be shittin' me?
> 
> At any rate:
> 
> Regardless; they had a nation until some guys chose to take over it. _Take _over it.


 "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." (Yehoshua Porath, Palestinian Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion: 1929-1939, vol. 2, London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1977, pp. 81-82.)  



take it over? no we wanted to live next to them.. that is until they decided to kill us. or do you think that palestine was some great,rich and happy country until the bad jews came and took it over?


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> We are.


Forced to be soldiers? That aint democracy. 
I mean; why? Why forced to be soldiers? At any rate, I can't say that civilians and soldiers are the same. At any rate, I can't feel sympathy since it's the nation that's fucked up in that case.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> still, if i was in your position i would say, "i am a conscientious objector!!"


Well they throw those to prison... I any case I'm gonna join the computers unit... I'm sure I won't kill too many palestinian civs via a PC, no more than now for that matter.

Syrians? Weren't they Jordanians or something?   well in any case, he is right, the Term Palestinians never existed before Israel became a country.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> and JMT, I'm just a little more radicall than others here,




Radical, don't sugar-coat this, you're a damn racist. And you're going to be given a gun!

Proof.
Along with your harsh generalisations of Arabs.


You're ignorant and like I said before, your factually baseless posts in this thread are on the same level as Gobbles propaganda.

And you know why you can't prove me wrong, because I'm right.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

what!? is that even legal? hell, even in world war 2 there were conscientious objectors in england. Those guys weren't thrown in jail.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Radical, don't sugar-coat this, you're a damn racist. And you're going to be given a gun!
> 
> Proof.
> Along with your harsh generalisations of Arabs.
> ...


You forgot to post some Holocaust pics with that idiot.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> take it over? no we wanted to live next to them.. that is until they decided to kill us.


 If someone tells you "This is _my_ chair. Sure, there's enough place for two people, but I don't want you to sit here. This is _my_ chair."

Would you; a) go away b) force yourself to sit besides the person that doesn't want you to sit on his chair? 


			
				liansk said:
			
		

> or do you think that palestine was some great,rich and happy country until the bad jews came and took it over?


Does that justifiy that Israel stole the nation?


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> You forgot to post some Holocaust pics with that idiot.



After those links I provided, you have the cheek to call me an idiot? More nonsense with no factual basis. 




			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> That isn't the case. I even added the fact that the content of the picture was cruel and 'not a nice thing'. *I showed my disgust for it and I'm insulted that you think I have some sort of hatred for Jews.*
> 
> 
> *Plain English Moshi: Around 50 innocent people were killed in an air-strike, your little friend posted a "don't fuck with Israel slogan" along with fighter jets saying Shalom Arab friends. You had nothing to say about him swinging Israel's dick when they bombed those innocent people at that airport. I decided to point out (rather crudely) that there was a time when the people killing the innocents now, were getting killed themselves a while ago, just know that you can do it now because your backed by the US.*
> ...




Easy, too easy. All you have proven here is you can't take in information.

And it still doesn't change the fact that you are an ignorant racist.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> Because they ruled it thousands of years ago? Thats more than giving Australia back to the Aboriginees, America back to the Native Americans etc. Youre all for it when it involves the jews, but if the situation reverses itself its lunacy.
> 
> *and the palestinians ruled it 100 years ago. your point?*
> 
> ...



consider this scenario:
palestinians stop ALL attacks on isreal > israel has no reason for military attacks in palestine > we live in peace for a year or 2 and after the palestinians prove to us that they don't want to kill us anymore we give them their land back.
or do you think that isreal wants to spend millions of dollars and live in an neverending war for no reason?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

It's nice and lovely to live in the UK and being fed by an ignorant anti-Israeli media that is more interested with Chancellor Angela Merkel's ass anyways... Really, I had many debates with Palestinian teens and they never spilled so much shit like some of the ppl here, or made me do it in any case...


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> and the palestinians ruled it 100 years ago. your point?


The Turks ruled here, and there was no such thing as palestinians then.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> It's nice and lovely to live in the *UK and being fed by an ignorant anti-Israeli media* that is more interested with Chancellor Angela Merkel's ass anyways... Really, I had many debates with Palestinian teens and they never spilled so much shit like some of the ppl here, or made me do it in any case...



Red herring and this is beautiful.

It is illegal for British media (with the exeption of newspapers) to be biased.
This however isn't the case for the US. Too easy.



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> *Really, I had many debates with Palestinian teens* and they never spilled so much shit like some of the ppl here, or made me do it in any case...



Red herring and spilled shit?
Why, those were merely links of your own posts. You're own words. 
Too easy.

You're still an ignorant racist who feels the need to spread his Gobbles style propaganda with no factual basis around the masses.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> If someone tells you "This is _my_ chair. Sure, there's enough place for two people, but I don't want you to sit here. This is _my_ chair."
> 
> Would you; a) go away b) force yourself to sit besides the person that doesn't want you to sit on his chair?
> 
> Does that justifiy that Israel stole the nation?



lol.
palestine was under british rule back then ,not palestinian so the proper example would be this:
you are in the movie, and some other guy comes  in to seat next to you (after he bough his ticket) ,but you want to watch this movie alone. so, do you: a)kill this guy. b)ignore him and watch the movie from your seat?

oh and, you can't steal a *nation* ,moron.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Red herring and this is beautiful.
> You're still an ignorant racist who has feels the need to spread his Gobbles style propaganda with no factual basis around the masses.


My biggest argument is that it's the Arab side that attacks and sheds blood first.

Arab, Palestinian and Islamic violence towards Israelis
Features to include:

Religious Indoctrination of children 
Aircraft hijacking and destruction 
Suicide bombings/homicide bombings 
Kidnappings 
Lynching civilians 
Shelling Israel towns 
Rock-throwing 

Israeli actions towards Palestinians and other Arab groups


Features to include:

Raids against "ticking-bomb" terrorists 
Demolition of Palestinian homes 
Restricting travel to Israeli towns (where many Palestinians are employed) 
Tear-gas against Palestinian rioters 

At times, women and children have been targeted for mass killings or unwittingly used as living weapons, for example at the cafeteria at Hebrew University [4], a junior high school [5], and an 11 year old child used as a living 8 kg bomb at a border checkpoint[6] (the attempt to remotely detonate the bomb in his school bag failed).

There are no records of comparable use by Israelis of children as living weapons or willfully chosen targets in this manner, although some Palestinians claim about 500 children have been killed by Israeli forces during 2000-2005. Statistics, however, show a higher percentage of Israeli victims who are women and children, as opposed to Palestinian women and children.


----------



## Crowe (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> My biggest argument is that it's the Arab side that attacks and sheds blood first and cries later.


"The arab"? Terrorist groups* attacks first and sheds blood and then the civilian are the one to cry later on. 

If you think that this is right then you can't claim to be anything better then the Nazis.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> lol.
> palestine was under british rule back then ,not palestinian so the proper example would be this:
> you are in the movie, and some other guy comes  in to seat next to you (after he bough his ticket) ,but you want to watch this movie alone. so, do you: a)kill this guy. b)ignore him and watch the movie from your seat?
> 
> oh and, you can't steal a *nation* ,moron.


...

You've lived in your house for a long time and suddenly there is this bitch who comes and moves in without even bothering asking, claiming that she used to live in that house 30 years ago.. What would you do? A) Ignore her B) Try to throw her out?


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> lol.
> palestine was under british rule back then not palestinian so the proper example would be this:
> you are in the movie, and some other guy comes  in to seat next to you (after he bough his ticket) but you want to watch this movie alone so do you: a)kill this guy. b)ignore him and watch the movie from your seat?


It would be justified if he bought his ticket before person A did and it was his seat to begin with. But this guy isn't sitting next to this person, he's sitting ON his seat.

*Person P watches movie* 
Person I: Move, I want to sit here too. 
Person P: Can't you see that Im sitting here? I bought my ticket first and you can see that there's only room for one person. 
Person I: No, I can fit in too. Move. 
Person P: No, you can't. I refuse to move. 
Person I: Dad! Mom! He refuses to move. 
Person B&U: Oh, just sit down. What can he do? 


			
				liansk said:
			
		

> oh and, you can't steal a *nation* ,moron.


With aid from higer-up nations, of course you can.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

peK^mang said:
			
		

> "The arab"? Terrorist groups* attacks first and sheds blood and then the civilian are the one to cry later on.
> 
> If you think that this is right then you can't claim to be anything better then the Nazis.


I meant Terrorists.... I said Arabs because people usually say Israelis did this and that, because we have an army while the Arab side has terrorist organisations of sorts.
Palestinian, Arab, Islamic
15 May Organization 
Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades 
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades 
Arab Liberation Front 
As-Sa'iqa 
Black September (group) 
Force 17 
Hamas 
Hezbollah 
Islamic Jihad 
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades 
Omar Ben al-Khatib Warriors 
PLO 
Palestine Liberation Front 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement 
Palestinian Popular Struggle Front 
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine 
Popular Resistance Committees 
Tanzim


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> In any case it's not as though we don't approve of them leaving, it's just that airports must be bombed, and an enemy country must be isolated as fast as it's possible.


aaaah really, as i saw it the swedish goverment has continuosly sent requests for the approval but israels goverment doesn't reply at all, seems to me like they don't give a flying fuck about the tourists living or dying, and get your fact straight enemy country ? more like terrorists in that country, Hizbollah isn't really a part of the goverment, they do have some people sitting in the goverment though, but the goverment is against hizbollah but they don't have the power to unarm them...

airports must be bombed ? for what, they were going to fly out the tourists and the israeli army bombed it again, then the docks was also bombed, specifically the dock that *Israel KNEW *that FN wanted to use to evacuate tourists


----------



## Crowe (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> I meant Terrorists.... I said Arabs because people usually say Israelis did this and that, because we have an army while the Arab side has terrorist organisations of sorts.
> Palestinian, Arab, Islamic
> 15 May Organization
> Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades
> ...


The _arabside_ have also an army, its easy to throw out names of terrorist groups in the arab countries. Look at the nr of population and then look at the nr of members in these terrorist group, if you then are willing to say that the _arab people_ are terrorist under disguise then you are...


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> My biggest argument is that it's the Arab side that attacks and sheds blood first and cries later.




Ahh, so the ignorant racist has decided that there really is no way to prove that he isn't actually an ignorant racist.

This is great. Now that we both understand that you are a racist, why should anything I say have any real significance to you?

I mean, I could bring about the link which initiated you're pathetic factually baseless post nicely laced with stereotypes, stupidity and ignorance seen from the same subject in previous posts, which pointed out that *THE US AND LEBONESE GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT CONTROL OVER THE LITTLE PART OF LEBANON IN TERRORISTS WHICH DECIDED TO CAPTURE SOLDIERS,* which in turn, led to the on going destruction of the countries infrastructure along with a good chunk of innocent lives.

But that would be too easy as I've already pointed out you're inability to take in simple bits of information. 

So what could an awesome person like me say to an ignorant racist like you?
I mean this quote really does come into play a lot, when discussing these sorts of topics with ignorant racists such as yourself.

_"I never met an educated person that I couldn't defeat with words, and I've never met an ignorant person that I could defeat with words."_


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> aaaah really, as i saw it the swedish goverment has continuosly sent requests for the approval but israels goverment doesn't reply at all, seems to me like they don't give a flying fuck about the tourists living or dying, and get your fact straight enemy country ? more like terrorists in that country, Hizbollah isn't really a part of the goverment, they do have some people sitting in the goverment though, but the goverment is against hizbollah but they don't have the power to unarm them...
> 
> airports must be bombed ? for what, they were going to fly out the tourists and the israeli army bombed it again, then the docks was also bombed, specifically the dock that *Israel KNEW *that FN wanted to use to evacuate tourists


Well, I can't debate on this subject since I didn't hear much about the subject before... But all I know is that Israel bombs only strategic spots and those that are associated with Hizbollah, whilst Hizbollah fires missles at dense populated cities with a goal to kill as much civilians as possible.

Just Shut up Jedi Mind Tricks, I've got friends of all races... If you have some inferiority complex don't blaim me. I told many you many times that I hate Terrorists and their supporters nothing more, I've got many many Jewish Arab friends. I also have a few muslim friends in Turkey and a few Muslim distant relatives, also only my grandfather is Jewish, I'm not racist in any way, I just hate terrorists...


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> _"I never met an educated person that I couldn't defeat with words, and I've never met an ignorant person that I could defeat with words."_



Imam Ali? 
-------
I think I heard him say something along those lines, at least. Or it was prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Well, I can't debate on this subject since I didn't hear much about the subject before... But all I know is that Israel bombs only strategic spots and those that are associated with Hizbollah, whilst Hizbollah fires missles at dense populated cities with a goal to kill as much civilians as possible.


so the docks ment for evacuating innocent tourists is a tactical target ?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> It would be justified if he bought his ticket before person A did and it was his seat to begin with. But this guy isn't sitting next to this person, he's sitting ON his seat.
> 
> *Person P watches movie*
> Person I: Move, I want to sit here too.
> ...



a.there was enough land for two countries as you can clearly see here:
Link removed
b.*Person P watches movie* 
Person I: I want to sit here too. 
Person P: Can't you see that Im sitting here? I bought my ticket first and you can see that there's only room for one person. 
Person I: but there is a sit rigth next to you that you don't use with the number of my ticket. 
Person P: so what? i want that seat too. 
Person I: *takes the seat*. 
Person P? il kill ya for that.
c.do you know what the word nation means? 
d.jews owned palestine in the first place.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> Imam Ali?
> -------



Ali Bin Abi Talib. A quote mentioned by Mengde.

A bit of forum trivia. The guy is from the same family cast as me.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

Tell me what USA, China, France or Russia would've done if the jews came to their nation and said "I want a seat". 

... they would say; GTFO.


----------



## Crowe (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> a.there was enough land for two countries as you can clearly see here:
> Link removed
> b.*Person P watches movie*
> Person I: I want to sit here too.
> ...





			
				peK^mang said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> You've lived in your house for a long time and suddenly there is this bitch who comes and moves in without even bothering asking, claiming that she used to live in that house 30 years ago.. What would you do? A) Ignore her B) Try to throw her out?


                 .                  .


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Just Shut up Jedi Mind Tricks, I've got friends of all races... If you have some inferiority complex don't blaim me. I told you many times that I hate Terrorists and their supporters nothing more, I've got many many Jewish Arab friends. I also have a few muslim friends in Turkey and a few Muslim distant relatives, also only my grandfather is Jewish, I'm not racist in any way, I just hate terrorists...


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

Thank you peK. That sums my thoughts up.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

peK^mang said:
			
		

> .                  .



3 problems:
a.you don't own the house.
b.the owner allowed her to live there.
c.she paid for her room.

k?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> Thank you peK. That sums my thoughts up.


How about it, if the Bitch got premission from the UN, and if the house was rulled by the UK anyways and by the Turks before that, and she had a much smaller room, but she was always beaten almost to death even by the neighbours, and then the bitch kicked their asses?


----------



## Crowe (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Just Shut up Jedi Mind Tricks, I've got friends of all races... If you have some inferiority complex don't blaim me. I told you many times that I hate Terrorists and their supporters nothing more, I've got many many Jewish Arab friends. I also have a few muslim friends in Turkey and a few Muslim distant relatives, also only my grandfather is Jewish, I'm not racist in any way, I just hate terrorists...


...and you still don't get it right? You've got any arab muslim friends? I seriously doubt that since you are basically calling them and their families terrorists.

My godfather is from Syria and lost both his wife and his daughter. He was a baker and had nothing to do with terrorism nor Islam at that point, he later became muslim but thats another story. Saying that the arab people are terrorists is as true / retarded as saying that the irish people are terrorists.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> The Turks ruled here, and there was no such thing as palestinians then.



That wasnt my ignorant error, it was liansk you were quoting, everything in bold was stated by him as a response to me.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> *and the palestinians ruled it 100 years ago. your point?*



Theres a big difference between having land that was someones within the past century while there are still those who remember living there and with parents who lived there that now reside in camps or neighboring countries vs. having land that was someones multiple millenia ago in the land that time forgot, especially when the majority of those people moved far away.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> *again, what is your point?arabs started the war in 1948 and that's it.*


Im surprised you fail to see my point again, but you want to claim that it was the war in 1948 that started everything and justifies everything israel has done, yet you neglect to mention the zionists practically forcing their people in there in 1917, without considering the thoughts of those living there currently. It was then that the numbers of jews moving into the region began escalating rapidly. 



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> consider this scenario:
> palestinians stop ALL attacks on isreal > israel has no reason for military attacks in palestine > we live in peace for a year or 2 and after the palestinians prove to us that they don't want to kill us anymore we give them their land back.
> or do you think that isreal wants to spend millions of dollars and live in an neverending war for no reason?



A far as terrorist groups stopping from bombing the region, perhaps if israel was no longer so adamant about their system of apartheid and tried to integrate the palestineans and muslims into their society there wouldn't be that problem, because youre not going to suicide bomb a region that consists largely of the makeup of your own people.


I mean wtf they set up Jew only bypass roads, forbidding palestineans from using them, then shoot, arrest, or beat down any non jew that attempts to cross and claim to be democratic and not racist. They want to be left alone sure, but they want that alone to mean only those that are like them. And the racist attitudes were apparent when they were giving back the gaza strip. So many Israelis screaming how they refused to let an arab set foot on their land. They dont want to integrate, and Im sure 90% of them would hate the idea of a palestinean marrying their daughter. But integration would solve alot of problems.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Just Shut up Jedi Mind Tricks, I've got friends of all races... If you have some inferiority complex don't blaim me. I told you many times that I hate Terrorists and their supporters nothing more, I've got many many Jewish Arab friends. I also have a few muslim friends in Turkey and a few Muslim distant relatives, also only my grandfather is Jewish, I'm not racist in any way, I just hate terrorists...



Inferiority complex, me? And you're not racist? Yet you claim that all Arabs are looking out to destroy everyone.



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> *Unlike the Arabs, we're not trying to destroy anyone, *



And lets not forget this post.

Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims.

Face it, you're an ignorant racist, and no amount of telling me to shut up is going to change that.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

I'm not saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists! But Terrorism is supported by the goverments.

How do you want to call me them then? I can always just call them terrorists, but then who attacked us in 1948? Were'nt those the goverments?

Why are YOU allowed blaiming Israelis/Jews?! and not Zionist zealots? You say all Israelis/Jews are Zionist zealots?! That's the same racism you speak of!

And most of my flamings were posted because of Heavy Rasengan, Mengde and their buddies that said some twice as bad as what I said.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> I'm not saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists! But Terrorism is supported by the goverments.


oh really, tell me more, never heard this before.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> How about it, if the Bitch got premission from the UN, and if the house was rulled by the UK anyways and by the Turks before that, and she had a much smaller room, but she was always beaten almost to death even by the neighbours, and then the bitch kicked their asses?



UN = bullshit. hypocrites. 
UK = came and took over the nation. you prove my point; the UK wasn't justified to take over Palestine and neither was Israel

... and then the little bitch cried for help from big daddy USA, and with help of them, kicked the neighbours asses.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> UN = bullshit. hypocrites.
> UK = came and took over the nation. you prove my point; the UK wasn't justified to take over Palestine and neither was Israel


UK took it from the Turks>> from the Ottoman Empire, Palestines never rulled her nor existed before Israel was here...

Israel never got aid from the US at those times... The Arabs had much bigger and stronger armies there, now the US adds only 0.04% of Israels budget... US aid... pff


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> That wasnt my ignorant error, it was liansk you were quoting, everything in bold was stated by him as a response to me.
> 
> Anyway in response to liansk, theres a big difference between having land that was someones within the past century while there are still those who remember living there and with parents who lived there that now reside in camps or neighboring countries vs. having land that was someones multiple millenia ago in the land that time forgot, especially when the majority of those people moved far away.
> 
> ...



racist? wow you're dumb. have you ever heard about borders?

do you have anymore bs to add or would you finally shut up?


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> oh really, tell me more, never heard this before.


Almost all terrorist organizations are funded by Iranian and Syrian goverments and at the time, Iraqi goverment as well.


			
				liansk said:
			
		

> racist? wow you're dumb. have you ever heard about borders?


qft.
The US holds it's Mexican border quite firmly as well even though the threat is 100 times smaller than here.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Almost all terrorist organizations are funded by Iranian and Syrian goverments and at the time, Iraqi goverment as well.


and i don't see how you got irania and syria into this when we were talking about lebanon...


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> UN = bullshit. hypocrites.



 In the UN's defense, that was what, their first year after formation? They really didnt know what they were doing back then and made some bad mistakes at first. But now they try to do better, but are often overided by the US who controls the funds or politically outmanuevers them, like with the support for Condoms to stop Aids in Africa.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> I'm not saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists! But Terrorism is supported by the goverments...






			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> *Unlike the Arabs, we're not trying to destroy anyone, *



And lets not forget this post.

Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims.

You're an ignorant racist. Stop trying to give excuses its in those posts. You even generalised the whole Arab people as wanting to destroy everything just an hour ago, don't blame it on anyone else. It really is pathetic.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> And lets not forget this post.
> 
> Omnistrifes opinion on all Arabs and Muslims.
> 
> You're an ignorant racist. Stop trying to give excuses its in those posts. You even generalised the whole Arab people as wanting to destroy everything just an hour ago, don't blame it on anyone else. It really is pathetic.


Stop being a broken record you stupid fuck. I told you already why I call the other side of the conflict as the Arab side and that post was because of Heavy Rasengan and Mengde that posted shit far worse than mine.
And not destroy everything but destroy Israel, blind idiot.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Stop being a broken record you stupid fuck. I told you already why I call the other side of the conflict as the Arab side and that post was because of Heavy Rasengan and Mengde that posted shit far worse than mine.



I'm a stupid fuck? This coming from an ignorant racist. Why don't you provide proof of me being a stupid fuck? I mean I did so for you. 

Did I hit a nerve? Does it hurt when I call you an ignorant racist? It's what you are after all, and an ignorant racist + propaganda which is factually baseless = you tell me.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> racist? wow you're dumb. have you ever heard about borders?



Umm yeah, but the israelis are the ones overstepping their boundaries by setting up roads to illegal jewish settlements in the palestinean territories. And there have often been reports that were quieted about Israeli discrimination towards black jews in the area.Israel didnt want to coexist in the same society as muslims they wanted seperation.

And would you please stop trying to incite a flame war by making this a personal issue, and show you know how to debate like civilized intelligent humans without resorting to name calling. Your first statement only shows your own childishness.

If youre ignorant about the roads you can read up on those yourself at Link removed



> The US holds it's Mexican border quite firmly as well even though the threat is 100 times smaller than here.



The US isnt forming a theological Nation. Israelis dont want anyone but those they deem jewish living in their land. If they tried to integrate with the palestineans instead they couldve solved this problem. But as apparent from the videos of the forced Gaza Strip return the majority harbor racist views towards arabs and palestineans, and would sooner burn down their land than see it touched by an arab.


----------



## Jonas (Jul 16, 2006)

Im not too good for this kind of debates. I'm leaving and keep lurking this thread.


----------



## kelleh (Jul 16, 2006)

Jonas said:
			
		

> Tell me what USA, China, France or Russia would've done if the jews came to their nation and said "I want a seat".
> 
> ... they would say; GTFO.



The difference between that region of the Middle East and these European countries you've mentioned that that the area we called Palestine was NOT an established, independent country.  Nor was it recognized.  The region belonged to Britain under its old colonial mandate, which it ceded to the UN in 1947.  The area belonged to NO ONE until the Partition Plan was approved by the General Assembly and Israel established itself in the Jewish regions and was recognized as an independent state.

If someone tried to do this in a place like Russia... it wouldn't fly since, you know, Russia is a *country*.  Palestine never was and still is not an independent nation.  There is no theft or wrong-doing.  If you had any understanding of history or global politics, you would understand this.




			
				Jonas said:
			
		

> UN = bullshit. hypocrites.
> UK = came and took over the nation. you prove my point; the UK wasn't justified to take over Palestine and neither was Israel
> 
> ... and then the little bitch cried for help from big daddy USA, and with help of them, kicked the neighbours asses.



You do realize that Israel is largely self-sufficient, right?  The funding we give Israel is thanks to the Camp David accords, which also grants Egypt our second largest sum of foreign funding.  But any weapons we've given them have been hand-me-downs.  We gave them WWII tanks for crying out loud, they weren't even that good DURING WWII.  But what Israel has above other countries is ingenuity.  They take these old weapons and machinery and go nuts modifying them.  Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries on the planet thanks to their own means.  Any military advancements they made was thanks to their own tactical brilliance.  Any victories they've made in their conflicts have been their own.

When you open the purse of Israel, you do not see the US.  Israel is not a wimpy country that cries out for help - if it did, how the hell do you think they'd not only be surviving as the world's largest bullseye in the most strife-ridden area on the planet, but a THRIVING nation?




			
				DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> In the UN's defense, that was what, their first year after formation? They really didnt know what they were doing back then and made some bad mistakes at first. But now they try to do better, but are often overided by the US who controls the funds or politically outmanuevers them, like with the support for Condoms to stop Aids in Africa.



Not exactly.  The UN was the retransformed League of Nations, so it's not like they had no experience dealing with these sorts of issues.  The foundation of Israel isn't a stupid idea that can be chalked up to inexperience, it's just a horrendously complicated situation.




			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> The US holds it's Mexican border quite firmly as well even though the threat is 100 times smaller than here.



Is it our duty to protect your borders?  This isn't relevent.  Domestic vs. Foreign interests.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> Umm yeah, but the israelis are the ones overstepping their boundaries by setting up roads to illegal jewish settlements in the palestinean territories.
> 
> *don't you know that palestine is currectly under israeli occupation? all those territories will be given back once the occupation is halted (that will happen when israel won't have the need to step into palestinian land to defend itself from palestinian attacks.).*
> 
> ...


*if you don't want me to call you names then start acting like an adult yourself and stop trying to bash israel with fictional and non-relevant facts.*


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> Not exactly.  The UN was the retransformed League of Nations, so it's not like they had no experience dealing with these sorts of issues.  The foundation of Israel isn't a stupid idea that can be chalked up to inexperience, it's just a horrendously complicated situation.



Im familiar with the League of Nations, but the League didnt really succeed, and the US wasnt a part of it, though it was President Wilsons idea. I mean its different when you have different procedures and people making the decisions.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

tonycorleone said:
			
		

> Attacks on civilians is never justified. Everyone should know that.


tell that to megaharrison, he justifies it by saying "it's something that happens in war" and stuff like that.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> *if you don't want me to call yuo names then start acting like an adult yourself and stop trying to bash israel with fictional and non-relevant facts.*



How is it fictional to call them racist towards arabs when they would rather occupy and kill all of them before integrating with them. Something isnt non relevant because youre incapable of connecting the dots. And theyre not simply racist for wanting to create a "democratic" theocracy or for their reaction to the gaza strip. Its been their whole response to the terrorist situation, and total disregard for arab life be it terrorist or civilian that shows their feelings.

Ive already pointed out the relevancy of most of my past statements, but if youre to lazy to read the links or too upset that your country is receiving some much needed criticism then the fault lies in you and perhaps you dont need to be debating at all, if criticism causes you to have a hissy fit and begin name calling.


----------



## kelleh (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> The US isnt forming a theological Nation. Israelis dont want anyone but those they deem jewish living in their land. If they tried to integrate with the palestineans instead they couldve solved this problem. But as apparent from the videos of the forced Gaza Strip return the majority harbor racist views towards arabs and palestineans, and would sooner burn down their land than see it touched by an arab.



First rule of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: _there is no simple solution._  Anyone saying otherwise is lying or selling something.  Which are you? : )

The Palestinians are the ones who have historically always refused to negotiate with the Israelis or accept peace with compromises to their interests.  Any animosity the Israelis feel towards the Palestinians is reasonable, I mean come on, they've been attacking them ever since Israel was founded.  Without going into right-wrongs about the foundation of the nation, that's a lot of lack of love for the Israelis to deal with.  To Israel's credit, they've been much more receptive to the ideas of compromise, either those they've come up with or ones offered to them by mediators, but Palestine will always be the one who refuses the offer.

Israel wants to see this conflict end more than anyone.  If there were a simple solution, they would take it.  Unfortunately, when you have large groups of radicals declaring holy wars, deeming Israel's existence as the bane of theirs and that it's their holy _duty_ to see their demise, we don't exactly have reasonable minds to have level-headed talks with.  Radicals on all sides need to be dealt with, but groups opposing Israel have historically been the perpetrators of these attacks and the reason why progress can't be made.

You want to talk about inherent hatred?  Racism is the least of your problems.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> First rule of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: _there is no simple solution._  Anyone saying otherwise is lying or selling something.  Which are you? : )


there is one simple solution actually, STOP BEING DUMBASSES!!!!!! BOTH SIDES


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> How is it fictional to call them racist towards arabs when they would rather occupy and kill all of them before integrating with them.
> 
> *that's what i call fictional facts.
> unlike the palestinians israel have given MANY peace offering to the palestinians. and we dont celebrate every dead palestinian child, again unlike the palestinians. *
> ...



*rigthhh. *


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> *rigthhh. *


couldn't do better than that ?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> couldn't do better than that ?



by "rigth" i meant that every statement in the last part of his post was wrong.
k?


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

> that's what i call fictional facts.
> unlike the palestinians israel have given MANY peace offering to the palestinians. and we dont celebrate every dead palestinian child, again unlike the palestinians.


And which of these offerings if any involved integration? Did the palestineans even have a say in the Gaza strip? Arafat did try to negotiate before but Israel later wanted to call him a terrorist and attack his quarters.

Also Israels reaction in Lebanon shows their position. If they feel threatened by terrorists in any country they will begin bombing indescriminantly. Stop acting like its the governments that are trying to wipe out Israel. Then you say Im making up facts. Have you looked at a single link Ive posted???

And now to facemaking...a real mature display of growth there buddy.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> And which of these offerings if any involved integration? Did the palestineans even have a say in the Gaza strip? Arafat did try to negotiate before but Israel later wanted to call him a terrorist and attack his quarters.
> 
> *a.camp david?
> b.what about gaza strip?
> ...



*bs response for a bs statement.*


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> tell that to megaharrison, he justifies it by saying "it's something that happens in war" and stuff like that.


EXCUSE ME? We're aiming at airports and at strategic locations of the Hizbollah, while they're AIMING for cities...


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> EXCUSE ME? We're aiming at airports and at strategic locations of the Hizbollah, while they're AIMING for cities...


that's because HIZBOLLAH ARE TERRORISTS, don't attack a country cause there's terrorists there, especially when that country has asked for help in DISARMING THEM before!!!!!!!!!


and the roads where hizbollah not even are and the docks that has no connection to hizbollah that were going to be used to evacuate tourists were bombed for no apparent reason and you call that STRATEGIC ?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> that's because HIZBOLLAH ARE TERRORISTS, don't attack a country cause there's terrorists there, especially when that country has asked for help in DISARMING THEM before!!!!!!!!!


a.if those terrorist attack you then you have everyrigth to defend yourself.
b.lebanon asked for help only *yesterday*.
c.those roads were blocked so that hizbollah wont get oputside support.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> EXCUSE ME? We're aiming at airports and at strategic locations of the Hizbollah, while they're AIMING for cities...



You're *government* is aiming for those _supposed_ strategic locations which killed 4 dozen innocent civilians, while they're *terrorists* were aiming for cities.

Big difference.

Even your language reeks of generalisations, but I'll just attribute this to your ignorant racism.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> You're *government* is aiming for those _supposed_ strategic locations which killed 4 dozen innocent civilians, while they're *terrorists* were aiming for cities.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Even your language reeks of generalisations, but I'll just attribute this to your ignorant racism.


for once i can actually agree with you


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> a.if those terrorist attack you then you have everyrigth to defend yourself.



Defending yourself and bombing the shit out of an airport, killing four dozen innocent civilians are two different things.

The justifications being used here for those innocent deaths is appalling, as the same justification could be applied to any terrorist attack such as the 11th of September ones.



			
				Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> for once i can actually agree with you



That's because I'm* always* right, it just so happens that you have family sitting on the side which are getting fucked over.

It's a shame really...


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Defending yourself and bombing the shit out of an airport, killing four dozen innocent civilians are two different things.
> 
> The justifications being used here for those innocent deaths is appalling, as the same justification could be applied to any terrorist attack such as the 11th of September ones.


Israel warns the civilians before they bomb a location if the people don't evacuate it's not our problem.
Hizbollah, is the one that bombs cities with the sole purpose of killing civilians.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Israel warns the civilians before they bomb a location if the people don't evacuate it's not our problem.
> Hizbollah, is the one that bombs cities with the sole purpose of killing civilians.


oh, so lets say you live at a location your parents owned, and your grandparents, and suddenly there comes a message "you got 5 min to evacuate the building, we want to blow it up, if you don't leave fuck you"?


actually it is your problem, and saying it's not your problem is fucking stupid, you're proclaiming yourselves godly by thinking you can decide what others has to do.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Israel warns the civilians before they bomb a location if the people don't evacuate it's not our problem.
> Hizbollah, is the one that bombs cities with the sole purpose of killing civilians.



The same way the Israeli military warned people to evacute their homes, then decided to bomb the vehicles they were using to escape in.

Ahh, at least they got a nice leaflet telling them they were about to die.

Please, this is expected from an ignorant racist.



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> it's not our problem.



This too, and yes it is when its the Israeli military dropping them. 


Face it, the Israeli government are on the same level as terrorists, and terrorists in Lebanon are, well, terrorists.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

> a.camp david?
> b.what about gaza strip?
> c.yes, arrafat was such a sweetheart - he stole money from his people and gave the rest to terorrist groups.


Thats not integration with them in your nation, Gaza strip was giving them land, something they didnt really have much say in. But it still shows hatred and a refusal to live together. Since youre forcing everything else on them you might as well force an integration.

As I said before Arafat did alot for peace and was making good progress with Israel. They elected a right wing regime of war hawks that was less willing to debate and he began to give up on a peaceful solution. It doesnt justify all of his actions but he was willing to make a diplomatic solution before they demonized him and blamed him for all the various terrorist attacks on Israel.



> hamas is the goverment of the palestinian people and they don't recognize israel and want to wipe it out.read their last statements on bbc news or something. and what links are you talking about? besides, what reaction to lebanon did you expect? they attacked israel (crossed the border in the progress) and kidnepped 2 soldiers (not to mention their nonstop fire on isreal since 2001.



Im talking about Lebanon here, its the terrorists within their country that attacked israel. Not the government. I suppose using your logic we shouldve wiped israel off the face of the earth back when they shot down our airliner or fired on our cameramen? And as much hatred as Israel has bred what type of government do you expect the palestinians to elect?



> bs response for a bs statement.



dont you mean a childish response for your inability to take criticism.


----------



## kelleh (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Face it, the Israeli government are on the same level as terrorists, and terrorists in Lebanon are, well, terrorists.



The same Israeli government that has been trying to initiate peace talks for decades, would love nothing more than to stop being the object of hatred in the radical muslim world, and has only initiated attacks which are pre-emptive or justified?

Where the hell are you getting this?


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> The same Israeli government that has been trying to initiate peace talks for decades, would love nothing more than to stop being the object of hatred in the radical muslim world, and has only initiated attacks which are pre-emptive or justified?
> 
> Where the hell are you getting this?




What the fuck are you talking about? Justified? If an attack on an international airport killing 4 dozen innocent people is justified, then you are deluded. 

Destroying a governments infrastucture, especially considering that the US and Lebonese government have stated that that small part of Lebonan wasn't under their control that it was a terrorist action, not a government.

And now you ask where I'm getting with this?

Simple, the Israeli military are on the same level as terrorists. The only difference is that they have technologically superior weapons to give them face, and they still can't get it right.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

^^ahh yes pre-emptive strikes following in the great example of the wise president bush. And Killing Dozens of civilians is always justified if one drop of Israeli blood is shed.

Israel has just done a poor job of handling the terrorist situation and theyre tearing apart Lebanon and the recently rebuilt beruit. If this is their best attempt to stop being the object of hatred theyre doing a horrible job. They may as well take over lebanon and force the civilians out as well as every other surrounding country they feel may have terrorists that hate them hiding in it.

Even if they were at war with the country you attack the military instillations first, not places you know there will be lots of citizens and tourists. They bomb the airports, bridges, and roadways and warn the civilians to escape...wtf? They just dont care about non Israeli life. Theres ways of shutting down airtraffic without killing everyone in the airports.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

In any case, it's all about politics and as long as G8 approves, IDF will bomb the shit out of Hizbollah, until they stop fiering missiles on Israeli soil, if Israel stops, Hizbollah will double the missiles fiered... We all saw what happened when Israel withdrew the Gaza strip. Hundreds of missiles were fiered at Sderot killing a few people.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> That's because I'm *always* right


i know this for a fucking fact


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Israel warns the civilians before they bomb a location if the people don't evacuate it's not our problem.
> Hizbollah, is the one that bombs cities with the sole purpose of killing civilians.



You've forgotten your own history. When the Nazis came for the Jews, they came through with bullhorns telling the Jews to get out in x minutes. If they didn't get out or if they hid, they were sought out and executed. 

Wow, just wow. Look at what you have become. This is like what Nietzsche said about gazing into the abyss. Maybe Hizb'Allah is succeeding in poisoning the hearts of Israeli Jews. Now the two don't look so different. 

And throwing morality aside, it is also foolish. What if your own soldiers had been in one of these houses? Who knows where they're holding them, so how can you be sure that blowing up all these buildings isn't killing your own men in the process? Hizb'Allah was just itching to try out their new technology in a war, and Israel gave them the excuse. 8 dead in Haifa this morning. An Israeli ship disabled and sailors killed as a rocket hit their ship. I haven't heard a single report of a SINGLE Hizb'Allah member killed. It's been all civilians. So what exactly have you accomplished so far? 



> Sustained air strikes in south Lebanon killed over 50 civilians and wounded 110 people, security sources said. Ten family members were killed in Dweir village and seven family members died in Baflay. A Lebanese soldier was also killed.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060713/ts_nm/mideast_dc_309

o_O Look at the insightful post below me.


----------



## narutosuckshardhaha (Jul 16, 2006)

LEBANON GOES DOWN!! AHAHHA


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> You've forgotten your own history. When the Nazis came for the Jews, they came through with bullhorns telling the Jews to get out in x minutes. If they didn't get out or if they hid, they were sought out and executed.
> 
> Wow, just wow. Look at what you have become. This is like what Nietzsche said about gazing into the abyss. Maybe Hizb'Allah is succeeding in poisoning the hearts of Israeli Jews. Now the two don't look so different.
> 
> ...


They warn 24 hrs before the strike.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> They warn 24 hrs before the strike.





> "We want to say to the population in the south of Lebanon, we want to avoid innocent victims, so we recommend them to leave their villages and homes and go to the north of the country and let us work in the south of Lebanon, because in *two or three hours* we are going to attack the south of Lebanon heavily," said GOC Northern Command Major General Udi Adam.



this

You are 1-2 hours and 50 minutes better than the Nazis. Congrats.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> this
> 
> You are 1-2 hours and 50 minutes better than the Nazis. Congrats.


Did the US warn before it striked Iraq?


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Did the US warn before it striked Iraq?



Shit, we've found some sort of agreement there.  

I totally agree, (IIRC) they did the same thing in Iraq.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Defending yourself and bombing the shit out of an airport, killing four dozen innocent civilians are two different things.
> 
> The justifications being used here for those innocent deaths is appalling, as the same justification could be applied to any terrorist attack such as the 11th of September ones.
> 
> ...



a statement made by a true idiot (moreso when you say this minutes after i proved all your points wrong.).


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> You're *government* is aiming for those _supposed_ strategic locations which killed 4 dozen innocent civilians, while they're *terrorists* were aiming for cities.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Even your language reeks of generalisations, but I'll just attribute this to your ignorant racism.



hizbollah is the *ruling power* in lebanon that is a goverment in all but name. why do you think that lebanise goverment can't force hizbollah to do anything?


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> hizbollah is the ruling power in lebanon that is a goverment in all but name. why do you think that lebanise goverment can't force hizbollah to do anything?


The labanese government is dependant on Hezzbollah?
So is Israel on America, your point?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> Thats not integration with them in your nation, Gaza strip was giving them land, something they didnt really have much say in. But it still shows hatred and a refusal to live together. Since youre forcing everything else on them you might as well force an integration.
> 
> *what the hell are you talking about? gaza strip was giving the land? anyway the facts are: palestinians wanted their own country - israel offered them their own country, but they refused. of course you can throw around your baseless accusations of israel hatered but still... they are only accusations.*
> 
> ...



by criticism you mean the part where you accuse me of being in denial since you don't want to believe that i proved you wrong?


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> The labanese government is dependant on Hezzbollah?
> So is Israel on America, your point?



i posted it in reaction to this post:


			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> You're *government* is aiming for those _supposed_ strategic locations which killed 4 dozen innocent civilians, while they're *terrorists* were aiming for cities.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> Even your language reeks of generalisations, but I'll just attribute this to your ignorant racism.


he's trying to say that israel has no rigth to attack lebanon since their goverment was not directly involved while i pointed out that the lebanise goverment IS responsible since it took no action against hizbollah.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Oi Oi....Time for something a bit more constructive here. Bitching about the evil baby eating Israeli's is fun and all but...

Apparently, officials from the European Union are meeting with Lebanese officials to discuss the Lebanese offered ceasefire. Israeli bombing on Beirut has ceased to honor these negotiations.

This is a rather good move. The Israeli attack has persuaded the Lebanese government to re-think their relationship with Hezbollah and if the West helps Lebanon, Hezbollah can be dismantled from within.

This type of solution would be good for both sides. Israel no longer needs to worry about unprovoked attacks on their northern border and Lebanon can eliminate extremist elements and these militias that just recklessly start wars that bring their whole country down with them.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> he's trying to say that israel has no rigth to attack lebanon since their goverment was not directly involved while i pointed out that the lebanise goverment IS responsible since it took no action against hizbollah.


Hmm i am not sure how the Lebanese government is responsible, can you explain to me also?


----------



## kelleh (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you talking about? Justified? If an attack on an international airport killing 4 dozen innocent people is justified, then you are deluded.
> 
> Destroying a governments infrastucture, especially considering that the US and Lebonese government have stated that that small part of Lebonan wasn't under their control that it was a terrorist action, not a government.



Dearest, welcome to Total War.  It started in WWII and the world has never looked back.  Attacking strategic locations is viable when a retaliation strike is justified (defense against one of the deadliest blood-thirsty terrorist organizations in the world, anyone?), even when civilians are at risk.  No, it's not pretty.  No, it's not fair.  But that's the way of warfare.

An airport IS a strategic location.  Hezbollah could use it as a drop-point for supplies, a station for military planes if they managed to get ahold of them, or simply a base of operations since they're very large with a lot of handy tech inside.  Airports are just as viable a target as a military target.  It's only sadder news when the victims are civilians.  From a strategic stand-point, it is justified.

Now, compared to Hezbollah who attacked Haifa's residential areas, how exactly is Israel the one at fault?

This is basic military strategy and modern warfare.  I suggest you read up on it.




			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> And now you ask where I'm getting with this?
> 
> Simple, the Israeli military are on the same level as terrorists. The only difference is that they have technologically superior weapons to give them face, and they still can't get it right.



Terrorist groups operate on killing either for the sake of fear or for their ultimate goal, Hezbollah's being to wipe Israel off the map.  Israel is fighting in retaliation to _civilian_ strikes (not strategic), and continues to fight in an attempt to ward off Hezbollah who has many more long- and short-range missiles ready and waiting to be launched into the heart of Israel.

Are you even watching the news?




			
				DrunkenYoshiMaster said:
			
		

> ^^ahh yes pre-emptive strikes following in the great example of the wise president bush. And Killing Dozens of civilians is always justified if one drop of Israeli blood is shed.



This is a retaliatory strike, which according to the theories of just war, is justified.  Pre-emptive strikes pre-date Bush (whose invasion of Iraq is _mislabelled_ as pre-emptive, for anyone remotely familiar with the terms), and I mentioned them since they've been a tactic of Israel (Six-Day War) where they've been largely supported by the international community.




			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> You've forgotten your own history. When the Nazis came for the Jews, they came through with bullhorns telling the Jews to get out in x minutes. If they didn't get out or if they hid, they were sought out and executed.



All hail Godwin's Law!

You're saying that dropping leaflets and giving warnings to civilians in or near an attack zone is bad?  You do realize this has been a common practice since WWI, right?

The Allies did it during WWII as well, by the way.  Nazis aren't alone in this (does bringing them up make you feel like your point has more shock value or something?)




			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> And throwing morality aside, it is also foolish. What if your own soldiers had been in one of these houses? Who knows where they're holding them, so how can you be sure that blowing up all these buildings isn't killing your own men in the process?



Those soldiers are likely long since dead.




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> hizbollah is the *ruling power* in lebanon that is a goverment in all but name. why do you think that lebanise goverment can't force hizbollah to do anything?



Hezbollah is NOT the ruling power, it's an independent terrorist organization that does have a lot of sway over the government.  This is a clear difference.  If the Lebanese government had the desire and the support to act against Hezbollah, it could.  With Israel's strong resistence to Hezbollah, we could see some kind of political opening for the Lebanese government (which I now see Megaharrison is confirming).




			
				Mengde said:
			
		

> So is Israel on America, your point?



Your ignorance of all things historical and political is nothing short of astonishing and sad.




			
				Mengde said:
			
		

> Hmm i am not sure how the Lebanese government is responsible, can you explain to me also?



Lebanese government =/= Hezbollah


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Apparently, officials from the European Union are meeting with Lebanese officials to discuss the Lebanese offered ceasefire. Israeli bombing on Beirut has ceased to honor these negotiations.


really, considering i talked to my sis around 40 min ago and she said that she heard and saw bombs all the time in beirut currently and they couldn't go back to the hotel, makes me somehow not wanting to belive this


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> jews start legaly purchasing land in palestine from palestinians land owners. ...the 2 state plan is born for separate palestinian and israeli goverment.


damm this thread was popping overnight.

what staggers me here is, as u put it, the jews went from buying land legally to having a state  wtf!  Can you sell land to somebody without them becoming separatist?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

extra extra, british news is reporting that canadian tourists have died in the bombings...hopefully a web source will sprout up.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> damm this thread was popping overnight.
> 
> what staggers me here is, as u put it, the jews went from buying land legally to having a state  wtf!  Can you sell land to somebody without them becoming separatist?



read the thread - this was answered many times.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Oi Oi....Time for something a bit more constructive here. Bitching about the evil baby eating Israeli's is fun and all but...
> 
> Apparently, officials from the European Union are meeting with Lebanese officials to discuss the Lebanese offered ceasefire. Israeli bombing on Beirut has ceased to honor these negotiations.
> 
> ...


Good to have you back, it was tough here without you.   I'm to hot headed in these things!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

just want to add my 2 cents


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> All hail Godwin's Law!
> 
> You're saying that dropping leaflets and giving warnings to civilians in or near an attack zone is bad?  You do realize this has been a common practice since WWI, right?
> 
> The Allies did it during WWII as well, by the way.  Nazis aren't alone in this (does bringing them up make you feel like your point has more shock value or something?)



Do you have a point here? What, because they did it in WWII makes it okay? I haven't heard of any Lebanese civilian injuring one Israeli during this conflict. I just saw on the news that a Lebanese-Canadian family of 5 was killed. Maybe they didn't receive the leaflet... or maybe they were just hoping to die. o.O  Either way, both the Nazis and AIF have something in common: they both demand that people leave their homes or die. This is not Godwin's law, but fact. 





			
				kelleh said:
			
		

> Those soldiers are likely long since dead.



Oh, that's a brilliant bit of speculation on your part isn't it? I'm sure if you're one of those soldiers or a member of their family, you would say that same thing. I'm glad you're willing to risk real lives on this uneducated guess. This isn't a computer game. The Israelis are demanding they return the soldiers, so obviously they don't believe as you do. 

The mods should restrict the membership for this forum. It would be nice to avoid the uneducated masses flooding in here.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

omnistrife said:
			
		

> Syrians? Weren't they Jordanians or something?  well in any case, he is right, the Term Palestinians never existed before Israel became a country.


the term palestinian never existed because the UK created that country, same as pakistan and ...some other places.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> Your ignorance of all things historical and political is nothing short of astonishing and sad.


nah, i am pretty confident when it comes to history and politics.
However the assumption you made based on my statment can be decribed as 'ignorant'.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> the term palestinian never existed because the UK created that country, same as pakistan and ...some other places.



please dont revive old topics.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

all of this is old topics really 

Besides, Even if  UK had ottoman land or whatever, I don't put it put it past them to steal land from anybody and claim it's their own, ala the US colonization.

Yes the native americans weren't calling it there country and have international recognition, but that didn't mean they can be wiped out either.


----------



## kelleh (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Do you have a point here? What, because they did it in WWII makes it okay? I haven't heard of any Lebanese civilian injuring one Israeli during this conflict. I just saw on the news that a Lebanese-Canadian family of 5 was killed. Maybe they didn't receive the leaflet... or maybe they were just hoping to die. o.O  Either way, both the Nazis and AIF have something in common: they both demand that people leave their homes or die. This is not Godwin's law, but fact.



You tried to play off the Israeli dropping of leaflets/warnings as "bad" or "evil" since the Nazis had the same practice by "warning" Jews before they rounded them up.  I'm telling you this is not a new tactic, and it's actually very common for leaflets to be dropped on an attack site (when it isn't critical for it to be a surprise) so that civilians can leave the area.

Unless you have something against warning people before where they live is attacked (for whatever reason), yes, since it was common practice in WWII and ever since then, it's a good tactic and a sign of good faith for the civilians that the attackers aren't going after THEM.

And where did I say the Lebanese attacked Israelis?  Hezbollah attacked.  Don't try to throw strawmans at me.

But yes, this is most certainly Godwin's Law at it once again.  You mentioned Nazis are random for a point that's not only idiotic, but flat out wrong.  You also had any other number of examples of friends or enemies dropping leaflets (hell, we do it in Iraq), but you chose Nazis.




			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Oh, that's a brilliant bit of speculation on your part isn't it? I'm sure if you're one of those soldiers or a member of their family, you would say that same thing. I'm glad you're willing to risk real lives on this uneducated guess. This isn't a computer game. The Israelis are demanding they return the soldiers, so obviously they don't believe as you do.



Tell me, how many times have terrorists released captive soldiers?  How much leverage do you think capturing soldiers will have over a government when they won't negotiate with you?  Hezbollah did this as a provocation, like any other terrorist group does.

When was the last time you saw a terrorist release a soldier alive?  There's reason in speculating that these soldiers are dead, seeing as they have no purpose in being alive.  Israel isn't fighting back right now to have them released, and the soldiers already served their purpose in getting Israel's attention.

We speculated that the last two American soldiers who were captured by al-qaeda-in-Iraq were dead, and lo and behold, they were for the exact reasons I've illustrated here.  Sure it's speculation, but it's not ungrounded.  If Hezbollah meant to use the soldiers as leverage, they would have acted in the past week in an attempt to do so (and the only thing I can imagine would be to trade for Palestinian prisoners), but instead they've lauched an offensive assault on Haifa and Hezbollah's leader says that they will only continue to attack with everything they have.  Israel is continuing its attacks in order to ward them off and to end the threat on the country, and since I haven't heard much about their demands for the return of their soldiers recently, I can only assume their goal has gotten much more expansive as the conflict continues to grow.




			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> The mods should restrict the membership for this forum. It would be nice to avoid the uneducated masses flooding in here.



For someone who was bitching earlier that insults flung are childish and useless, you sure do backpeddle.  Unfortunately, you're stuck talking to me, who happens to be pretty damn educated on Middle Eastern conflicts.

Then again, I can't compare to _you_.  Oh no.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

now i found something interesting on aftonbladet, it says Israel has been accused of using fosfor based missiles on civil targets which is illegal.....


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> now i found something interesting on aftonbladet, it says Israel has been accused of using fosfor based missiles on civil targets which is illegal.....


US has done this in Iraq.  Phosphor ignites hot and brightly and is good for illuminating an area at night.  US blew that chemical into caves and hidden areas in afghanistan, burning people out of there cover.  This is well known to be an illegal use of this chemical.


----------



## Freija (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> US has done this in Iraq.  Phosphor ignites hot and brightly and is good for illuminating an area at night.  US blew that chemical into caves and hidden areas in afghanistan, burning people out of there cover.  This is well known to be an illegal use of this chemical.


true, but Israeli's has maybe used a vacuum bomb on civil targets.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

here's a source, candian blood has been spilt and there will be hell to pay...or not.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

edit : zodd got banned for this by kira yamato

canada should do something about it though...


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

yeah, i was looking around the bbc news website, seems that royal navy ships are going to take the british out of lebanon, at least they can launch a few missiles if any brits get killed.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> yeah, i was looking around the bbc news website, seems that royal navy ships are going to take the british out of lebanon, at least they can launch a few missiles if any brits get killed.



Well the only chance of people trying to escape under American, British, or European authority getting killed would come from Hezbollah. The Israeli navy and air forces are operating in conjunction with American and British officials trying to get their citizens out of the country. Hezbollah may try to take the opportunity to kill some more Westerners, as they have a history of randomly killing them.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 16, 2006)

well, i guess we'll wait and see what happens. it will probably be a few days before anything happens in terms of getting tourists and other foreigners out of the country.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> This is a retaliatory strike


I know that, I was responding to you saying that Israel has only commited attacks which are pre-emptive or justified. i didnt mean this one.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> what the hell are you talking about? gaza strip was giving the land? anyway the facts are: palestinians wanted their own country - israel offered them their own country, but they refused. of course you can throw around your baseless accusations of israel hatered but still... they are only accusations.



I dont know, Im speaking english I thought you might be able to figure out what Im saying for once. And 

.



> arafat didin't give shit about peace - when you demand something without offering something in return, steal from your people and support voilence against the country you want to have peace with it's not called making peace.



Sure beleive whatever the Israeli propaganda wants you to beleive. But Arafat   had numerous peacetalks and negotiations with clinton. ANd amid pressure from both militants and those who wanted peace tried to strike a satisfying deal. Israel refused to meet with him on several occasions despite US pressure. Theyve refused Cease-fires and continue to do so with Hamas. If theyre so pro-peace why do they continue to reject cease-fires and inflict far more bloodshed than is brought on them?



> israel bred hatred? i proved to you that arabs started the crisis in the middle east and you still blame israel for everything? il say it again - palestinians have the power to bring peace to the middle east and get their own country but if they dont want to - don't blame israel for it.



And I proved to you the Zionists took steps to get the UK to put themselves in the area as early as 1917, sending jews in without the consent of the inhabitants. Israel is the country with the well established infrastructure, the weapons, and the main ones who the UN and US can negotiate with now. With great power comes great responsibility, and its their responsibility to do more for peace. Palestine does not have the power to control every terrorist faction in the area, and until they do Israel has shown they will continue to invade and fire on them whether Hamas is in power or not.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> by criticism you mean the part where you accuse me of being in denial since you don't want to believe that i proved you wrong?



proved me wrong? You ignore most of the facts and links I posted earlier. I guess you proved me wrong just like you proved me an "idiot" and Jedi mind tricks a "fucking idiot" with your childish statements, or came up with ignorant bullshit like " hizbollah is the ruling power in lebanon". Youre obviously extremely biased and closed minded in your ferverent support of Israel no matter what it does, probably even if it nuked its neighbors (assuming they could escape the fallout), youd say they were justified.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

DrunkenYoshimaster said:
			
		

> I know that, I was responding to you saying that Israel has only commited attacks which are pre-emptive or justified. i didnt mean this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*im biased?first you blame israel for every fucking problem in the middle east and then you have the opinion that israel should solve every crisis single handedly.and please don't start with your useless accusations of me wanting someone killed - i have never said or indicated that i justify any civilian death unlike you who thinks that israeli victims don't count since there are more arabian victims.*


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

> Sure beleive whatever the Israeli propaganda wants you to beleive. But Arafat   had numerous peacetalks and negotiations with clinton. ANd amid pressure from both militants and those who wanted peace tried to strike a satisfying deal. Israel refused to meet with him on several occasions despite US pressure. Theyve refused Cease-fires and continue to do so with Hamas. If theyre so pro-peace why do they continue to reject cease-fires and inflict far more bloodshed than is brought on them?



Hamas states that it wants to destroy Israel in its own charter. Israel will not negotiate with such an entity until it accepts Israels right to exist, and that it does not pursue the destruction of Israel.

As for not negotiatins with Arafat. He had numerous chances to get most of what he wanted but refused like a spoiled brat who just wanted more. Also, Arafats level of corruption (he stole BILLIONS from his own people) and refusal to do anything about suicide attacks on Israeli civilians did not make him a credibile leader. Israel negotiated with Abbas once Arafat was out of the way, and things were going good until the Palestinians voted in an entity which declares it wants to destroy Israel into power.





> And I proved to you the Zionists took steps to get the UK to put themselves in the area as early as 1917, sending jews in without the consent of the inhabitants. Israel is the country with the well established infrastructure, the weapons, and the main ones who the UN and US can negotiate with now. With great power comes great responsibility, and its their responsibility to do more for peace. Palestine does not have the power to control every terrorist faction in the area, and until they do Israel has shown they will continue to invade and fire on them whether Hamas is in power or not.



The terrorists are running the show now in Gaza. They were elected into power in a legitimate election. So the question of "can they control terrorist factions?" is no longer an issue because the terrorists themselves hold the power.

As I stated before, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter. Therefore once such a group controls a government, it is that governments declaration of war against Israel. Combine that and the fact that Hamas fired 800 rockets at Israel in an 8 month period and Hamas is not a legitimate neogitating partner. Hamas must either reform, be destroyed, or step down from power for any sort of peace process to return.





> proved me wrong? You ignore most of the facts and links I posted earlier. I guess you proved me wrong just like you proved me an "idiot" and Jedi mind tricks a "fucking idiot" with your childish statements, or came up with ignorant bullshit like " hizbollah is the ruling power in lebanon". Youre obviously extremely biased and closed minded in your ferverent support of Israel no matter what it does, probably even if it nuked its neighbors (assuming they could escape the fallout), youd say they were justified.



Hezbollah largely controls southern Lebanon, and has a significant presence in the Lebanese parliament. Including 23 seats and positions in the government cabinet. Also, Lebanon has refused to follow UN resolution 1559 which calls for Lebanese troops to move to the Israeli border in order to prevent Hezbollah activity in that area. Lebanon has not only allowed Hezbollah to operate freely within their own country, but they have cooperated with Hezbollah and allowed them to exist within their own government. This is why the Lebanese government is being held responsible for the actions of Hezbollah.


----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> why thank you omni for calling my relatives hateful persons
> 
> lets try this, ummmmm *Israel has bombed the airports and the docks so no tourists can leave the country, *including my sister, *swedish minsiters want approval* of the usage of docks and roads so they can evacuate the tourists, *no approval has been given from Israel*, but the *Hizbollah on the other hand has given their approval*.....
> 
> now why won't Israel approve the tourists to leave the country if they're such a loving country ?





			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Well the only chance of people trying to escape under American, British, or European authority getting killed would come from Hezbollah. The Israeli navy and air forces are operating in conjunction with American and British officials trying to get their citizens out of the country. *Hezbollah may try to take the opportunity to kill some more Westerners, as they have a history of randomly killing them.*



You know MH... I just got some glasses today.  Seeing that  you constantly misread posts maybe I should give them to you?  Because I'm sure that you need them much more then I do.

Also, the '23 seats and positions in the government cabinet' seems like a lot.  However, if you tell us the total amount of seats we will be able to see that 23 seats is not significant at all.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> You tried to play off the Israeli dropping of leaflets/warnings as "bad" or "evil" since the Nazis had the same practice by "warning" Jews before they rounded them up.  I'm telling you this is not a new tactic, and it's actually very common for leaflets to be dropped on an attack site (when it isn't critical for it to be a surprise) so that civilians can leave the area.
> 
> Unless you have something against warning people before where they live is attacked (for whatever reason), yes, since it was common practice in WWII and ever since then, it's a good tactic and a sign of good faith for the civilians that the attackers aren't going after THEM.
> 
> ...



Why are you doing this? It's pathetic. Obviously I have a problem with destroying people's houses, not the warning itself. Who cares if I chose Nazi's? The fact remains, and nothing you can rationalize will change that. Are you denying that Israel warns people to leave their homes or be killed? I hope not. Therefore I am correct and all the paragraphs of babbling above are nonsense. 

To your second point, prisoner exchanges are not infrequent in occurence with Hizb'Allah. Your self-proclaimed knowledge of the Middle East has apparently deserted you here. In 2004 Hizb'Allah exchanged an Israeli businessman for prisoners. This has happened with soldiers before that date in deals with the group. Check your facts. 

Also, you don't understand the last week. Those abducted soldiers were offered by Hizb'Allah for again a prisoner exchange earlier last week. This is not Al Qaida. Hizb'Allah doesn't aim to make beheading videos, but a prisoner exchange. Please read the news before commenting on it. Your speculation is even more worthless in light of your lack of knowledge on the subject. 

As to your third point, you prove with the above statements that you A) Don't follow current events and B) Don't follow recent history. So why are your comments worthy of future replies? It's a waste of time.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> You know MH... I just got some glasses today.  Seeing that  you constantly misread posts maybe I should give them to you?  Because I'm sure that you need them much more then I do.
> 
> Also, the '23 seats and positions in the government cabinet' seems like a lot.  However, if you tell us the total amount of seats we will be able to see that 23 seats is not significant at all.



Would you deny that Hezbollah has murdered non-Israeli westerners in the past before?

Also, just as we speak 2 U.S. marine helicopters are operating in Beirut. and evacuations of French citizens have also occured. Beirut is being ringed by Israeli warships and aircraft...Do you really think Israel is not allowing them to operate.

Anyway, there are 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and a number of cabinet positions are held by Hezbollah members. The number of seats are insignificant. The problem is that Lebanon not only does nothing against Hezbollah, but incorporates them into their government. The fact they are in the Lebanese government is the issue, not how much it is in it.


----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Would you deny that Hezbollah has murdered non-Israeli westerners in the past before?
> 
> Also, just as we speak 2 U.S. marine helicopters are operating in Beirut. and evacuations of French citizens have also occured. Beirut is being ringed by Israeli warships and aircraft...Do you really think Israel is not allowing them to operate.
> 
> Anyway, there are 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and a number of cabinet positions are held by Hezbollah members. The number of seats are insignificant. The problem is that Lebanon not only does nothing against Hezbollah, but incorporates them into their government. The fact they are in the Lebanese government is the issue, not how much it is in it.



I would not deny Hezbollah killing 'non-Israeli westeners' however I would also like to add that Israel has killed much more 'non-Israeli westeners' then has Hezbollah.

It is also not a question about Israel letting them operate or not.  The Swiss asked for something from Israel and Hezbollah.  Israel totally ignored it however Hozebollah conceded.  Why would you try to change the subject?

Also, seeing that 28/128 = %17 I would assume that Hezbollah is very weak in parliament...In fact so weak a party with %17 of votes would not even be able to get _into_ parliament in Turkey let alone 'control' it.

Well, The Lebanese gov't doesn't have the power to control Hezbollah.  You should know why I think....  Cause you just  destroyed their military.


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I would not deny Hezbollah killing 'non-Israeli westeners' however I would also like to add that Israel has killed much more 'non-Israeli westeners' then has Hezbollah.
> 
> *care to provide an example?*
> 
> ...



*again, what are you talking about?*


----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

I'm sorry, I can't comprehend your post...

Could you fix the typos?  (Points at MS Word)


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I would not deny Hezbollah killing 'non-Israeli westeners' however I would also like to add that Israel has killed much more 'non-Israeli westeners' then has Hezbollah.
> 
> *care to provide an example?*
> 
> ...



*again, what are you talking about?*


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

*Unequivocal proof that you can't take simple information in.*



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> a statement made by a true idiot (moreso when you say this minutes after i proved all your points wrong.).



You've proved absolutely nothing. The only post I remember was some crap about Jewish settlers buying some properties. Newsflash retard. Buying a lot of properties does not entitle you to a create a new nation.
If loads of Chinese brought properties in Texas, they couldn't steal the land away from the US, and create their own nation, could they? You've proved no one wrong, you ignore facts and information layed down by members who don't share the same view with you that Israel is a peace loving nation. No, its just an organisation which decided to boot people already living there off.

Nice one retard.

Lets go over the things you decided to point out in that post.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> a.i by no means justify deaths of innocents.



Making excuses for the deaths of innocent people in an international airport is justifying death, is it not?
Ahh, the rigours of simple English, going right over your head.

So you're wrong here because you either you don't know what justify means, you completely forgot what you said or you're just an idiot.




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> wtf does 9/11 has to do with this?



9/11 was just a comparison I made towards the people justifying the deaths of innocent civilians in an airport. You can't see the comparison? I though so?
I'll actually tell you the comparison seeing as though I'm such a great a guy.

Regarding the justification of the innocents killed in the WTC, you could say that its completely fine, because all the terrorists were doing were trying to take it to the US's infrastructure, you know, a blow to the economy. You could say that the innocent deaths occurred during that were just an unfortunate part of this world we live in, but its completely fine. Because we got to hit the infrastructure. It goes deeper, but I'm surprised somebody of your mental capacity (low as it is), couldn't even see what I meant.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> they have all the means to to solve this crisis by disarming themself and givingf the soldiers back, but for some strange reason they don't value their brothers lives enough to do so.






			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> 
> 
> Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!



Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!

No, I wasn't calling you anything, it was just that really cool sound you hear in the movies when something big happens, you know? Probably not. And yeah, calling you dumb would be an understatement, seeing as though this post, which got everybody at it, went right over your head.

Well done. 

You look like a jackass on an anime forum. 




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> hizbollah is the *ruling power* in lebanon that is a goverment in all but name. why do you think that lebanise goverment can't force hizbollah to do anything?



But they aren't the government.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> 
> 
> Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!






			
				liansk said:
			
		

> he's trying to say that israel has no rigth to attack lebanon since their goverment was not directly involved while i pointed out that the lebanise goverment IS responsible since it took no action against hizbollah.



Oh, three times really is charm.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the *Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory,* Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> 
> 
> Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!



*Bolded for special people that still dont understand.



			
				kelleh said:
			
		

> Dearest, welcome to Total War.  It started in WWII and the world has never looked back.  Attacking strategic locations is viable when a retaliation strike is justified (defense against one of the deadliest blood-thirsty terrorist organizations in the world, anyone?), even when civilians are at risk.  No, it's not pretty.  No, it's not fair.  But that's the way of warfare.
> 
> An airport IS a strategic location.  Hezbollah could use it as a drop-point for supplies, a station for military planes if they managed to get ahold of them, or simply a base of operations since they're very large with a lot of handy tech inside.  Airports are just as viable a target as a military target.  It's only sadder news when the victims are civilians.  From a strategic stand-point, it is justified.
> 
> ...




Fuck, I guess I'm going to need to do it the fourth time, guess we can throw that charm shit out the window.


Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> 
> 
> Israel, acting irrationally to destroy Arab nations' infrastructure?  No way!






You know what, this is a fucking joke. Like I said before, the justification here is disgusting. The same reasoning could be used to drop bombs on the Irish back in the 90's and if I get a,



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> wtf does Ireland has to do with this?



I might puke slightly in my mouth, but it won't really come as a surprise.

Understand this, 

*And I've even bolded it for you.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> *"Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."*


----------



## liansk (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> *Unequivocal proof that you can't take simple information in.*
> You've proved absolutely nothing. The only post I remember was some crap about Jewish settlers buying some properties. Newsflash retard. Buying a lot of properties does not entitle you to a create a new nation.
> If loads of Chinese brought properties in Texas, they couldn't steal the land away from the US, and create their own nation, could they? You've proved no one wrong, you ignore facts and information layed down by members who don't share the same view with you that Israel is a peace loving nation. No, its just an organisation which decided to boot people already living there off.
> 
> ...


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi, actually dismantling Hezbollah is one of the lesser demands. Lebanon refused to obey UN resolution 1559. Which calls for Lebanon to move troops along the Israeli border to prevent Hezbollah activity there. Just MOVE TROOPS TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTRY. Asking a nation to move soldiers around in its own country isn't an unreasonable demand.

If Lebanon obeyed these requests, this wouldn't of happened as Hezbollah wouldn't of been able to organize for their attack on Israel.

Also any sort of debate over Israels existence at this point is irrelevant and comical. Stop living in the freakin 1950's.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> if the power ruling over the land allows you to create a country then yes - you CAN create your own country fucktard.



That same power also decided to breach an existing contract, to help fuck over a people already living there. The Ottoman for Balfour through pressure from the Zionist movement?
And they still stole land, regardless of any contract held over by colonial powers. You can sugar-coat it all you like.






			
				liansk said:
			
		

> where did you see any post by me about the airport moron?!





			
				liansk said:
			
		

> if those terrorist attack you then you have everyrigth to defend yourself.



In response to



			
				Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> that's because HIZBOLLAH ARE TERRORISTS, don't attack a country cause there's terrorists there, especially when that country has asked for help in DISARMING THEM before!!!!!!!!!



What the fuck do you think he was talking about you idiot? WWII? He's the one with family in Lebanon, can't you even put that together?

This is too funny, but keep the insults coming. It just makes it the more funnier when I prove you wrong.




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> again where did you see any post by me about the airport or attacks about any other infrastructures moron?!






			
				liansk said:
			
		

> if those terrorist attack you then you have everyrigth to defend yourself.



In response to



			
				Uchiha_Itachi_ said:
			
		

> that's because HIZBOLLAH ARE TERRORISTS, don't attack a country cause there's terrorists there, especially when that country has asked for help in DISARMING THEM before!!!!!!!!!



What the fuck do you think he was talking about you idiot? WWII? He's the one with family in Lebanon, can't you even put that together?

Again, this is too funny, but keep the insults coming. It just makes it the more funnier when I prove you wrong.





			
				liansk said:
			
		

> you gift at quoting other people posts as completely irrelevant counters to my points is exceptional.



Factually baseless.





			
				liansk said:
			
		

> your point? i didn't say that they are THE government but i did say that they have the highest level of control in Lebanon , can you prove me wrong asswipe?



Yes, I can. They have the highest level of control in Southern Lebonan, not the whole as posted in that link provided by Vash.

Too easy.




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> and for your last point:
> you quoted the Wrong guy IDIOT if you could go and ask your mother what stupid animal she fucked to produce you il be very grateful, because by this post you proved nothing except for the fact that you are an idiot who can write the word dumb *but cant use the forum!*



This is gold. Pure gold! It was a stab at your inability to see through the 9/11 example, which you seem to have left out, I wonder why?

Now here's the real part that just makes it one of the greatest things ever. Notice the part in bold from your quote.

Now check out the spoiler.



Quoting system to hard for you?

Oh, the irony is beautiful. Really though. Trying to put your family secrets on me? Maybe you can tell us about that animal that took it to your mum then. 


Too easy, retard.

Though thanks for the entertainment, it was fun. 




			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Jedi, actually dismantling Hezbollah is one of the lesser demands. Lebanon refused to obey UN resolution 1559. Which calls for Lebanon to move troops along the Israeli border to prevent Hezbollah activity there. Just MOVE TROOPS TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTRY. Asking a nation to move soldiers around in its own country isn't an unreasonable demand.
> 
> If Lebanon obeyed these requests, this wouldn't of happened as Hezbollah wouldn't of been able to organize for their attack on Israel.



It still doesn't justify the attacks on the countries infrastructure which has resulted in the deaths of 120+ Lebonese, nationwide. The US and Lebonese governments have both stated that they had no control in Southern Lebanon.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> That same power also decided to breach an existing contract, to help fuck over a people already living there. The Ottoman for Balfour through pressure from the Zionist movement?
> And they still stole land, regardless of any contract held over by colonial powers. You can sugar-coat it all you like.
> 
> 
> ...


You know, if you leave out the curse words insults and flaming your posts will be a lot smaller and help saving some forum space.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> You know, if you leave out the curse words insults and flaming your posts will be a lot smaller and help saving some forum space.



Thanks for the contribution ignorant racist.
I love the way you failed to mention the whole beastiality subject bought about by the other member. Way to go, double standards at its finest.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)




----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

Stick _that_ up _your_...


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> Stick _that_ up _your_...


That was meant for JMT... not you


----------



## Cece (Jul 16, 2006)

I know...?


----------



## Uchiha Kyusha (Jul 16, 2006)

why would someone be so cruel???


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> You know, if you leave out the curse words insults and flaming your posts will be a lot smaller and help saving some forum space.



asking someone to be polite to you then suddenly posting an impolite image in response to that person is not good for your image. people would think that you are a complete idiot.  

but why should i be surprised at your double standards? you are an Israeli after all.  >_>


----------



## Parell (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> but why should i be surprised at your double standards? you are an Israeli after all.  >_>



So we're not allowed to generalize Arabs and Muslims, but doing it to Israelis is find.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> asking someone to be polite to you then suddenly posting an impolite image in response to that person is not good for your image. people would think that you are a complete idiot.
> 
> but why should i be surprised at your double standards? you are an Israeli after all.  >_>


Don't worry he knows the reason for that picture. It's a farewell gift... In any case I'm not a double faced Jew lol I'm not even Jewish, The war is fought due to political developments, and there's nothing you nor me can do about it. Shit happens, people die.


			
				Krillin said:
			
		

> So we're not allowed to generalize Arabs and Muslims, but doing it to Israelis is fine.


Beware my friend, they'll call you an ignorant racist now!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

megaharrison said:
			
		

> Also any sort of debate over Israels existence at this
> point is irrelevant and comical. Stop living in the freakin 1950's.


what r u the debate police? I can debate anything i want...



			
				krillin said:
			
		

> So we're not allowed to generalize Arabs and Muslims, but doing it to Israelis is find.



actually littleman, if u look at closely at the post, the most generalizations about Isrealis are made by megaharrison, he has been called paranoid by not just me.   For the record the only person to call Isreali's "baby-eaters" on this board to date, as far as i know, is mega harrison


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> Stick _that_ up _your_...



Dahahaha, That image is awesome. Of course you do realize that Turkey is in the buttcrack too right?

Anyway...



			
				JediMindTricks said:
			
		

> It still doesn't justify the attacks on the countries infrastructure which has resulted in the deaths of 120+ Lebonese, nationwide. The US and Lebonese governments have both stated they they had no control in Southern Lebanon.



The targets have all been strategic in nature and are common targets in any war, I don't care what war it is. Israel is following basic military tactics because it was dragged into a war.

1.)Lebanese airports: Restricts the movement/communication of the country you are attacking. Also, it will stop Hezbollah from flying the hostages out of the country.

2.)Hezbollah office/government buildings: Reduces enemy propaganda/command/organizational abilities. Hezbollah brilliantly placed said buildings in the middle of civilian area's.

3.)Bridges/roads: Stops enemy movement.

Restricting enemy movement and communication abilities is a basic aspect of modern war. Once this phase is over, we can aspect Israel will move onto targetting individual Hezbollah units.

Anyway, Lebanon needs to simply move troops to the Israeli border. No nation can stay stable if it can't even control the southern portion of their country. If Lebanon can't gain control along the Israeli border themselves, then the international community needs to do something IF they do not want Israel to take matters into its own hands.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> what r u the debate police? I can debate anything i want...
> 
> 
> 
> actually littleman, if u look at closely at the post, the most generalizations about Isrealis are made by megaharrison, he has been called paranoid by not just me.   For the record the only person to call Isreali's "baby-eaters" on this board to date, as far as i know, is mega harrison


Maybe because we know who we really are and we're not affected by any thing you say, unlike some of the people here that carry a severe inferiority complex... Heck, just don't make a cartoon of their prophet... Then, it get's really messy.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 16, 2006)

Krillin said:
			
		

> So we're not allowed to generalize Arabs and Muslims, but doing it to Israelis is find.



let`s see...

you and your Israeli friends here generlize the Arabs all the time.
you always put the balme on the Arabs.
never ever has anyone of you said that Israel holds some sort of resbonsibility for the cruel deathes of the Lebanese.

so in other words, i have every right to say that you have double standards.  



			
				OmniStrife said:
			
		

> In any case I'm not a double faced Jew lol I'm not even Jewish, The war is fought due to political developments, and there's nothing you nor me can do about it. Shit happens, people die.



so in other words, i don`t have to feel sorry for the deathes of the Israeli citizens. Shit happens, people die.


----------



## mow (Jul 16, 2006)

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you all

People have died. People are still dieing. It doesnt matter who started what, and whose killed more, what matters is that lives are being treated with such little worth and are merely being treated as abunch of stats, while you all are simply turning it into an idiotic political flame battle. Get your bloody priorties straight =/


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> so in other words, i don`t have to feel sorry for the deathes of the Israeli citizens. Shit happens, people die.


True, what a relief huh? And you thought that your tearfull mournig for Israelis is going to last a bit longer...


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

omnistrife said:
			
		

> Maybe because we know who we really are and we're not affected by any thing you say, unlike some of the people here that carry a severe inferiority complex... Heck, just don't make a cartoon of their prophet... Then, it get's really messy.



well, what would u know about people living in ignorance and poverty except the ignorance and poverty isreal causes in palestine?  in addition US has been pumping money into Isreal's economy for a long time. no matter what you say 100 + billon over that last whatever amount of years is nothing to sneeze at.

The people out on the streets rioting and burning things and what not weren't the elite, they were the lowest classes.


			
				701 said:
			
		

> People have died. People are still dieing. It doesnt matter who started what, and whose killed more



that's the whole thing, some are dieing alot more than others! if it was equal attrition than they can both be blamed.  As it stands one side is walking straight into a human shredding machine called the IDF....


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> well, what would u know about people living in ignorance and poverty except the ignorance and poverty isreal causes in palestine?  in addition US has been pumping money into Isreal's economy for a long time. no matter what you say 100 + billon over that last whatever amount of years is nothing to sneeze at.
> 
> The people out on the streets rioting and burning things and what not weren't the elite, they were the lowest classes.


You blame us for getting aid from the US? Palestine gets shitloads of aid as well, to bad it falls into the wrong hands and not to the starving citizens.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> True, what a relief huh? And you thought that your tearfull mournig for Israelis is going to last a bit longer...



of course it won`t last long. not when compared to your ever-lasting grief for the Lebanese.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> of course it won`t last long. not when compared to your ever-lasting grief for the Lebanese.


True. War does suck... Asuma rocks btw.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> that's the whole thing, some are dieing alot more than others! if it was equal attrition than they can both be blamed.  As it stands one side is walking straight into a human shredding machine called the IDF....



So...The side that experiences more casualties in a conflict is the side that is not at fault? I suppose Germany was right over America and the UK then in WW2.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 16, 2006)

OmniStrife said:
			
		

> Asuma rocks btw.



of course he does


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> So...The side that experiences more casualties in a conflict is the side that is not at fault? I suppose Germany was right over America and the UK then in WW2.


no that is not the correlation i made...re read and come back with a better comparison


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> So...The side that experiences more casualties in a conflict is the side that is not at fault?



try to look at it this way:

- having more casualties means that the other side is inflicting more damage.
- inflicting more damage means you are more powerful.
- being more powerful means you have control of the situation.
- having control of the situation gives you the option of either ending the war or inflicting more damage on the "already losing" other side. Israel of course chose the latter >_>

so in other words, yeah you are at fault whether you like it or not.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 16, 2006)

Omnistrife said:
			
		

> Don't worry he knows the reason for that picture. It's a farewell gift?



Nah, I think it was just the response expected from an ignorant racist who is lost for words and couldn't find fault in my logic. The same ignorant racist that was hypocritical enough to ask me to watch my language while another member arguing his point initiated insults regarding bestiality, then was stupid enough to directly flame me afterwards.
Well done. 



			
				Omnistrife said:
			
		

> Beware my friend, they'll call you an ignorant racist now!



I provided unequivocal evidence of your ignorant racism. Why would I call somebody else it because they made a good point? Krillin is right in that we should not generalise. You are still an ignorant racist Omnistrife. 



			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> The targets have all been strategic in nature and are common targets in any war, I don't care what war it is. Israel is following basic military tactics because it was dragged into a war.
> 
> 1.)Lebanese airports: Restricts the movement/communication of the country you are attacking. Also, it will stop Hezbollah from flying the hostages out of the country.
> 
> ...



Tactics used if the government of Lebanon was capturing soldiers. Israel waging a war which has entailed the destruction of an entire countries infrastructure along with 120+  innocent due to terrorists capturing two soldiers is an extremely disproportionate response and you know it.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 16, 2006)

Jesus Christ, people, stop yelling at each other.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 16, 2006)

lost a really long reply, board froze, short on time anyway



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> then please explain that to me. maybe my english is rusty but i don't remember gaza strip ever giving land to anyone.



The gaza strip is now in the hands of the palestinians is what I was talking about, I thought youd get it.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> care to provide some sources with information about the deals that you're talking about?



Umm my memory, the news. If Israel was trying to demonize Arafat so much at the time that none of the Arafat Clinton talks made the news there I suppose you could always type it in online. They happened and are pretty much common knowledge outside of Israel, as is Israels unwillingness to meet or cease fire on several occasions.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> im ignoring your posts? i already said that zionists sent jews to land that they purchased beforehand and asked you why the fuck were they suposed to ask the palestinians if its alrigth with them? moreover, it WAS alrigth with them (at first) since jews gave them workplaces and provided some progress the area.



Saying they bought the land, and admitting they took steps to have it early on by pressuring Britain to mandate their coming in large numbers are two completely different things. Beleive it or not Jews used suicide bombing tactics on the british back then to get their way. 
The British wanted it out of their hands, but you cant just give away land someone else has been occupying for thousands of years.

Thats worse than us selling land in Puerto Rico to Russia, then arming the russians in the area as they push the Puerto Ricans out of their site into a corner of the Island. Would you expect the inhabitants to react peacibly. As Israelis bought land they supplied themselves with weapons and used tanks and other arms to force those not like them out. Israel never wanted integration. If anything they wanted a segregated apertheid like that of south africa. Look at the walls on the west bank. And when South Africa did it the international community considered him a terrorist for opposing apartheid.
Arafat was a wealthy individual who gave up a good deal of his fortune and time to try and bring peace to the region, and restore some of the land that had been taken from palestine 50 years prior. Those in power often try to demonize the actions of those that oppose them as much as possible.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> there is no power i know of that could force someone to live in peace with you.


A movement to end the hatred, live side by side, a push for no segregation and camps. 



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> again the one who is ignoring others posts here is you, not me. can you provide one point that you posted before and i didnt prove wrong? and hizbollah is the ruling power in lebanon (interms of POWER, not politics) and my arguement to this is that the goverment wich is supposed to have full control over it cant do nothing to them.and someone who thinks he's always rigth is clearly an idiot.



Hezbollah has what 20 seats out of 150+ in the Lebanese government. They make up a small amount of the population as well. Lebanon is 40% christian yet Israel attacks them indiscriminantly. Even groups of children trying to escape have been killed. Youre biased for acting like Israel had no other options and their show of force is justified. Its not at all. If America responded like this in Iraq, bombing Airports, roadways and civilians indiscriminantly because there are terrorists regimes their Id respond the same way, and we still could be handling it better. Most of the christians are in and to the north of Beruit. Its disgusting what Israel is doing there.

Lebanon has a democratic government, why didnt Israel try to work with them, or train them to root out the terrorists? They only do it because they know they can get away with it. If India did that to palestine because their are terrorists who have attacked them hidden there or vice versa there would be a nuclear war right now.  



> im biased?first you blame israel for every fucking problem in the middle east and then you have the opinion that israel should solve every crisis single handedly.and please don't start with your useless accusations of me wanting someone killed - i have never said or indicated that i justify any civilian death unlike you who thinks that israeli victims don't count since there are more arabian victims.


I never said israeli life doesnt count,but israels response is definately an overuse of force, and completely unjustified. And working harder to bring peace is not saying they should do it all alone. But they could do more whether youd like to admit it or not.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

I've come to the conclusion that the Isreali-Palestinian conflict resembles the colonization of the US by the English, and the subsequent massacre of the Native Americans.  

I would have thought in this day and age, 2006, an act like that which happened 500 years ago wouldn't have been tolerated, but it seems that even looking back on history we can still allow it to happen.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Oh please. If Israel wanted to massacre all the Palestinians they would of done it 30 years ago.

The real massacres going on in the world are in Congo, Sudan, and Iraq.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Oh please. If Israel wanted to massacre all the Palestinians they would of done it 30 years ago.
> 
> The real massacres going on in the world are in Congo, Sudan, and Iraq.


ughhh, u never let up with ur arrogance do u ....anyway in congo i believe that's tribal battles.  In Sudan, that's a mess, no thanks UN-world  assistance.  

What massacre is happening in Iraq? The american backed one? The american caused one?

The Palestinian-Isreali conflict is a land grab, same as the ENglish colonization of America


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

Israeli progress report as of the morning of July 17​
Civilians and Lebanese soldiers killed: 150+-
Canadian citizens killed: 6-9
Infrastructure destroyed: Airports, roads, buildings
Lebanese people alienated, formerly friendly to the West: 500,000+-
Israeli civilians and soldiers killed: 20+-
Israeli soldiers (still unfound): 3
Israeli ships disabled: 1 
George Bush's diplomacy meter: 0
Oil: $77 up from before
Stock markets: Israel: Down 10%, US: down 4%

Hizb'Allah leaders killed: 0
Hizb'Allah soldiers killed: 0

Any questions?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Israeli progress report as of the morning of July 17​
> Civilians and Lebanese soldiers killed: 150+-
> Canadian citizens killed: 6-9
> Infrastructure destroyed: Airports, roads, buildings
> ...



4 Hezbollah militants have been confirmed killed.



As for the warship, it sailed into Haifa harbor under its own power. It was lightly damaged but hit a bad place, hence the casualties among the crew. The ship itself is basically fine.

But regardless of this, you fail to see the overall strategic picture here. The Lebanese government is being pushed to actually do something about Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is no longer being able to operate freely within Lebanon. Israel is realizing letting them exist for all these years is a major problem and they'll never be allowed to gather as many rockets as they have been ever again.

They have a air and naval blockade against them on top of all this. They'll be reduced to the pathetic state Hamas is in currently if they have to deal with this for years. These people take years to ware down as they're essentially gluttons for punishment and are rather persistant

Israel is targetting mainly the most obvious targets/base of Hezbollah first before they go after the mobs of them roaming around southern Lebanon. They are also disabling enemy transportation and communication abilities. Real Hezbollah casualties will come if Israel chooses to launch a ground invasion. If an Israeli ground invasion starts, Hezbollah will really start hurting.

Also, it should be noted firing some rockets mindlessly at a landmass and hoping it hits something (and the majority of time they don't do any damage) isn't an effective military strategy or method of resistance.  Especially if Israeli troops decide to push about 40 miles into Lebanon, then Hezbollah would lose any sort of ability to make numerous strikes on Israeli civilians (their only weapon).


----------



## Parell (Jul 16, 2006)

tootaa18 said:
			
		

> you always put the balme on the Arabs.



No, I only blamed the Palestinians for being stupid and putting a terrorist group in charge of their government.



			
				tootaa18 said:
			
		

> try to look at it this way:
> 
> - having more casualties means that the other side is inflicting more damage.
> - inflicting more damage means you are more powerful.
> ...



No, because even if the Israelis have killed more people(whether inadvertently or not) they have still not accomplished their whole point of attacking in the first place: to get the two(or three, if you wanna count Shalit on this one) soilders back and to take away Hezbollah's power. They have accomplished neither.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> 4 Hezbollah militants have been confirmed killed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Collective punishment? Yes. When terrorists kill civilians and then claim it's collective punishment, they're terrorists. When Israel kills civilians and claim collective punishment, it's justice. o_O


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 16, 2006)

> But regardless of this, you fail to see the overall strategic picture here. The Lebanese government is being pushed to actually do something about Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is no longer being able to operate freely within Lebanon. Israel is realizing letting them exist for all these years is a major problem and they'll never be allowed to gather as many rockets as they have been ever again.



I'm sure the 200 people that died in this operation are really happy about this, in there graves


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Collective punishment? Yes. When terrorists kill civilians and then claim it's collective punishment, they're terrorists. When Israel kills civilians and claim collective punishment, it's justice. o_O



When did I get into any of that?

I was explaining how Israel currently holds the overall advantage in this situation. Hezbollah is being isolated, losing their base/command and control due to the initial Israeli airstrikes and put under enormous military. Also, their only method of resisting this is by launching WW2 era rockets and hoping it hits something (which is why 12 Israeli civilians have been killed, despite Hezbollah launching hundreds of these things). That's a pretty miserable and useless method of fighting back to be stuck with. 

Sure getting lucky with their aim for once and killing 8 people in a train repair yard looks nice for Hezbollah, but it does little to change their military situation. Or the fact they'll just provoke an Israeli ground invasion. In which case rocket attacks on Israeli cities would be largely stopped once IDF penetrated about 40 miles into Lebanon. The conflict would then be largely military. In which Hezbollah would be at an even further disadvantage. As the Israeli public can stomach 100-200 casualties far more then having their cities rocketed. Hezbollah would also rediscover that it's much more difficult to deal damage when the IDF is actually expecting it.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> When did I get into any of that?
> 
> I was explaining how Israel currently holds the overall advantage in this situation. Hezbollah is being isolated, losing their base/command and control due to the initial Israeli airstrikes and put under enormous military. Also, their only method of resisting this is by launching WW2 era rockets and hoping it hits something (which is why 12 Israeli civilians have been killed, despite Hezbollah launching hundreds of these things). That's a pretty miserable and useless method of fighting back to be stuck with.
> 
> Sure getting lucky with their aim for once and killing 8 people in a train repair yard looks nice for Hezbollah, but it does little to change their military situation. Or the fact they'll just provoke an Israeli ground invasion. In which case rocket attacks on Israeli cities would be largely stopped once IDF penetrated about 40 miles into Lebanon. The conflict would then be largely military. In which Hezbollah would be at an even further disadvantage. As the Israeli public can stomach 100-200 casualties far more then having their cities rocketed. Hezbollah would also rediscover that it's much more difficult to deal damage when the IDF is actually expecting it.



Hizb'Allah has bases in Syria, so I don't see how occupying Lebanon again with ground forces will help. The reason Israel hasn't sent in ground forces is because they are afraid of casualties and a repeat of the last time. So far Israel has killed what, 4 Hizb'Allah? I don't think those airstrikes are really effective. 

This mission is fast becoming a failure. It's apparent now that Hizb'Allah has prepared for this eventuality, which is why their casualty rate is virtually non-existant. They are setting up Israel for the ultimate humiliation: forcing them to either invade Syria (not happening) or Lebanon (another repeat), or back down. And again, you've just killed 150+ innocent civilians and noncombatants.

Also, I can't find where it says 4 Hizb'Allah have been killed on the previous page. You gave me a link to an article and I can't find mention of a Hizb'Allah death.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Hizb'Allah has bases in Syria, so I don't see how occupying Lebanon again with ground forces will help. The reason Israel hasn't sent in ground forces is because they are afraid of casualties and a repeat of the last time. So far Israel has killed what, 4 Hizb'Allah? I don't think those airstrikes are really effective.



Because comrade, one must attack from where attacks come from. Syria knows the instant rockets fly from it's turf something gets hurt. Badly. That's why the fund a proxy in Lebanon.

btw, our original debate has been lost to the sands of time, wanna start a new thread for it since it seems to be of radically different point then this one? Plus, I managed to dig out my copy of the _Sword and The Olive_, it has literally oddles of info on the Haganah and acts during the British mandate.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 16, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> Hizb'Allah has bases in Syria, so I don't see how occupying Lebanon again with ground forces will help. The reason Israel hasn't sent in ground forces is because they are afraid of casualties and a repeat of the last time. So far Israel has killed what, 4 Hizb'Allah? I don't think those airstrikes are really effective.
> 
> This mission is fast becoming a failure. It's apparent now that Hizb'Allah has prepared for this eventuality, which is why their casualty rate is virtually non-existant. They are setting up Israel for the ultimate humiliation: forcing them to either invade Syria (not happening) or Lebanon (another repeat), or back down. And again, you've just killed 150+ innocent civilians and noncombatants.



The bulk of Hezbollah is stationed in Lebanon, also if Hezbollah is just isolated to Syria it wouldn't be able to do nearly as much due to the geographical positioning. 

Also, the government of Lebanon is likely to crack down on Hezbollah (with help from the international community) after this. I watched the Lebanese prime ministers interview on MSNBC today and he seemed quite desperate to end the engagement. All in all, Lebanon isn't going to be a safe place for Hezbollah anymore. The Israeli objective has expanded into forcing or severly weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

I mean Saudi Arabia even condemned Hezbollah in this case. You know when Saudi Arabia condemns an attack by Muslims on Jews, there's an issue. I mean sure they condemned Israel as always, but the very fact they also spoke out against Hezbollah is quite shocking. Hezbollah is losing the favor of the toleration of the international community on top of all of this.

Hezbollah's growth in power can largely be attributed to the Lebanese governments acceptance of them and their assimiliation into Lebanon. They hold government positions and seats in the Lebanese parliament, sponsor political events, operate independent mobs in the south, have radio and TV stations, etc.. These events are going to largely eliminate that.

And fear? The IDF inflicted around 14 times more casualties on Hezbollah and its allies during the original conflict in Lebanon (these are not civilian casualties included) Despite the conflict lasting considerably longer then the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the IDF took considerably less casualties then the U.S. has in Iraq. In terms of actual combat capability, the Iraqi insurgents and Hezbollah are roughly the same. Hezbollah's only real difference from the insurgents are that they have longer ranged rockets which are good for hitting Israeli border cities. But in a military engagement, these rockets are largely useless given the circumstances.

The Israeli military preformance in Lebanon wasn't the issue, the war become politicized due to it being unpopular in Israel and many felt the war was unjustified. But you can bet after the annoyances Hezbollah has put on the Israeli public, they'd be more supportive of a war.

Israel does not want to a ground invasion because it would become more of a mess. The IDF would take light casualties and destruction to Lebanon itself would be very very much intensified, thus hurting the Israeli political situation. Both the Israeli and Lebanese governments are pursuing some sort of deal. This is why a ground invasion is on hold. Also, the ground invasion would take some time to prepare for. Certainly more then 5 days for such an operation.

As for an invasion of Syria, I agree that would not occur. Though airstrikes may be possible. Be reminded that Syria doesn't have much of an ability to defend itself from airstrikes after their disaster in the last Lebanese war.

And with that, I'm off to bed.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> But regardless of this, you fail to see the overall strategic picture here. The Lebanese government is being pushed to actually do something about Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is no longer being able to operate freely within Lebanon. Israel is realizing letting them exist for all these years is a major problem and they'll never be allowed to gather as many rockets as they have been ever again.


We've gone over this before.  There is no possible positive end to you blowing up Lebanon's stuff.
The Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah.  The UNITED STATES admits that attacking the Lebanese state does Israel no good.  There's something to be said when the US no longer sees Israel's actions as entirely justified.
"Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."




> They have a air and naval blockade against them on top of all this. They'll be reduced to the pathetic state Hamas is in currently if they have to deal with this for years. These people take years to ware down as they're essentially gluttons for punishment and are rather persistant


Hm.  Maybe there's a problem here.  You're threatening to turn them into a shadow if they don't do something they cannot do.  That's not going to do anything but destroy the nation's stability, which is, of course, good for Israel, because what's bad for the big bad Arab terrorist nations is good for Israel.
You already refused to negotiate with the Hamas government because of the ridiculous "once a terrorist always a terrorist" policy.  Now you're going to use it on a government that isn't even terrorist?



> Israel is targetting mainly the most obvious targets/base of Hezbollah first before they go after the mobs of them roaming around southern Lebanon. They are also disabling enemy transportation and communication abilities. Real Hezbollah casualties will come if Israel chooses to launch a ground invasion. If an Israeli ground invasion starts, Hezbollah will really start hurting.


A ground invasion would just lay waste to Lebanon, which actually is exactly what the current bombings are doing.  Israel keeps claiming to be taking out strategic Hezbollah sites, but airport runways and bridges have no military value unless you have warplanes and tanks, which Hezbollah does not.  They're only valuable for such things as bringing in tourists and evacuating the innocents that have no part in this (in other words, nearly all of Lebanon).  Bombing the airports cripples the country while having absolutely no effect on Hezbollah.



> Also, it should be noted firing some rockets mindlessly at a landmass and hoping it hits something (and the majority of time they don't do any damage) isn't an effective military strategy or method of resistance.  Especially if Israeli troops decide to push about 40 miles into Lebanon, then Hezbollah would lose any sort of ability to make numerous strikes on Israeli civilians (their only weapon).


This is where you become nonsensical.  You go on and on about how they're a threat to Israel, but then you scoff at how weak they are and how their attacks are meaningless.  If their attacks aren't doing anything, why are you destroying entire nations in retaliation?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 16, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Snip on the Lebanese governemt



Does Hezbollah operate within the claimed and internationally recognized borders of Lebanon?




			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> You already refused to negotiate with the Hamas government because of the ridiculous "once a terrorist always a terrorist" policy.  Now you're going to use it on a government that isn't even terrorist?



HAMAS has openly stated to still be in support of wiping Israel off the map. Yeah, one would take it as a measure of good sense not to do that. The Lebanese government has a responsibilty to regulate what goes on in it's borders, if they cannot control openly belligerent actions, they must be considered incapable of rectifying the problem (opening the door for intervention)/and or are a participant in said actions.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> A ground invasion would just lay waste to Lebanon, which actually is exactly what the current bombings are doing.  Israel keeps claiming to be taking out strategic Hezbollah sites, but airport runways and bridges have no military value unless you have warplanes and tanks, which Hezbollah does not.  They're only valuable for such things as bringing in tourists and evacuating the innocents that have no part in this (in other words, nearly all of Lebanon).  Bombing the airports cripples the country while having absolutely no effect on Hezbollah.



You are aware you need that kind of stuff to import/export/transport heavy equipment right? One wouldn't call a thunder-1 rocket "light."


----------



## Zodd (Jul 16, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> The bulk of Hezbollah is stationed in Lebanon, also if Hezbollah is just isolated to Syria it wouldn't be able to do nearly as much due to the geographical positioning.
> 
> Also, the government of Lebanon is likely to crack down on Hezbollah (with help from the international community) after this. I watched the Lebanese prime ministers interview on MSNBC today and he seemed quite desperate to end the engagement. All in all, Lebanon isn't going to be a safe place for Hezbollah anymore. The Israeli objective has expanded into forcing or severly weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon.
> 
> ...



Jeez, I think you fail to understand the Arab world. They will not say "Hey Israel bombed us, we better be nice and kick out Hez." They will simply become hardened to the Israelis (as they have in the past), and support Hizb'Allah more. That's why the PM of Lebanon is insistent that it end: it's a political embarrassment for his party. If history is a guide, this time will be no different than before.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Does Hezbollah operate within the claimed and internationally recognized borders of Lebanon?


Does that really matter if other governments are keeping them protected from Lebanon's?



> HAMAS has openly stated to still be in support of wiping Israel off the map. Yeah, one would take it as a measure of good sense not to do that. The Lebanese government has a responsibilty to regulate what goes on in it's borders, if they cannot control openly belligerent actions, they must be considered incapable of rectifying the problem (opening the door for intervention)/and or are a participant in said actions.


If the Lebanese government can't control the terrorists, what good does it do to try to coerce them into controlling the terrorists?  Israel has said its demands are that the Lebanese government disband Hezbollah, which it can't do.  "They can't help us, therefore let's destroy them"?  Something seems rather faulty there.
Also, Hamas was being belligerent, but the reason they even got to power is that you refused to negotiate with the last leader (Arafat), who was more than willing to come to a peaceful accord with Israel.



> You are aware you need that kind of stuff to import/export/transport heavy equipment right? One wouldn't call a thunder-1 rocket "light."


So you're destroying their means of transporting food, innocent civilians, and vital supplies so they can't dip into their massive store of rockets kept elsewhere in the country, in territory they don't control?
Is Hezbollah going to bring in all those extra rockets stored somewhere else by commercial jet or what?  They don't have military planes.  They can't possibly transport these rockets via airport.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Does that really matter if other governments are keeping them protected from Lebanon's?



No. They claim responsibility over the land, therefore they are responsible for any actions eminating from it that are bellgerent to a neighbour.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> If the Lebanese government can't control the terrorists, what good does it do to try to coerce them into controlling the terrorists?  Israel has said its demands are that the Lebanese government disband Hezbollah, which it can't do.  "They can't help us, therefore let's destroy them"?  Something seems rather faulty there. Also, Hamas was being belligerent, but the reason they even got to power is that you refused to negotiate with the last leader (Arafat), who was more than willing to come to a peaceful accord with Israel.



Which is why the 2nd intifdah was launched while he lived, I'd forgotten. If Mexican groups launched rocket attacks at San Diego we'd be howling at the Mexican government and if they failed to produce said rebels (or even crackdown) reprisals would follow.

Taliban/AQ ring a bell?



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> So you're destroying their means of transporting food, innocent civilians, and vital supplies so they can't dip into their massive store of rockets kept elsewhere in the country, in territory they don't control?
> Is Hezbollah going to bring in all those extra rockets stored somewhere else by commercial jet or what?  They don't have military planes.  They can't possibly transport these rockets via airport.



The airport was more of a symbolic strike, effective at saying "we mean business." Destroying roads, bridges and such destroys any transport options, that's the bread and butter of these ops.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

> Which is why the 2nd intifdah was launched while he lived, I'd forgotten. If Mexican groups launched rocket attacks at San Diego we'd be howling at the Mexican government and if they failed to produce said rebels (or even crackdown) reprisals would follow.
> 
> Taliban/AQ ring a bell?



ugh....

You are saying mexico...there is no group in mexico that would launch attacks on US, unless there was a "reconquista" and this would involve so many mexicans it would basically be a full on war.  

I already made a post way back on why taliban(not elected, not democratic) and AQ is different than hamas and hezbolla(has some democratically elected representation).  Try reading..


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> ugh....
> 
> You are saying mexico...there is no group in mexico that would launch attacks on US, unless there was a "reconquista" and this would involve so many mexicans it would basically be a full on war.
> 
> I already made a post way back on why taliban(not elected, not democratic) and AQ is different than hamas and hezbolla(has some democratically elected representation).  Try reading..



Is there a contest for strawmen around here? Because I think there is.

Mexico in the example has an organized terror organization operating out it's borders. It's seeming inability to crack down tells us either two things:

A.) They cannot do anything to prevent attacks being launched from their soil.
B.) They are in cahoots.

Wither of these options neccesitates a response by the US. If the country is too weak, some ass-kicking is neccessary if not direct intervention. If there's callusion, well you get the point.

Terrorists being democratically elected doesn't make them anymore reputable, especially when they stil carry out attacks. An elected monster is still a monster. Of course, you ignore the fact that if the party at the head of a nation-state launches an attack on a neighbouring state, that means there is a de facto state of war.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> No. They claim responsibility over the land, therefore they are responsible for any actions eminating from it that are bellgerent to a neighbour.


Oh, so this is just about punishment?  You're going to punish Lebanon because you were attacked?
Lebanon isn't even at fault for it, yet you're going to attack them because you can't find the people who were.  Corporal punishment is for kindergarten classes, not international relations.



> Taliban/AQ ring a bell?


Why yes, and the war in Afghanistan was stupid as well.



> The airport was more of a symbolic strike, effective at saying "we mean business."


Oh.  So destroying a nation's orimary means of civilian transportation was just a threat.  It wasn't actually meant to do anything but tell them "Go away, or we'll bomb you more."  Unfortunately, as Israel should be well aware of by now, threats of violence don't really work against terrorists, especially since by bombing civilian targets, you're just proving you don't actually know where to find them and attack them.



> Destroying roads, bridges and such destroys any transport options, that's the bread and butter of these ops.


Then once again, why the airport, if not just to cripple a nation you're not friends with?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Oh, so this is just about punishment?  You're going to punish Lebanon because you were attacked? Lebanon isn't even at fault for it, yet you're going to attack them because you can't find the people who were.  Corporal punishment is for kindergarten classes, not international relations.



Too much feel good, not enough grounding in reality. Lebanon _is_ at fault, belligerent attacks have eminated from their country with almost no recourse on the groups from their government. 

If people choose to act like insolent children they will be spanked as such.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Why yes, and the war in Afghanistan was stupid as well.



I'm beginning to see that you really don't understand how nations work. Force is an utter neccesity in relations. It's not glamorous, but the iron fist opens doors.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Oh.  So destroying a nation's orimary means of civilian transportation was just a threat.  It wasn't actually meant to do anything but tell them "Go away, or we'll bomb you more."  Unfortunately, as Israel should be well aware of by now, threats of violence don't really work against terrorists, especially since by bombing civilian targets, you're just proving you don't actually know where to find them and attack them.



So what should happen then? We play grabass with the Lebanese government who does jack and shit to stop things? The status quo is unacceptable.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Then once again, why the airport, if not just to cripple a nation you're not friends with?



That's the entire point. It symbolically reinforces the utter superiority of one side, and might actually inspire a little thought of "hey, we better not do this shit."


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Which is why the 2nd intifdah was launched while he lived, I'd forgotten. If Mexican groups launched rocket attacks at San Diego we'd be howling at the Mexican government and if they failed to produce said rebels (or even crackdown) reprisals would follow.
> 
> Taliban/AQ ring a bell?



Im pretty sure we'd talk with Mexico before bombing the hell out of them, and get them to take military action against said groups or get them to allow us to mobilize our troops in Mexico, not just go blatantly bombing the hell out of the country and attacking citizens indiscriminantly. Even if Mexico was unwilling we'd look for the true targets to minimize the loss of Innocent Lives.

Unlike Afganiztan, Mexico and Lebanon are democratic nations. Lebanon's prime minister was trained in the US and a major executive in the Citibank corporation. How hard would it have been to try and reason with him or ask the US to push him to weed out those responsible.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> Mexico in the example has an organized terror organization operating out it's borders. It's seeming inability to crack down tells us either two things:
> 
> A.) They cannot do anything to prevent attacks being launched from their soil.
> B.) They are in cahoots.



qualify it anyway u like, it's not a good example.  And it wouldn't happen.

my understanding of lebanon is it is such a loosely held together composition of different groups that can go at each other when a breeze blows (exaggeration).  THe government tries holding down hezbolla and they upset everything.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Too much feel good, not enough grounding in reality. Lebanon _is_ at fault, belligerent attacks have eminated from their country with almost no recourse on the groups from their government.


Lebanon has no recourse against Hezbollah.  Therefore, how can it possibly be their fault that there has been none?



> If people choose to act like insolent children they will be spanked as such.


You mean, for example, if they attack people not involved in the conflict just because they're angry and can't find the real enemy?



> I'm beginning to see that you really don't understand how nations work. Force is an utter neccesity in relations. It's not glamorous, but the iron fist opens doors.


Absolutely.  Force used strategically is a necessary tool.  Force used against groups that can't do anything about the problem is entirely useless.  You might as well bomb South Africa to make them do something about Hezbollah.



> So what should happen then? We play grabass with the Lebanese government who does jack and shit to stop things? The status quo is unacceptable.


Well let's see.

"Playing grabass with the Lebanese government" would have no effect.
Bombing Lebanon has no effect.

Playing grabass with the Lebanese government doesn't destroy critical infrastructure or cost lives.
Bombing Lebanon does.

Something tells me the better option is the one that doesn't do massive damage.



> That's the entire point. It symbolically reinforces the utter superiority of one side, and might actually inspire a little thought of "hey, we better not do this shit."


That would be a great theory if Lebanon were actually the one "doing this shit".


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Lebanon has no recourse against Hezbollah.  Therefore, how can it possibly be their fault that there has been none?



I'll believe "no recourse" when I see it. Being afraid of a civil war _with a group that targets other countries_ is the same as willfully obliging. They cou'd've done joint operations with the Israelis if they lacked the muscle. The fact that there has been no recourse opens the way for clause A of my argument.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> You mean, for example, if they attack people not involved in the conflict just because they're angry and can't find the real enemy?



Targetting infrastructure that can be used is not the same as targeting civilians. If they really wanted to kill people wouldn't a nice MLRs bombardment of cities by in order?



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  Force used strategically is a necessary tool.  Force used against groups that can't do anything about the problem is entirely useless.  You might as well bomb South Africa to make them do something about Hezbollah.



Oh, so striking back does nothing? Pound anything enough things change.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> "Playing grabass with the Lebanese government" would have no effect.
> Bombing Lebanon has no effect.
> 
> Playing grabass with the Lebanese government doesn't destroy critical infrastructure or cost lives.
> Bombing Lebanon does.



Playing grabass means rockets continue to fall, the objective of a nation-state is to secure the survival and well-being of it's citizens. Forcing a clash of arms has a reasonable chance of stemming the tide of high-explosives.

Something tells me the better option is the one that doesn't do massive damage.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> That would be a great theory if Lebanon were actually the one "doing this shit".



I have never insinated that it has. It has however, not acted upon a group operating under it's jurisdiction that is actively attempting to kill/maim citizens of another nation.

When the sheriff doesn't do his job, you kick his ass or fire him.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> I'll believe "no recourse" when I see it. Being afraid of a civil war _with a group that targets other countries_ is the same as willfully obliging. They cou'd've done joint operations with the Israelis if they lacked the muscle. The fact that there has been no recourse opens the way for clause A of my argument.


That wouldn't be civil war.  Syria has pledged to back up Hezbollah if they're attacked.  Does Lebanon really want to get into a civil war and a war with Syria, while they're busy being bombed by Israel?



> Targetting infrastructure that can be used is not the same as targeting civilians. If they really wanted to kill people wouldn't a nice MLRs bombardment of cities by in order?


I didn't say they wanted to kill people.  An attack on a country's infrastructure hurts everybody in that country.  You can't change the fact that you're attacking a country that doesn't want anything to do with this.



> Oh, so striking back does nothing? Pound anything enough things change.


That's a ridiculous attitude.  Punch a brick wall for hours and it's still standing there.  I repeat, you might as well bomb South Africa for all the good it's going to do.  Lebanon isn't in a position to just take out Hezbollah.



> Playing grabass means rockets continue to fall, the objective of a nation-state is to secure the survival and well-being of it's citizens. Forcing a clash of arms has a reasonable chance of stemming the tide of high-explosives.


Right, and it's been so successful so far.  Maybe you should try attacking the people who are actually attacking you, unless your intelligence is so poor you can't figure out where they're launching dozens of rockets from.



> I have never insinated that it has. It has however, not acted upon a group operating under it's jurisdiction that is actively attempting to kill/maim citizens of another nation.


Do I really have to repeat that it's established, and agreed with by the _United States_, that Lebanon is not able to do anything about Hezbollah and is not going to be able to do anything about Hezbollah?



> When the sheriff doesn't do his job, you kick his ass or fire him.


If the bank gets robbed and nobody gets caught, hanging the sheriff won't do you much good.


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

> That same power also decided to breach an existing contract, to help fuck over a people already living there. The Ottoman for Balfour through pressure from the Zionist movement?
> And they still stole land, regardless of any contract held over by colonial powers. You can sugar-coat it all you like.




*sure.. bitch as long as you want but the FACT is that Israel exists which proves that you CAN create your own country , k asswipe?*



> What the fuck do you think he was talking about you idiot? WWII? He's the one with family in Lebanon, can't you even put that together?




*proven me wrong?
OK:
a.wtf is the difference if his sister is or isn't in Lebanon and what makes you think that i didn't know that, dumbass?
b.where the hell do you see him mentioning  ANY infrastructures AT ALL  and where do you see ME justifying attacks on those. he was talking about attacking the COUNTRY as a whole - do you need an email to figure that out?*





> What the fuck do you think he was talking about you idiot? WWII? He's the one with family in Lebanon, can't you even put that together?



where the hell do you see him mentioning  ANY infrastructures AT ALL  and where do you see ME justifying attacks on those. he was talking about attacking the COUNTRY as a whole - do you need an email to figure that out?




> Factually baseless.





> *you posted this:
> Originally Posted by Vash!?
> Here's something interesting:
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."
> ...


*as a counter to this:*



> *Originally Posted by liansk
> they have all the means to to solve this crisis by disarming themselves and giving the soldiers back, but for some strange reason they don't value their brothers lives enough to do so. *


*
really smart of you moron.*



> Yes, I can. They have the highest level of control in Southern Lebanon, not the whole as posted in that link provided by Vash.



*o rly? if you little damaged  brain could ever comprehend the news you would know that every single expert said that the WHOLE government can't do anything about hizbolleh and that their level of power is the highest in the country OVERALL. too easy.*





> This is gold. Pure gold! It was a stab at your inability to see through the 9/11 example, which you seem to have left out, I wonder why?
> 
> Now here's the real part that just makes it one of the greatest things ever. Notice the part in bold from your quote.
> 
> ...




*
wow, just wow.. you are t h e dumbest single person(scratch that - object)
that i have ever seen.. first you say that the quoting system is hard for ME for no reason whatsoever while you made up a post about Ireland and posted it as if it was mine.and the funniest part is your inability to come up with a worthy retort so you end up trying to use mine like a mere 10 years old.*


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

> lost a really long reply, board froze, short on time anyway
> 
> 
> 
> The Gaza strip is now in the hands of the Palestinians is what I was talking about, I thought you'd get it.



*i know too well that the Gaza strip is in the hands of the Palestinians, my question was about the part of them GIVING land to someone.*

Umm my memory, the news. If Israel was trying to demonize Arafat so much at the time that none of the Arafat Clinton talks made the news there I suppose you could always type it in online. They happened and are pretty much common knowledge outside of Israel, as is Israels unwillingness to meet or cease fire on several occasions.
*
post some links i have many material on Arafat but none of it fits your description.*



> Saying they bought the land, and admitting they took steps to have it early on by pressuring Britain to mandate their coming in large numbers are two completely different things. Beleive it or not Jews used suicide bombing tactics on the british back then to get their way.
> The British wanted it out of their hands, but you cant just give away land someone else has been occupying for thousands of years.



*baseless accusations.*



> Thats worse than us selling land in Puerto Rico to Russia, then arming the russians in the area as they push the Puerto Ricans out of their site into a corner of the Island. Would you expect the inhabitants to react peacibly. As Israelis bought land they supplied themselves with weapons and used tanks and other arms to force those not like them out. Israel never wanted integration. If anything they wanted a segregated apertheid like that of south africa. Look at the walls on the west bank. And when South Africa did it the international community considered him a terrorist for opposing apartheid.
> *Arafat was a wealthy individual who gave up a good deal of his fortune and time to try and bring peace to the region, and restore some of the land that had been taken from palestine 50 years prior.* Those in power often try to demonize the actions of those that oppose them as much as possible.



*again - baselessssssss.*



> A movement to end the hatred, live side by side, a push for no segregation and camps.



*Palestinians have MANY terrorists groups (including their GOVERNMENT) that are set on the destruction of Israel regardless of the occupation.so tell me, why should Israel give them something when they won't even promise Peace in return?*



> Hezbollah has what 20 seats out of 150+ in the Lebanese government. They make up a small amount of the population as well. Lebanon is 40% christian yet Israel attacks them indiscriminantly. Even groups of children trying to escape have been killed. Youre biased for acting like Israel had no other options and their show of force is justified. Its not at all. If America responded like this in Iraq, bombing Airports, roadways and civilians indiscriminantly because there are terrorists regimes their Id respond the same way, and we still could be handling it better.



*lmao.. please don't bring America into this since what Israel is doing now is nothing when compared to what the us has done to Iraq.*



> Most of the christians are in and to the north of Beruit. Its disgusting what Israel is doing there.


*why did you bring up their religion?*

Lebanon has a democratic government, why didnt Israel try to work with them, or train them to root out the terrorists? They only do it because they know they can get away with it. If India did that to palestine because their are terrorists who have attacked them hidden there or vice versa there would be a nuclear war right now.  

*a.why the hell do you have biased opinion that Israel has to do/pay/give something to everyone in the region.
b.Lebanon refused to work with UN (let alone Israel) until yesterday.*



> I never said israeli life doesnt count,but israels response is definately an overuse of force, and completely unjustified. And working harder to bring peace is not saying they should do it all alone. But they could do more whether youd like to admit it or not.



*we could do more but judging solely by the Palestinian opinion it won't help.*


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

aah yes, i wouldn't want Jedi as an enemy =/ no i wouln't.
makes me proud he does ;_;


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

he's just an idiot on an internet forum.. I'm supposed to be afraid of him?
he's going to bomb my e-ego or some-shit?


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> well with the logic he presented... yes i'd be afraid of him.



you're weird..


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

Well, with the logic this fellow just displayed for us..


I would be afraid, that's for sure.


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

IMO you must be really fucked up (or at least very insecure) if you're afraid of somebody over the net .


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> you must be really fucked up if you're afraid of somebody over the net .




You don't know who that post was directed at, right?


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

Yassy said:
			
		

> You don't know who that post was directed at, right?



i would assume that it was directed to either mengde(most likely) or myself, in both cases  what difference does it make to my point?


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> i would assume that it was dicerected to either mengde or myself, in both cases  what the difference does it make to my point?




Oh, you had a point? Then please, enlighten us with your ever so flawless logic.


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

the point is:



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> IMO you must be really fucked up (or at least very insecure) if you're afraid of somebody over the net .


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

Ofcourse, that is one hell of a point to raise, considering that you know exactly whom and what I'm talking about.


----------



## liansk (Jul 17, 2006)

Yassy said:
			
		

> Well, with the logic this fellow*(here you're talking about me i assume)* just displayed for us*(you,mengde and friends, Right?)*..
> 
> 
> I would be afraid*(of me, because of my "flawless" logic)*, that's for sure.



now, how exactly my point is wrong? oh, wait it isn't - you just had nothing to say so you blamed me for some shit to look good.


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> now, how exactly my point is wrong? oh, wait it isn't - you just had nothing to say so you blamed me for some shit to look good.




You have figured me out, well done.  


*Spoiler*: _For all the sane people here_ 



 I said for the _sane_..


----------



## narutosuckshardhaha (Jul 17, 2006)

Muslims will never learn. Their middle-aged religion and culture will hold them back in any developement. They wish they could rule the world, but now live under white mans feet! What a shame!!!!!!

I don't understand muslims, why do you teach kids at age of 5-10 to hate jews?
Why do you force hijab on women and small girls?
Maybe you should shave off your beard before you enter the modern world?
the day muslims will decrease their love for p*d*p****-muhammad, thats the day they will develope!!!


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 17, 2006)

Just heard that some UN negotiators have contacted Hezbollah with the aim of releasing the Israeli soldiers taken hostages. 

I still wonder how they can broker any agreement though since Israel stated that Hezbollah should be disarmed before any chance of a ceasefire can be permanent. And i just dont see them willingly lay their arms down. To do that this demands nternational attension since the Lebanese government have proved itself weak and ineffective.


----------



## Viciousness (Jul 17, 2006)

liansk said:
			
		

> *i know too well that the Gaza strip is in the hands of the Palestinians, my question was about the part of them GIVING land to someone.*
> 
> Umm my memory, the news. If Israel was trying to demonize Arafat so much at the time that none of the Arafat Clinton talks made the news there I suppose you could always type it in online. They happened and are pretty much common knowledge outside of Israel, as is Israels unwillingness to meet or cease fire on several occasions.
> *
> ...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> That wouldn't be civil war.  Syria has pledged to back up Hezbollah if they're attacked.  Does Lebanon really want to get into a civil war and a war with Syria, while they're busy being bombed by Israel?



At which point they could ask the Israelis for aid, I highly doubt the Isrealis wouldn't respond. Lebanon wasn't so afraid of Syria in the cedar revolution, why now?



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> I didn't say they wanted to kill people.  An attack on a country's infrastructure hurts everybody in that country.  You can't change the fact that you're attacking a country that doesn't want anything to do with this.



The country is tied to it. It's responsibility for allowing attacks to emminate fromis as good a cassus belle that I've heard in a long time.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> That's a ridiculous attitude.  Punch a brick wall for hours and it's still standing there.  I repeat, you might as well bomb South Africa for all the good it's going to do.  Lebanon isn't in a position to just take out Hezbollah.



Can I punch it with 500 pound bombs? If Lebanon isn't one must comclude the government isn't capable of any meangingful action, thus foreign intervention is required.

Of course, they fact that Hezbollah has seats in the countries parliments does little to underline any confidence I would have in the government of Lebanon to act on known terror groups in their midst.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Right, and it's been so successful so far.  Maybe you should try attacking the people who are actually attacking you, unless your intelligence is so poor you can't figure out where they're launching dozens of rockets from.



Hitting HQs, roadways, and airports (launching pads), is textbook strategic bombing.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Do I really have to repeat that it's established, and agreed with by the _United States_, that Lebanon is not able to do anything about Hezbollah and is not going to be able to do anything about Hezbollah?



The US also said it had slam dunk intelligence on WMD, I'm not about to call the state depatartment experts on anything now.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> If the bank gets robbed and nobody gets caught, hanging the sheriff won't do you much good.



If the sheriff refuses to track down/capture the robbers, that would be a count of obstruction of justice right?


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 17, 2006)

Is this some sort of joke? Are you that stupid, that you can't take anything I've said in. Listen.



			
				liansk said:
			
		

> sure.. bitch as long as you want but the FACT is that Israel exists which proves that you CAN create your own country , k asswipe?



Changing your arguments are you? Just a while ago it was a case of the ruling power was allowed to do it. Now it's a case of, well it just exists because it does.

Well done. You've given me that one. 




			
				liansk said:
			
		

> proven me wrong?
> OK:
> a.wtf is the difference if his sister is or isn't in Lebanon and what makes you think that i didn't know that, dumbass?
> b.where the hell do you see him mentioning ANY infrastructures AT ALL and where do you see ME justifying attacks on those. he was talking about attacking the COUNTRY as a whole - do you need an email to figure that out?



*Sighs
If you could comprehend basic English, you would realise that his sisters had problems leaving on a plane, because the airport was bombed. You justified the attack on the airport. I have a feeling you don't understand what infrastructure means, but bombing a countries airport is taking it to a countries infrastructure.

An example of you not being able to simply connect the dots. 





			
				liansk said:
			
		

> where the hell do you see him mentioning ANY infrastructures AT ALL and where do you see ME justifying attacks on those. he was talking about attacking the COUNTRY as a whole - do you need an email to figure that out?





			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> *Sighs
> If you could comprehend basic English, you would realise that his sisters had problems leaving on a plane, because the airport was bombed. You justified the attack on the airport. I have a feeling you don't understand what infrastructure means, but bombing a countries airport is taking it to a countries infrastructure.
> An example of you not being able to simply connect the dots.








			
				liansk said:
			
		

> o rly? if you little damaged brain could ever comprehend the news you would know that every single expert said that the WHOLE government can't do anything about hizbolleh and that their level of power is the highest in the country OVERALL. too easy.



If you actually understood the news, instead of reading the big bold headline on some mindless tabloid for cretins like you, you would realise, and I'm using Moshi's quote here

_"Lebanon refused to obey UN resolution 1559. Which calls for Lebanon to move troops along the Israeli border to prevent Hezbollah activity there. *Just MOVE TROOPS TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTRY*. Asking a nation to move soldiers around in its own country isn't an unreasonable demand."_

Here's the thing. They don't have the capabilities to move their soldiers to the South, the damn south is where they lack power. This is how it started in the first place you fucking tit.






			
				liansk said:
			
		

> wow, just wow.. you are t h e dumbest single person(scratch that - object)
> that i have ever seen.. first you say that the quoting system is hard for ME for no reason whatsoever while you made up a post about Ireland and posted it as if it was mine.and the funniest part is your inability to come up with a worthy retort so you end up trying to use mine like a mere 10 years old.



I'm surprised that my post flew right over your head. Was it that hard? I'll be real nice and explain it.

You initially insulted me because you *thought* I made an error in my quote, when it was just obvious you didn't understand what was going on, bewildered is tone I'd give to your posts, bewildered and angry. You then had the unfortunate luck of fucking up the quoting system directly in your insult based post on my *supposed* lack of understanding of the quoting system, which was merely just a stab at your lack of understanding of simple comparisons. You're now angry, and you don't know what to say. Why the people on this page don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Listen, you're wasting my time here, and you look like a complete jackass. You're talking about people fearing somebody over a forum, well you're looking like a complete idiot on this forum. I think what they're trying to say nicely is, "you're way out of your league moron". Now get the fuck out of my face.



			
				Mengde said:
			
		

> The type of fear you should have for JMT is *based on the logic he presented which you had a hard time dealing with*. The moment you get emotional... thats when you start losing =p, either you recover and stick to your theory/claim... *or sound like an angry child.*





And liansk, stop saying baseless to historic facts to that drunken guy. I said baseless because it was genuinely baseless. I know you want to be like me, every body wants to be like JMT.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

> Muslims will never learn. Their middle-aged religion and culture will hold them back in any developement. They wish they could rule the world, but now live under white mans feet! What a shame!!!!!!
> 
> I don't understand muslims, why do you teach kids at age of 5-10 to hate jews?
> Why do you force hijab on women and small girls?
> ...


The religion is not the problem, the problem is the way it's being interpreted. The people interpreting the religion are the ones currently in power. To ensure loyal subordintes they become selective on what the religion says; focusing on the laws of how to deal with society and forgeting the huge knowledge demanding section.
And about 'the white mans feet', this logic you was popular back in the early half of the 20th century. It is ignorant, somthing expected of a social darwinist (people who agreed with eugenics). Social darwanism is how Hitler justified killing 6 million Jews, very ignorant indeed.
And i did not realise that Muslims were being taught to hate Jews, are Jews being taught to hate Muslims... is the world being taught to hate Muslims?
A woman is only forced to wear a 'hijab' if her family is a victim of the tribal traditions and politicle rulers, both of these entities mix/re-shape the understanding of the religion with tradition creating somthing which contridicts the essentials of the religion itself, and that is calling for 'a knowledge based society'. This is not the religion, it is the people.
And beards, that is the known steroetype of what consititues a muslim, his beard. A missconception, the beards are usually worn by people who aim to reach high politicle positions. The state the Muslim people are in makes them believe it would be wise to vote for a religiosly motivated person. When in actual fact, this person is likley to be corrupt (using the beard for gain followers) leaving nothing but a spiral of corruption from both the government and the opposition. However there are a few people with no benefitial intensions behind the beard. It has nothing to do with knowledge, actually, 'Nasser Allah' is a surgeon. 
And about the prophet, you called him a "p*d*p****" trying to indicate to the people a 'flaw' in a figure like Mohamed. There are many wrongs to your approach for the people (unlike many years ago where ignorance was a hobby) understand what divercity exists in this world. Prophet Mohamed married all his wives, (and i think) Aisha was 14 or 15 at the time (this is not pedophilia). Growing up in a certain atmosphere your entire life and then wanting all the other atmospheres in the world to be like yours is exatly what Hitler had in mind. Comparing the norms and expectations of the modern world to 1400 years ago is not considred rational. 
*News says Israili je fighter has been shot down!*
Back on topic, the love for Muhamed is symbolic to all the muslims loyalty towards the religion.. i am gonna go see the news.

And btw, this was not directed at the simple minded narutosuckshardhaha, but i replied to this since i am sure many of the people on NF have had subconciouse question similar to this (i not gonna spell check this cause the news is calling XD woohoo!)


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

confirmed 
*ISREALI F-16 FUCKED IN THE ASS*


----------



## niko (Jul 17, 2006)

Habib, he got banned.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 17, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> confirmed
> *ISREALI F-16 FUCKED IN THE ASS*



have any links?


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

LOL fun while it lasted


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

they're still trying to figure out what it was that has been shot down, LBC says an "possibly an f-16" and Jazzira says a mini-zepplin or somthing


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 17, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> LOL fun while it lasted



Damn you


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 17, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> confirmed
> *ISREALI F-16 FUCKED IN THE ASS*


What are you so happy for? This will cause hundreds of Lebanese casualties... and a ground invasion.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

yup, just an israeli zeeplin. Damn LBC


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 17, 2006)

^Indeed... IDF has contacted each jet and they are all airborne.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 17, 2006)

you would be a mad man to think that lebanon would be able to shoot down an f16 with AA guns...


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

hmm ground to air missiles... didn't think Hezzbolah would have those.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

shogun said:
			
		

> you would be a mad man to think that lebanon would be able to shoot down an f16 with AA guns...


ground to air (i am surprised myself)

Turns out the zeplin was used as a survelence method.


----------



## Sesqoo (Jul 17, 2006)

narutosuckshardhaha said:
			
		

> Muslims will never learn. Their middle-aged religion and culture will hold them back in any developement. They wish they could rule the world, but now live under white mans feet! What a shame!!!!!!
> 
> I don't understand muslims, why do you teach kids at age of 5-10 to hate jews?
> Why do you force hijab on women and small girls?
> ...



This is the most retarted post describing muslims. I shouldn't even bother commenting this, since you won't even be able to answer this since your already banned (makes me very happy). 

1.First of all I have many friends that are muslims and I don't really see them having any hatred to jews, there are only few palestinians I know that hate jews, not my friends and I think I don't need to explain why palestinians and and people from Isreal hate each other (not really a matter of religioin). Some of my friends are even good friends with jews.

2.Why do they force hijab on women? The fuck said they do? It really looks like you watch to much tv instead of traveling and seeing how it really looks like.

3.Maybe you should change your way of thinking before you enter the modern world.

4. Maybe the day people with your thinking will take suicide or simple change the way of thinking maybe muslims and kristians and jews will live peacfully together.

5.What the hell does this have to do with this topic. 

And about the development part. You say their culture and relgion hold them back from development? What about persons with your beliefs? People like live the way people lived during the time Hitler ruled in Germany? Hitler thought he could ruled the world, but guess what? He spend his last years in some old pill box where he shoot himself.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

The Israeli air force has confirmed a jet was NOT shot down. If anything was shot down most likely it was an aerial drone, which fly low and are quite vulnerable.

Though I must say, your gloating over the imaginary casualty was quite sickening.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> We've gone over this before.  There is no possible positive end to you blowing up Lebanon's stuff.
> The Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah.  The UNITED STATES admits that attacking the Lebanese state does Israel no good.  There's something to be said when the US no longer sees Israel's actions as entirely justified.
> "Despite the fact that several countries -- including the Unites States and Lebanon -- have said that the Lebanese government doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the soldiers' safe release."



Lebanon has refused to follow UN resolution 1559, which calls for Lebanese troops to simply move to the Israeli border. If Lebanon is so weak that it can't move troops to its own border, then some sort of international aid needs to occur if people don't like Israel taking matters into its own hands.

I'm sorry Vash, Israel won't allow ambushes on soldiers in its own territory or rocketing on its civilians.




> Hm.  Maybe there's a problem here.  You're threatening to turn them into a shadow if they don't do something they cannot do.  That's not going to do anything but destroy the nation's stability, which is, of course, good for Israel, because what's bad for the big bad Arab terrorist nations is good for Israel.



That's why Israel has a policy of accepting peace from any Arab nation which offers it? (Egypt and Jordan for instance, as well as a contract with the UAE.)




> You already refused to negotiate with the Hamas government because of the ridiculous "once a terrorist always a terrorist" policy.  Now you're going to use it on a government that isn't even terrorist?



1.)Hamas has refused to take out its call for the destruction of Israel in its charater.
2.)Between December 2005 and June 2006 800 rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel.

^That may be why Israel considers Hamas to be an enemy.




> A ground invasion would just lay waste to Lebanon, which actually is exactly what the current bombings are doing.  Israel keeps claiming to be taking out strategic Hezbollah sites, but airport runways and bridges have no military value unless you have warplanes and tanks, which Hezbollah does not.  They're only valuable for such things as bringing in tourists and evacuating the innocents that have no part in this (in other words, nearly all of Lebanon).  Bombing the airports cripples the country while having absolutely no effect on Hezbollah.



It cuts off Hezbollah supplies and communication abilities. By Isolating Hezbollah, they will be more vulnerable to a major ground offensive if it occurs.

Remember that Israel and Lebanon are both trying to work out a deal where the southern portion of the country can have either Lebanese troops or international peace keepers.




> This is where you become nonsensical.  You go on and on about how they're a threat to Israel, but then you scoff at how weak they are and how their attacks are meaningless.  If their attacks aren't doing anything, why are you destroying entire nations in retaliation?



Having rockets fall on your cities is unacceptable, regardless of the fact that the majority of the time they don't do any damage.

Can Hezbollah actually destroy Israel? Of course not. Is Hezbollah in any sort of position to totally destroy Israeli cities? No. But are they a problem? Yes.



			
				Zodd said:
			
		

> Jeez, I think you fail to understand the Arab world. They will not say "Hey Israel bombed us, we better be nice and kick out Hez." They will simply become hardened to the Israelis (as they have in the past), and support Hizb'Allah more. That's why the PM of Lebanon is insistent that it end: it's a political embarrassment for his party. If history is a guide, this time will be no different than before.



Not completely true. Remember that Sadat tried to destroy Israel initially in 1973. But the suprise Egyptian/Syrian invasion only resulted in Israeli artillery being within range of Cairo and Damascus, Sadat realized that trying more futile wars was pointless and eventually accepted peaceful coexistence.

Anyway, Lebanons prime minister is already desperate for a ceasefire. He won't allow himself to lose power over this mess and will likely accept to stop cooperating with Hezbollah. Though the use of some sort of international aid would be required if he is apparently too "Weak" to move troops into the southern portion of his country.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

megaharrison said:
			
		

> Though I must say, your gloating over the imaginary casualty was quite sickening.


My gloating over a ship designed to bombard a group (the Lebanese), being a "casualty" is not really wrong/illogical/farfetched in anyway.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 17, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Not completely true. Remember that Sadat tried to destroy Israel initially in 1973. But the suprise Egyptian/Syrian invasion only resulted in Israeli artillery being within range of Cairo and Damascus, Sadat realized that trying more futile wars was pointless and eventually accepted peaceful coexistence.
> 
> Anyway, Lebanons prime minister is already desperate for a ceasefire. He won't allow himself to lose power over this mess and will likely accept to stop cooperating with Hezbollah. Though the use of some sort of international aid would be required if he is apparently too "Weak" to move troops into the southern portion of his country.



Let's say that the Lebanese PM is REALLY serious about kicking Hizb'Allah out. They have representatives in parliament. Unless there is some way for the PM to void an election, they are stuck with them. And it has been commented on numerous times: if the pro-western faction of Lebanon wanted to remove the Hizb'Allah military, it would result in a civil war in which Hizb'Allah would win anyway. 

And this is assuming things don't happen as they did in the past: after Israeli attacks, support for Hizb'Allah has grown stronger. I would guess this is one of the reasons Hizb'Allah attacked. They used the pretext of Israel making war on the Palis to support their fellow Muslims. But in reality, they know (and apparently so does the Lebanese PM) it will only strengthen their position and probably weaken their opposition in Lebanon. Since I have not seen a report of a Hizb'Allah casualty so far, I must assume they were prepared for this militarily. I must also assume that they put the same thought in to the political consequences as well. 

Also take a look at the political situation in Israel. Had Olmert or Peretz done the rational thing (prisoner exchange), it would have been vindication for their opponents who labeled them weak on defense. Hizb'Allah knew it too. They essentially forced them to either look weak or do this. But they made the foolish statement that they would dismantle Hizb'Allah's ability to operate in southern Lebanon. If I were an opposition party, I'd hammer him with that unfulfilled commitment when it doesn't happen.  

Just my musings, but we shall see how this turns out. Everyone else: carry on with the namecalling. I'm sure this thread doesn't have long to live if this keeps up.

UPDATE: Looks like Israel (already) dropped their demand to dismantle Hizb'Allah. Now they're asking for the return of the prisoner and a buffer on the northern border. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060717/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_cease_fire_demands


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

> UPDATE: Looks like Israel (already) dropped their demand to dismantle Hizb'Allah. Now they're asking for the return of the prisoner and a buffer on the northern border.



I like how one sided the demands are, Isreal agrees to stop bombing the hell out of Lebanon(Isreal's concession), And Isreal gets it's prisoners back and a buffer from Hezbollah


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

Warning for you people:  There's already been one ban handed out.  Don't earn yourself one.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 17, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> My gloating over a ship designed to bombard a group (the Lebanese), being a "casualty" is not really wrong/illogical/farfetched in anyway.



You are aware a missile corvette is not designed / used for shore suppression duties right?


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 17, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> You are aware a missile corvette is not designed / used for shore suppression duties right?


i was talking about f-16s, not missile corvettes. 
It dosn't really matter in anycase, the simple presence shold not be tollerated.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

> You are aware a missile corvette is not designed / used for shore suppression duties right?



it's so pointless to say this.  

They are fighting with patchwork systems anyway.  It doesn't have to be pretty to get the job done.


----------



## tootaa18 (Jul 17, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone on this board is in Lebanon, but the Syrians are offering safe haven for US citizens and other nationalities who wish to escape the bombing, if you cross over the border. They guarantee safe passage to your country.



yeah
many people from my country (Kuwait) moved from Lebanon to Syria.
some of them returned to the country while the others are still waiting in Syria for the Kuwaiti planes to take them back home >_>


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

The latest targets of Israeli bombings include a major overpass and a sewage system.
Major tactical strikes right there.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

the sewage system...well it is a war, and war is hell.  I suppose it should smell like hell too


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

Actually today was quite the success for Israel. The IAF struck a target in Beirut that held multiple long range Hezbollah missles that were in a convoy. The convoy was destroyed and many of the missles went off. One missle falling from the sky was caught on camera, which is why earlier today there were rumors of an Israeli jet being shot down.

Also, IDF special operations forces and tanks launched a brief raid into Lebanon, destroying Hezbollah camps and structures used to launch rockets. The forces have since withdrawn back into Israel, suffering no casualties.

Hezbollah missle attacks were also ineffective today (which is over in Israel), causing no serious injuries or doing major damage.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

mega pr said:
			
		

> Actually today was quite the success for Israel. The IAF struck a target in Beirut that held multiple long range Hezbollah missles that were in a convoy. The convoy was destroyed and many of the missles went off. One missle falling from the sky was caught on camera, which is why earlier today there were rumors of an Israeli jet being shot down.
> 
> Also, IDF special operations forces and tanks launched a brief raid into Lebanon, destroying Hezbollah camps and structures used to launch rockets. The forces have since withdrawn back into Israel, suffering no casualties.
> 
> Hezbollah missle attacks were also ineffective today (which is over in Israel), causing no serious injuries or doing major damage.



i don't get it, what is ur point, more gloating?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> i don't get it, what is ur point, more gloating?



No, just making updates for those who may of missed it. There will obviously be more civilian casualties in the future for Israel, and maybe military.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> i don't get it, what is ur point, more gloating?


Exactly.  Because apparently, whoever wins the war is right.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Because apparently, whoever wins the war is right.



You just sumed up 99% of world history right there.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> You just sumed up 99% of world history right there.


ok mega, we understand that isreal probably can beat at least the palestianians, hezbollah and...hmmm almost any country that fights it :amazed  congrats  [/sarcasm]


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 17, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> You just sumed up 99% of world history right there.


Fortunately, this is currently the 1% where the world isn't quite that simplistic and neither side is powerful enough in relation to the rest of the world to decide who is right.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 17, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> the sewage system...well it is a war, and war is hell.  I suppose it should smell like hell too



This is just the first step in the global war on terror. Now the terrorists will have nowhere to flush their turds! Next we'll bomb the underwear factory. After all, what can they do without undies? How can they engage in terrorism and global domination while forced to go commando? They can't!

What a glorious day for Mother Israel!!!


----------



## Parell (Jul 17, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> I have also been thinking about this some more. Lebanon became a hot tourist spot as the country became safe after the civil war. Israel also profits quite a bit from tourism, time to take out the competition with lower prices?



That is the supidest thing I have ever heard. Why the hell would they kill people like that, and get some of their own soilders/people killed in the process, to get more tourists and get frowned upon by nearly the whole world?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 17, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> I have also been thinking about this some more. Lebanon became a hot tourist spot as the country became safe after the civil war. Israel also profits quite a bit from tourism, time to take out the competition with lower prices?



This has to be one of the more amusing ideas I've seen in this thread. So this is all an elaborate evil Israeli scheme to control the worlds tourism markets? XD! OMG maybe Hezbollah's in on it!

Only the justice league can stop them now.

And yeah, I'm sure getting 1,000 rockets fired at Israel is great for its tourist industry.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 17, 2006)

i never put anything past anybody where there is money involved...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> In the long run, which country will be repaired quickly and which will remain in ruins and chaos? Also, I did not say *the* reason, but a part of the reason. Why destroy the power stations in north Lebanon?



This still does little to negate the fact belligerent actions were carried out against it, effective lasting solutions when dealing with terrorists usually involve heavy handed response. Ever hear of a _national _power grid?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

avraell said:
			
		

> How does electricity help terrorists(since you just underlined them as the ones who Israel is dealing with right now, while fucking up the entire infastructure of course) again? Gotta have the street lamps on while transporting missiles to help IAF aim? It's not like they are producing the weaponry and aren't already fighting a guerilla war.



You should be quite fimiliar with the concept of strategic resource denial. Power happens to be a critical aspect of things.



			
				avraell said:
			
		

> As you can see, tourism is one of the significant sources of income for Israel, one they would rather not share with Lebanon.



One would think that most of the tourist dollars go towards the holy cities in the south rather then the frontier hills with Lebanon. I fail to see your insinuation that Israel's tourism is highly involved with Lebanon and sharing when the bulk of attractions are south of the area.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 18, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> This still does little to negate the fact belligerent actions were carried out against it, effective lasting solutions when dealing with terrorists usually involve heavy handed response. Ever hear of a _national _power grid?


Lebanon didn't do a damn thing to Israel.  Hezbollah is carrying out belligerent actions, yet Israel continues to bomb whatever it wants just to raise hell in Lebanon.  It's absolutely inexcusable to cause such major disruptions to a country that wants no part of this.
Don't say a thing about them being uncooperative or anything like that.  It's already established they don't have the capability to do much about this, and regardless, they're not attacking you, so attacking them is completely uncalled for.  It's just displacement:  you can't find the people attacking you, but you want revenge so you attack the next best thing.  That doesn't work in international relations.

Lasting solutions against a terrorist organization usually involve attacking the organization, not cutting off power to a country trying to be neutral and avoid getting blown to hell in someone else's war.  You've now attacked airports, sewage systems, and power stations with absolutely no justification other than "Well, they didn't do anything to help us."  Their stance is called neutrality, and blatant disrespect for neutrality was most recently the trademark of Hitler when he ran over Belgium to get to France.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Don't say a thing about them being uncooperative or anything like that.  It's already established they don't have the capability to do much about this, and regardless, they're not attacking you, so attacking them is completely uncalled for.  It's just displacement:  you can't find the people attacking you, but you want revenge so you attack the next best thing.  That doesn't work in international relations.



This is not displacement, the nation of Lebanon has refused for various reasons to crack down on actions which would amount a declaration of war in most eyes by groups acting inside of it's border. In fact, the mentioned parties have set up safe-havens and fixed bases in addition to thier continued operation. The die was cast by the Lebanese failure to regulate what it claimed as it's own borders, where it has legal responsibility to uphold law and order to the point where neighbouring countries are not subject to lethal rocket attacks.

Things like the 1916 Pershing expedition to rid the American Southwest of Pancho Villa are like this example. A known terrorist group is attacking your country from safe havens, what's the answer since the government can't take action? Invade/pummel things until the enemy is incapable of striking back.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Lasting solutions against a terrorist organization usually involve attacking the organization, not cutting off power to a country trying to be neutral and avoid getting blown to hell in someone else's war.  You've now attacked airports, sewage systems, and power stations with absolutely no justification other than "Well, they didn't do anything to help us."  That's called neutrality, and blatant disrespect for neutrality was most recently the trademark of Hitler when he ran over Belgium to get to France.



I love the smell of Godwin in the morning. I think you're looking for Moltke in WW1 for that example, in WW2 Belgium was an active partcipant. Of course, to further the nitpickery we notice the main thrust go through the Ardennes forest, but that's beside the point.

Attacking established infrastructure is nothing new. In fact, the IDF has done so with an amount of effort in avoiding civilian casualties, but eliminating infrastructe cirtical to normal life and productivity, which is neccessary in winning conflicts.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 18, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> I love the smell of Godwin in the morning.


I'll respond to the rest of the post in the morning, but since I already expected this part I had something ready.
Invoking Godwin's Law is only fallacious when it implies something is bad simply because Hitler did it, like brushing his teeth or supporting a strong economy.  More significantly, it only truly applies when something completely unrelated is being compared to Hitler.  Making comparisons to Hitler's war tactics is entirely valid.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> I'll respond to the rest of the post in the morning, but since I already expected this part I had something ready.
> Invoking Godwin's Law is only fallacious when it implies something is bad simply because Hitler did it, like brushing his teeth or supporting a strong economy.  More significantly, it only truly applies when something completely unrelated is being compared to Hitler.  Making comparisons to Hitler's war tactics is entirely valid.



Except your example sucks because Belgium was ready and active on the defense in cooperation with BEF and French forces (a de facto declaration of war). 

As I said before, WWI is the example you're looking for if you want to make that analogy since Belgium was neutral in thought and deed and was still rolled over by Moltke the younger.



			
				avraell said:
			
		

> For the country, not Hezbollah, you still failed to adress this argument.



No, not really. Hezbollah would have access to these resources as well, denying them access to any war-making potential is what this entire thing is about.



			
				avraell said:
			
		

> Because this cracking down rapidly would lead to another civil war. How about negotiating for rights to cross into Lebanon to track down the militants without destroying the country. Sounds simple and naive, but isn't that better than simple, self-serving, and destructive?



Because Hezbollah wouldn't have a delightful tea party to that either and that would waste months, if not years while rockets continued to fall. 

This way is swift, and brutally effective as a retaliatory measure and reminder to the Lebanonese government that it should clean it's house regardless of consequence, or continue to get pasted. Hezbollah has operated there for how long? 20+ years? A kick in the rear is in order.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 18, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> Things like the 1916 Pershing expedition to rid the American Southwest of Pancho Villa are like this example. A known terrorist group is attacking your country from safe havens, what's the answer since the government can't take action? Invade/pummel things until the enemy is incapable of striking back.



I'd like to take this moment to remind you that most of what has occured in America (the Americas as a whole ) has been criminal...so u don't want to start comparing Isreal to this, if you are trying to get high ground.


----------



## Yamato (Inactive) (Jul 18, 2006)

Why have they killed those 27 lesbians?


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 18, 2006)

0Reiatsu said:
			
		

> Why have they killed those 27 lesbians?


well two days ago the figure was around 150... i gussing its 500 or so now. 
and they killed them beacuse they hit a civilian airport with the excuse of *insert excuse if found here*.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 18, 2006)

what do you guys think of this article?


----------



## Woofie (Jul 18, 2006)

Condemn Hezbollah: yes, of course.
Support Israel: no, the current actions should not be supported at all.

Israel need to be discouraged from doing this kind of thing, not supported. And America have the most influence in discouraging them... I can't believe they're considering doing the opposite. Seriously, what the hell?


----------



## niko (Jul 18, 2006)

Foxnews? Yuck, I rather believe someone telling me Paris Hilton didn't have sex in two days. You got Sean Hannity and his side-kick Colmes sprouting out the usual crap they feed to people, which is regarded as, complete bullshit. Never listen to anything they say.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 18, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> what do you guys think of this article?


heh... fox is amazing


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 18, 2006)

Yassy said:
			
		

> Foxnews? Yuck, I rather believe someone telling me Paris Hilton didn't have sex in two days. You got Sean Hannity and his side-kick Colmes sprouting out the usual crap they feed to people, which is regarded as, complete bullshit. Never listen to anything they say.



Can you provide any examples of Fox Newx lying? Do you honestly believe the U.S. congress never issued support for Israel as the article said?

The "OMG FOX NEWS IS EVIL!" policy is just silly ignorance. It's dismissed because it doesn't spew the same anti-American bullshit the rest of the world shows.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 18, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> The "OMG FOX NEWS IS EVIL!" policy is just silly ignorance. It's dismissed because it doesn't spew the same anti-American bullshit the rest of the world shows.



No, ignorance would be listening to a news station that is allowed to be bias.

It is illegal for media in the UK (excluding newspapers) to be bias. This includes the BBC.

Now, if it just so happens that a station which isn't allowed to be bias comes out with a lot of reports putting the US in a bad light, while at the same time the UK government has better relations with the US and Israeli government than it does with say Lebanon, what does that tell you?

Its obvious that facts are facts, but the way in which it is presented (by the whole, we'll do the thinking for you), leaves little to be desired.


----------



## niko (Jul 18, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Can you provide any examples of Fox Newx lying? Do you honestly believe the U.S. congress never issued support for Israel as the article said?
> 
> The "OMG FOX NEWS IS EVIL!" policy is just silly ignorance. It's dismissed because it doesn't spew the same anti-American bullshit the rest of the world shows.



I didn't even read the article, just to let you know. 

Why? Because it's Foxnews, hell, even I can outfox them.

PS; Foxnews is solely known for having a reputation that represents the Bush administration, you can't miss it.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 18, 2006)

Keep it cool, people.


----------



## niko (Jul 18, 2006)

Yes, my name...



IT CHANGED.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I'd like to take this moment to remind you that most of what has occured in America (the Americas as a whole ) has been criminal...so u don't want to start comparing Isreal to this, if you are trying to get high ground.



Pershing expedition =/= Custer. You display a certain unique understanding of history. That is, you don't seem to know anything about it.

Can you give me something that says this precedent of holding other nations accountable for what goes on in their backyard is illegal?


----------



## kelleh (Jul 18, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> No, ignorance would be listening to a news station that is allowed to be bias.
> 
> It is illegal for media in the UK (excluding newspapers) to be bias. This includes the BBC.
> 
> ...



If you'd clicked the link, you'd see the article was contributed to by the Associated Press.  Bias?  You can't throw bias into, you know, factual events.

Don't be so quick to be a douche about it. *thumbs up*




			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I'd like to take this moment to remind you that most of what has occured in America (the Americas as a whole ) has been criminal...so u don't want to start comparing Isreal to this, if you are trying to get high ground.



Do you even know what you're talking about?  To take the example you _quoted_, Pancho Villa was a revolutionary who invaded the US.  Is it illegal to go after him when the country he escaped into is sitting on their hands?  Get some facts or lay off the pointless, off topic, over-arching accusations.




			
				avraell said:
			
		

> Because this cracking down rapidly would lead to another civil war. How about negotiating for rights to cross into Lebanon to track down the militants without destroying the country. Sounds simple and naive, but isn't that better than simple, self-serving, and destructive?



There really is no simple solution to this.  Hezbollah has control over a significant portion of the Lebanese government.  They don't discourage them or try crack down on them because of that control.  When one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world is breathing down your neck and holds at least some governmental power, it's kind of hard to try and stop them in their tracks.

Could Lebanon be doing something diplomatically with Israel?  That's hard to say.  It wouldn't make Hezbollah happy, and who knows if they'd turn on the Lebanese for being Israeli sympathizers.

But to say that Lebanon is totally neutral or has no guilt in this situation isn't true.  They've helped facilitate this organization's growth of power by not forcing them out of the country or out of their government.  The Lebanese people shouldn't suffer for this, but their government unfortunately helped bring this down on them.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 18, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> Pershing expedition =/= Custer. You display a certain unique understanding of history. That is, you don't seem to know anything about it.
> 
> Can you give me something that says this precedent of holding other nations accountable for what goes on in their backyard is illegal?



I know you will reject the idea.  The US was stolen from Native Americans, just as Isreal is trying to steal land from Palestinians.  I already explained the similarities in previous post.  

To add to that the labor that built this country was stolen from various ethnic groups, blacks, chinese, irish.  

Everything this country is based on is crimes and illusions.  And the US is Isreal's model?  

Even after the Indians were pretty much moved around , the US then used violence against Mexico in taking land there along the south.  

You guys ,Nosguy , Mega, kelleh, u r so funny cause you act like the fact that something happened yesterday makes it excusable.  Here's a clue since you have none, almost nobody has forgotten anything that's happened for the last 2500 years, that's why there's writing!


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 18, 2006)

Im sorry if his has already been brought up in the thread but do anyone know if the Lebanese govbernment did anything to reign in or atleast place restrictions on the Hezbollah between Israels redrawal from South Lebabnon in 2000 until the current crisis began? I know there was a UN backed resolution to compel them to give up their arms. Have the Lebanese governemt done anything in that regards or have they turned a blind eye, as the Israeli claim?

I think this is a major point if we are to establish if the Israeli military operation is legitimate or not.

Because if f.example the Lebanese governement were willing to follow international demands in that area but lacked the resources or the manpower to accomplish it in reality then more assistance and help should have been offered to them to help them in that direction on a more earlier period.It seems to me, at least, that the majority of Lebanese isnt in on Herzbollahs war against Israel and they recently flatly rejected Syrian dominance and meddling over domestick policies. If thats the case then i think the Israeli collective bombing is somewhat heavy handed, since then it is clear that the Hezbollah is acting on its own and neither the government or the vast majority of its people can be blaimed for this. 

On the other hand if the Lebanese government had turned a blind eye to Hezbollahs provocations and didnt even try to live up to their obligations then i can understand Israels reasons for attacking on such a widespread front. Because the Lebanese government should have knowed that leaving a powerful organization with such a extreme and radical ideology near the Israeli border would eventually develop into a disaster. If the Lebanese government were aware of the situasion and did nothing even though they had the capabilities to stop them then they should take their share of the responsibility for giving Hezbollah such a free hand in conducting these aggresive operations. That can be compare to some degrees with Talibans relations with al Qaeda before the Afghanistan war.

So i guess it depends on which scenario is correct. History will ultimately be the final judge.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 18, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> If you'd clicked the link, you'd see the article was contributed to by the Associated Press.  Bias?  You can't throw bias into, you know, factual events.



My post was referring to the policy Megaharrison was talking about. I even quoted the part I was referring to.  I'll do it again just for you.



			
				Megaharrison said:
			
		

> *The "OMG FOX NEWS IS EVIL!" policy is just silly ignorance.* It's dismissed because it doesn't spew the same anti-American bullshit the rest of the world shows.





I even referred to the news station, not the website.



			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> No, ignorance would be listening to a *news station* that is allowed to be bias.







			
				kelleh said:
			
		

> Don't be so quick to be a douche about it. *thumbs up*



Indeed.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 18, 2006)

All this debate over Fox News is ridiculous.  Using live newscasts as a source is a bad idea in general.
Harrison, the entire world doesn't hate the US just because you do.


----------



## OmniStrife (Jul 18, 2006)

So what's the current flame fest debate is about?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jul 18, 2006)

When I was watching the news I heard the Hezbollah has over 15,000 rockets... 
I hope they send more then 100 at a time, maybe like 2 to 3 thousand rockets at Israel will put them at the same level of damage that Israel caused.
Maybe even more then that, there sitting and letting Israel crush them, seriously my uncle lives in an apartment right infront of the Airport and we've tried hard to reach him but we couldnt. I hope nothing has happened to him. 

Also, unlike Israel Hezbollah can't choose their targets. Their weapons are not as advanced as the Israeli weapons, they can't do damage to Israel without inflicting civilian casualties and that is because of their weaponry. Israel on the other hand has great technology but they havn't killed one member of hezbollah yet. more than 200 ppl dead and none of them have anything to do wit hezbollah...wtf is that.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 18, 2006)

well, i'm just glad that the british nationals are starting to get evacuated. At least that is something, but all these evacuations are leading some to the conclusion that this war (for lack of a better term) will go on for a little while yet.


----------



## kelleh (Jul 18, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> My post was referring to the policy Megaharrison was talking about. I even quoted the part I was referring to.  I'll do it again just for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The news station runs the website, genius.  Dismissing the news station and by proxy the article they posted on their site _is_ stupid, even though I personally take everything FOX News puts out with a big grain of salt.  If it's AP as the basis of the article, it's not spin.




			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Indeed.



At least you're consistent.




			
				heavy_rasengan said:
			
		

> Also, unlike Israel Hezbollah can't choose their targets. Their weapons are not as advanced as the Israeli weapons, they can't do damage to Israel without inflicting civilian casualties and that is because of their weaponry.



Hezbollah hit an Israeli naval ship.  That shows they at least have some capacity for targeting systems, even if it's on a limited number of their missiles.  Also, while the rest of their scuds don't have precision targeting whatsoever, it's been reported that they're likely to have people stationed in Israel informing them where missiles hit and how to adjust the launch (by however many degrees) in order to hit their preferred targets.  Lacking technology doesn't mean they're incapable.

Israel on the other hand has been trying to target the homes of Hezbollah members.  However, since they're scattered, they're harder to find, so Israel is trying to flood them out or at least keep them on the run.  I can't say this is GOOD, but that's what they're working with.  All they can do is target where they think these people are and other strategic locations so that Hezbollah has less to work with (unfortunately also costing the citizenry).




			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> well, i'm just glad that the british nationals are starting to get evacuated. At least that is something, but all these evacuations are leading some to the conclusion that this war (for lack of a better term) will go on for a little while yet.



Considering neither side is approaching a feasible cease-fire, that's a safe bet.  But yeah, it's good that the evacuations are underway.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 18, 2006)

kelleh said:
			
		

> The news station runs the website, genius.



Again, I was referring to the policy Megaharrison brought up. I made no mention of the website. I wasn't taking about any website. Your argument was, 


			
				kelleh said:
			
		

> If you'd clicked the link, you'd see the article was contributed to by the Associated Press. Bias? You can't throw bias into, you know, factual events.
> 
> Don't be so quick to be a douche about it.



because you assumed I was talking about the website. I make no mention of the website in my previous posts. My word choice even implied no mention of the website, but rather the news station. 



			
				Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> No, ignorance would be *listening* to a news station that is allowed to be bias.



You don't listen to words on a website, you read them.


Why are you trying to connect the two, when in this case, its completely irrelevant? Just because Entity A runs Entity B, does not mean criticism of Entity A must be transferred onto Entity B.

When I say Fox News broadcasts bias information, you cannot expect my claim to go out to everything else Fox News runs.

Or is this just a simple misunderstanding?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I know you will reject the idea.  The US was stolen from Native Americans, just as Isreal is trying to steal land from Palestinians.  I already explained the similarities in previous post.



First off, I'm a Pennsylvanian and a Philadelphian, so fuck off. Secondly I wasn't aware the US during it's manifest destiny period _pulled back _from land it had occupied.

I hear so many accusations of theft, but when we note pre-1967 Israel was a result of counter-attacks against Arab powers attacking Israel. We also note most of the original tennets fled the land thus placing it in a vaccum and opening up conquerer's rights and such.

It should be noted the Arabs who stayed were incorporated in the state and ddn't have their land seized.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Even after the Indians were pretty much moved around , the US then used violence against Mexico in taking land there along the south.



The Mexican War was started by Mexican forces attacking US border forts. Failure.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> You guys ,Nosguy , Mega, kelleh, u r so funny cause you act like the fact that something happened yesterday makes it excusable.  Here's a clue since you have none, almost nobody has forgotten anything that's happened for the last 2500 years, that's why there's writing!



I like the fact that standing up for a modern democratic state which is trying to handle things with a modicum of restraint in light of it being under attack suddenly makes us genocidal commie Nazis who personally sent the Cherokees on the trail of tears and subsist on a diet of grilled Arab children. 

And it's That NOS Guy, NOS, whatever. They're seperate words dammit. Is seperation of words on that long list of things you don't understand too?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 18, 2006)

isreal according to nosguy said:
			
		

> modern democratic state which is trying to handle things with a modicum of restraint in light of it being under attack suddenly makes us genocidal commie Nazis who personally sent the Cherokees on the trail of tears and subsist on a diet of grilled Arab children.


if u wanna put words in my mouth i'll put words in urs.


*Spoiler*: _nasty surprise for nosguy_ 



nahh, i'll wait to see if u get shit for cursing me out like that




the US didn't pull back at all. If it were modern times I would have expected a well cultured and civilized people to not even get that far that they have to pull back too.  Manifest destiny is even worse than the Isrealis claim to Isreal, it was a complete fabrication made by lunatics, whereas at least one semi-legit source, the bible in my example, makes some reference to Jews having been in Isreal.

Most of southern US belonged to Mexico anyway, it was stolen, and to me there's no doubt that some people have a mind to get it back someday.

Try to restrain your cursing and insults, I'll report that as another of ur bad posts...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> if u wanna put words in my mouth i'll put words in urs.



If only I'd cursed you out rather then point out the absurdity of your claims. Ad hominem attacks aren't my bit there partner.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> the US didn't pull back at all. If it were modern times I would have expected a well cultured and civilized people to not even get that far that they have to pull back too.



Israel has to watch things blow up in their faces (Gaza strip, Bueller, Bueller?). Your analogy fails.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Manifest destiny is even worse than the Isrealis claim to Isreal, it was a complete fabrication made by lunatics, whereas at least one semi-legit source, the bible in my example, makes some reference to Jews having been in Isreal.



Wait. You acknowledged that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews then berate them for "stealing" the land. Y'know the Palestanians took over when the diaspora forced the Jews out and left the land unoccupied (and interestingly enough, the same legal situation reversed is "illegal" for some reason). I could rationalize that the Jews had their land stolen, and rationalize they're simply "taking it back" but I'm not, since that's dumb and without support.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Most of southern US belonged to Mexico anyway, it was stolen, and to me there's no doubt that some people have a mind to get it back someday.



It fell as a legitimate spoil of war, weither or not you agree with how it was taken it's still legal nonetheless. 



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Try to restrain your cursing and insults, I'll report that as another of ur bad posts...



Go ahead, I've obeyed forum rules where it provides from flaming in conjunction with actually putting up a decent argument.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 18, 2006)

nosguy said:
			
		

> Wait. You acknowledged that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews then berate them for "stealing" the land. Y'know the Palestanians took over when the diaspora forced the Jews out and left the land unoccupied (and interestingly enough, the same legal situation reversed is "illegal" for some reason). I could rationalize that the Jews had their land stolen, and rationalize they're simply "taking it back" but I'm not, since that's dumb and without support.



I call the bible semi-legit.  It's not secular, Therefore  i don't give it total credibility.  History shows that the native americans had there land stolen, and giving them back there land is something i bet u would protest.  

And like i said a million times, the indians had there land stolen in 1400s.  I'll give those people a little benefit of the doubt, there sensibilities, and ideas about war and spoils of war were different then (not right, just different).  But to do the same thing in the 1940s, knowing full well that history shows what happened to the native americans to be an inappropriate act, and then still do this to the palestinians.  That's just barbarianism.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 18, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I call the bible semi-legit.  It's not secular, Therefore  i don't give it total credibility.  History shows that the native americans had there land stolen, and giving them back there land is something i bet u would protest.
> 
> And like i said a million times, the indians had there land stolen in 1400s.  I'll give those people a little benefit of the doubt, there sensibilities, and ideas about war and spoils of war were different then (not right, just different).  But to do the same thing in the 1940s, knowing full well that history shows what happened to the native americans to be an inappropriate act, and then still do this to the palestinians.  That's just barbarianism.



The native Americans had their land stolen before Columbus sailed to America. The Europeans had a dominating advantage in chronosphere technology.

Of course, you've still failed to demonstrate that Israeli and US land polices are even close to one another. Israel has constantly upheld treaties in regards to borders with peaceful neighbours like Egypt and Jordan. Israel began pullouts of occupied lands before this clusterfuck forced their hand. Israel gave the PA autnomy and even left gifts like greenhouses (for farming) in the Gaza strip when they pulled out.

Of course, then there's an election which puts a party whose platform of "Kill Israel" made them famous and rioting destroyed things like the greenhouses as soon as the last Israeli was out. To make it better, the PA turns around and plays the vicitim card after antagonizing Israel, but that's not the point.

Unless you can point to instances where at governemt sanction whole villages are summarilly executed, smallpox laced blankets handed out, treaties violated, and all mannerisms of cold blooded evil are carried out in the name of manifest destiny your analogy is completely falsafiable and useless.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 18, 2006)

A few new articles to discuss. 



The first is from the UK Guardian, a fairly reliable source. The second is from Israeli National News, of whose credentials I'm not so certain. And they got it from Palestinian news sources, who got it from Nasrallah. :/  Israeli Radio reported hours after this all started last week that Nasrallah had been killed. I only trust a few sources out of Israel/Palestine. But I just want to warn in case something big were to happen. Ahmadenijad warned that Arabs would soon rejoice, so even though he says a lot of stuff, it seems interesting these comments so close together. 

Also, I heard last night that (from a friend) when the Iranian envoy told EU prez Solana that it would be August 22 before they responded to the proposal (to come to an agreement about uranium enrichment), he came back via Syria. The same day he came to Syria, Hizb'Allah abducted the soldiers. Seems there's a possibility this was all a play to delay any possible action on Iran from the UN or US. And with Hizb'Allah's close relationship with Iran, this makes sense. Especially with Bush pushing for a response he expected weeks ago. It's probably why he's swearing.  

Anyway, the title of this thread should probably be changed to "Israel/Lebanon War 2006" or something.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 18, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> The native Americans had their land stolen before Columbus sailed to America. The Europeans had a dominating advantage in chronosphere technology.
> 
> Of course, you've still failed to demonstrate that Israeli and US land polices are even close to one another. Israel has constantly upheld treaties in regards to borders with peaceful neighbours like Egypt and Jordan. Israel began pullouts of occupied lands before this clusterfuck forced their hand. Israel gave the PA autnomy and even left gifts like greenhouses (for farming) in the Gaza strip when they pulled out.
> 
> ...


The native americans, for all intents and purposes, had lived in America since the first humans migrated here.  They were never made to leave their land till the Europeans arrived and forced them away.  

If you are looking for a year by year comparison then u need to grow up.  It's similar , u just refuse to accept the similarities.


> Unless you can point to instances where at governemt sanction whole villages are summarilly executed, smallpox laced blankets handed out, treaties violated, and all mannerisms of cold blooded evil are carried out in the name of manifest destiny your analogy is completely falsafiable and useless.



Without all this happening you can't argue it's dissimilarity?  You are just being pedantic and denying what's obvious.  I don't blame u, it's  important to be right when ur country is killing innocent civilians left and right, I would rationalize things too 

edit: u know u have to excuse me, my country is killing civilians left and right, i forgot about Iraq...now u see, a confession isn't so difficult nosguy


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> The native americans, for all intents and purposes, had lived in America since the first humans migrated here.  They were never made to leave their land till the Europeans arrived and forced them away.
> 
> If you are looking for a year by year comparison then u need to grow up.  It's similar , u just refuse to accept the similarities.



Oh, those wars among themselves and genocides didn't force anyone to move? But that doesn't really matter, does it? No one forced the Jews to move until the Romans.

Jewish culture has its roots in Palestine for a pretty long time too, but as we're not looking for a year by year comparison that doesn't matter in the slightest.

DEBATE NOTES: Note the last line folks. He's flat out saying he will not demonstrate the proof of his statement or back it up. Quick notes to the less debate inclined among us, your statements should not assume their own truth, they should demonstrate them.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Without all this happening you can't argue it's dissimilarity?  You are just being pedantic and denying what's obvious.  I don't blame u, it's  important to be right when ur country is killing innocent civilians left and right, I would rationalize things too



DEBATE NOTES: Note the veiled character attack in the vein of I'm staying along party lines without evidence, because remember folks, when your opponent tears your example apart attack his character and claim he's blind without submiting an iota of factual evidence in rebuttal.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> edit: u know u have to excuse me, my country is killing civilians left and right, i forgot about Iraq...now u see, a confession isn't so difficult nosguy



DEBATE NOTES: Note the flagrant red herring and utter uselessness of this last part. I think he's trying to insinuate that if I don't admit that Israel is delibaretly attacking civilians then I must also be in support of the Iraq war and the clusterfuck over there.

This is what is noted as "shitty debating" when you just attack character without actually addressing any arguments.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

> Oh, those wars among themselves and genocides didn't force anyone to move? But that doesn't really matter, does it? No one forced the Jews to move until the Romans.
> 
> Jewish culture has its roots in Palestine for a pretty long time too, but as we're not looking for a year by year comparison that doesn't matter in the slightest.
> 
> ...



It's important that you be as juvenile as possible when arguing , because it distracts from the point and makes you seem smart.  *This isn't a debate thread!*  And even if it was , I have to admit, I'm not well versed in the poor debate tactics are good ones.  I try to use logic and intelligence and knowledge in my arguments.  On-topic.



> Oh, those wars among themselves and genocides didn't force anyone to move? But that doesn't really matter, does it? No one forced the Jews to move until the Romans.



Here you equate the Romans moving the Jews to the English moving the indians.  That's fine, except the jews were moved thousands of years ago.  IF you still want to make a claim to land from thousand years ago against the romans, I'm for it (now that I think of it, isreal should be in rome for what it's worth).  

Only that it's unfair that the palestinians bear the punishment for what the Romans did.  Two different groups and cultures!!  The palestinians themselves didn't devilishly remove the Jews from there , it was the romans, the palestinians moved in organically.

To my previous point, by equating the romans to the english, I can now equate todays Jews to the Romans!!  Wow, it's the circle of life!  and it's beautiful


Edit: just want to add, that even if i could match the american colonization to the mid-east conflict, occurence for occurence, you would probably still insist it doesn't match because the years are different, funny!!


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> It's important that you be as juvenile as possible when arguing , because it distracts from the point and makes you seem smart.  *This isn't a debate thread!*  And even if it was , I have to admit, I'm not well versed in the poor debate tactics are good ones.  I try to use logic and intelligence and knowledge in my arguments.  On-topic.



Do you really think that, seriously? You've been fightig tooth and nail and for all intensive purposes it is. It does little to distract from the fact of your use of logic fallacies (denoting lack of logic) and in general, lack of intelligence on anything going on.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Here you equate the Romans moving the Jews to the English moving the indians.  That's fine, except the jews were moved thousands of years ago.  IF you still want to make a claim to land from thousand years ago against the romans, I'm for it (now that I think of it, isreal should be in rome for what it's worth).



Why not just give them the land back? You proposed the same thing for American Indians, we certaintly wouldn't give the Sioux Chicago. It's a stupid argument to make, which is why I'm just using it as a case in point as to why it's stupid.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Only that it's unfair that the palestinians bear the punishment for what the Romans did.  Two different groups and cultures!!  The palestinians themselves didn't devilishly remove the Jews from there , it was the romans, the palestinians moved in organically.



You still have yet to show Israel "develishly" forced out those who didn't want to stay and didn't incorporate them into society. They fled during the war of independece. The Israelis "moved in organically" to land that was _vacated_ and over-run duuring counter-offensives.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Edit: just want to add, that even if i could match the american colonization to the mid-east conflict, occurence for occurence, you would probably still insist it doesn't match because the years are different, funny!!



You have this delusion I'm being contrarian for the sake of it, and not because your argument sucks.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

haha ok, I'm not a historian and I'm not gonna study the topic more in depth than I know now just to argue with you.  If you wanna take it as a victory feel free.  What you really understand is muscle.  

That's what most people who defend the American genocide of the Natives understand, and it seems the same applies to the Isreali's current situation.  If another country with the military power to match Isreal steps in this situation, you'll be singing a whole other song, probably about preventing another holocaust.  

So that's what this reduces to, who's gonna flex more muscle...ok , congrats


----------



## BattousaiMS (Jul 19, 2006)

It is sad what the world has come to these days... a world of double standards. For my part I think Israel has no right to attack Lebanon they are digging their own graves by doing this. Note I do not support Hezbollah's action either, it's a stupid plan, your never gonna get 1000 people freed with 2 prisonners unless those two happen to be high ranked in the Israeli government. 

For those who don't know the story of the nation:

Basically the situation of the Middle-East for those who don't know is like this: When Anti-Semitism rose in Europe in the 1900s many Jews looked for a new place to call home. Note this was much before Hilter decided to kill Jews, Anti-semitism has been in Europe for centuries. So they went back to Palestine and the Arabs living there who accepted them and did not European views. This was the formation of the first Zionist who basically came in and with their wealth bought land and decided to segregate themselves. Now the arabs didn't mind much then, sure they were a bit pissed that they were not being hired as workers (they thought they would) but as long as each side remained on their corner it was okay. After the collapse of the Ottoman empire(well near the end) things turned for the worst and the British took the opportunity to make those Palestaniens and Zionists their allies. But they were greedy and made double promises for the same land. 

After the end of the war, they decided to do the same thing they did to India a few decades later that is separate the place into two sides by their ethnicity. This was the rise of the major problems mainly because both sides wanted Jerusalem (it is an important  religious city for both Muslims and Jews) and the fact that the area the population itself wasn't as segregrated, around that time apart few radical zionist sections most jews and muslims lived side by side. So things weren't working out well. Then came WWII and thanks to Hitler and his holocaust, the favor in the end of the jews because Europe felt it was the best way to compensate for their mistakes (yeah by settling them in Middle-East instead of Europe nice plan). Since they were given any territory they wished in Middle-East the Zionist selected the area around Jerusalem. 

This was that start of the arab-isreali conflict. Because not nly did they wanted to be independent but the Zionist wanted Al-Asqa mosque (the 3rd most important mosque in Islam), because they wanted to destroy it and rebuild the temple of Solomon (now known as wall of lamentation). If giving up land was a possiblity this one certainly wasn't and it's from there that the real conflict began and still is. 

The British feeling that the best way to solve it was to separate the territory into two, Israel and Palestine, while having Jerusalem outside of the Isreali territory but also separeted into 2 (kinda like Berlin). This was the dumbest plan anyone could come up with, but they did it anyhow. There was no real need for it, since the Palestinians at that time were still not anti-semitist and both group could have formed a single nation with equal power (even though the Jew population was lower). This along with the massive floodling of Jews would lead to the first civil war breakouts, because now the jews were seriously bent on segregating, and the massive influx of forign population made it so that arabs who chose to still live in the Zionist region were driven out of their homes foreceilly. Israels defended their action by claiming that the land belonged to their forefathers much before the Palestanians hence they had the right to reclaim it. 

Now if you got a brain you would know that this is basically a crappy reason, since that was like 1000+ years ago and it was the jews who drove themselves out, they weren't forced out but now they are claiming that the land still belonged to them. Not to mention that the Palestanians were original natives of the region much before the jewish exodus arrived there. 

But anyway not only did they got away with it, but America seeing that their (Israel) actions were putting the fire unter the belly of the arabs decided to help them out to ensure that their was no civil/regional war. The only problem is, due to the cold war, America and USSR began to take sides, which pretty much ended as Israel + a few arab nations on US side while rest of Arab nations on the Soviet side. With the massive technoligical assistance and subsidies that Israel got they built up the best army of the region. The problem was of course that being under the americans it also made them darn cocky and that lead to sevral wars with Egypt and Syria. At that time (and still now) Palestine had no such resouraces they were basically survivng on thin bread so when those wars broke out it was easy for Isreal to take over the whole nation without much resistance and with the advanced technology they even managed to grab lands from Egypt and humilate Syria. 

After this and still to this day, Palestine became an occupied land of Israel. Now all this would have been okay if Israel just let it be that way, but they didn't. Since Plaestine was now theirs they put their segregation plans on the land, which lead to numerous forced exodus of Arabs to create new colonies for Jews and with that even more hatred between the two cultures. Palestine having no real military power of its own fought via suicide bombers and gurilla warfare while Iseael used their military force to supress the arabs and so on. 

The recent peace talks came close to solving the problem between the two nation but one factor always prevents it. Who will get Jerusalem? Neither community wants to give it up and neither will give it up. The best solution is of course to scrap both Isreal and Palestine and turn it into one nation again, with both societies having equal part in power, but with the amount of bloodshed has been going for the past 50 years it is a very hard wound to close. Especially when you consider tat now each sides are mostly ruled by Radicals who want the other the get the hell out of the land.

Isreal-Lebanon case isn't new either. It all started in the Labanese war a forgotten war (because the world bailed out at first sight) where Isreal used the civil war to occupy southern Lebanon, while Syria occupied Eastern Lebanon. After the war was over both countries were forced to give up most of the land they stole, but occupation effect still remained in the Lebanese peoples head. Hesbollah was one of the groups that fought in that war, specifically on the Israeli front and still share old wounds. They also support Hamas which Israel considers the Hesbollah version of Palestine. 

As for the Lebanese governtment, it's still not independent on its own. After the civil war  , it could no longer stand on its own feet and was majorly governed by Syria (in the shadow), it has only jst started to become independent, so it certainly doesn't have any power over Hesbollah, neither polically nor militaristically. It's basically a Palestine version 2, just considered a nation. The only way it can defend itself it's by calling on the Syrians and other Arab nations, which is most people consider this the start of WWIII.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 19, 2006)

^exellent narrartion, simplifies and reduces the scope making most if not any nf  member understand the basics. (my judgment is based on the first two paragraph... for i am to *see avatar* to read all of zat).


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> haha ok, I'm not a historian and I'm not gonna study the topic more in depth than I know now just to argue with you.  If you wanna take it as a victory feel free.  What you really understand is muscle.



As a goddamn history major I'm offended that you're decrying "studying the topic in more depth" as excessive when it's your argument you're trying to defend.  



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> That's what most people who defend the American genocide of the Natives understand, and it seems the same applies to the Isreali's current situation.



_Seems?_ Back your statement. Oh wait, you've refused to this entire thread when called on it. I wish I had the gall to spout off things without support.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> If another country with the military power to match Isreal steps in this situation, you'll be singing a whole other song, probably about preventing another holocaust.



Who'd step in? Where's your Arab army of doom?


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 19, 2006)

nose guy said:
			
		

> As a goddamn history major I'm offended that you're decrying "studying the topic in more depth" as excessive when it's your argument you're trying to defend.


History major huh, heh pick on some one your own size (me).
i was surprised you knew what you knew, especialy regarding Ottoman and it's conquest in europe. Expecting normal people to compare with your knowledge of the topic is pedantic. (vocab expansion, merci nf)


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

> Who'd step in? Where's your Arab army of doom?



your arrogance is commendable.  I have no idea who's gonna step in, no idea.



			
				nosguy said:
			
		

> As a goddamn history major I'm offended that you're decrying "studying the topic in more depth" as excessive when it's your argument you're trying to defend.



I made an attempt to explain my view.  You don't want to buy it.  End of story.  Take it as a victory if u want, I have things to do with my time than hear you go on and on about how perfect Isreal is and nothing they do is wrong.  

But seriously, I would like that US foreign aid suspended, seeing as how you've proven to me Isreal can do so well on it's own and there are other countries, like Lebanon now, that can use it alot more.


----------



## BattousaiMS (Jul 19, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Who'd step in? Where's your Arab army of doom?



Erm about your Last comment... you shouldn't say that, because like I stated in the end, there are plenty of them who can. One of the reasons why Egypt and Syria lost previous wars (I think one of them was at the same time 2vs1) was because both of them couldn't cooperate.

Now it's a little bit different. For one, after Iraq the Arab nations have began to cooperate politically with one another and when it comes to Isreal it won't take much for them to decleare war at the same time. If that happens, Israel is going to have a tough fight in their hands, as they will be surrounded by all sides. 

Not to mention their big brother is kinda streched to its limits. USA won't be able to help Israel this time unless they decide to play with their Nukes. Their soliders are still trying to finish their war in Iraq and given how George W. "I am a Dumbass" Bush berated both Syria, Jordan and Iran as their possible 'next terrorist war' he'll most likely have to face all three of them at the same time. Add that with more Al-Qaida/Hamas/Hesbollah going Gurilla on their ass and Taliban rising back in Afgan (which The US had claimed the war was over) and you got total depletion of American Armed forces.

Oh did I mention of the Tension in the China sea? You know that as one of the biggest contributers of American Loans Japan is going to put a dagger in American ass if US just leave the North Koreans play with thier little drop dead nukie experiments. Which could also lead them a confrontation with China, because you know that as soon as the WWIII starts in the Middle East, NK will either try to throw one on Japan or try to conquor South Korea. Now I know what you are thinking, how the hell would they do it, they got barely any food to eat? Well this is the part were the answer happens to be : "because they will starve eitherway" so for a fanatic like the one that rules NK it's a do-or-die war, where if they do and get a hold of SK they become rich again and if they don't he can do a Saddam on us and go in hiding. Note I am not saying that China will support NK in the invasion, they wont, they aren't dumb. But they will hold an iron fist if anyone tries to invade NK, thus your proverbial stalemate.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Erm about your Last comment... you shouldn't say that, because like I stated in the end, there are plenty of them who can. One of the reasons why Egypt and Syria lost previous wars (I think one of them was at the same time 2vs1) was because both of them couldn't cooperate.



Bullshit, in '67 they were allied and in '73 they acted _in concert_ with each other in suprise attacks.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Now it's a little bit different. For one, after Iraq the Arab nations have began to cooperate politically with one another and when it comes to Isreal it won't take much for them to decleare war at the same time. If that happens, Israel is going to have a tough fight in their hands, as they will be surrounded by all sides.



You are aware that if it looks like Israel is about to be crushed Israel plays it's nuke card right? Of course, this assumes Arab armies can beat the Israelis in conventional styles.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Not to mention their big brother is kinda streched to its limits. USA won't be able to help Israel this time unless they decide to play with their Nukes. Their soliders are still trying to finish their war in Iraq and given how George W. "I am a Dumbass" Bush berated both Syria, Jordan and Iran as their possible 'next terrorist war' he'll most likely have to face all three of them at the same time. Add that with more Al-Qaida/Hamas/Hesbollah going Gurilla on their ass and Taliban rising back in Afgan (which The US had claimed the war was over) and you got total depletion of American Armed forces.



Israel defeated the Arab alliance twice (once wwhen it sufered a suprise attack!) without their nuke card (which assures peace or MAD). Egypt and Jordan aren't playing ball this time. Iraq can't save Syria's ass. Lebanon is impotent.

Let's not even mention Iran, they'd have to go through the USMC and US Army, and actively invade Iraq to get to Israel. That's the only way this scenario gets the Americans involved and the Iranians aren't that crazy.

Who'd march now? You can't fight a war without forces.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Which could also lead them a confrontation with China, because you know that as soon as the WWIII starts in the Middle East, NK will either try to throw one on Japan or try to conquor South Korea. Now I know what you are thinking, how the hell would they do it, they got barely any food to eat? Well this is the part were the answer happens to be : "because they will starve eitherway" so for a fanatic like the one that rules NK it's a do-or-die war, where if they do and get a hold of SK they become rich again and if they don't he can do a Saddam on us and go in hiding. Note I am not saying that China will support NK in the invasion, they wont, they aren't dumb. But they will hold an iron fist if anyone tries to invade NK, thus your proverbial stalemate.



First off, the Chinese have been distancing themselves for years from the DPRK. Second, the DPRK would get it's ass handed to it by the SK army. Third, why would Japan cripple it's best ally? 

This is all so, so, so terribly reaking of a FOX news analysis.

Your WWIII scenario is like something I vomited up after not eating for 5 days, no consistancy.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 19, 2006)

BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> It is sad what the world has come to these days... a world of double standards. For my part I think Israel has no right to attack Lebanon they are digging their own graves by doing this. Note I do not support Hezbollah's action either, it's a stupid plan, your never gonna get 1000 people freed with 2 prisonners unless those two happen to be high ranked in the Israeli government.
> 
> For those who don't know the story of the nation:
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree less with this narrative.  It seems you are are either uninformed or intentionally neglected to mention the fact that Arabs attacked the Jews, unprovoked, at least three major times before World War 2.  Secondly, you act as if Israel went mad and started attacking the Middle East.  This is not the case as the 1948 war was instigated by the Arab forces.

So lets not act as if there is some type of moral neutrality or that Israel is in the wrong.  If you go through every major section of history you see the Palestinians instigating conflict with the intent to destroy Israel.  You can't say the same for Israel, or Palestine would be destroyed.  What you do see is the occasional plea for peace, which is soon taken advantage of by the Palestinians.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> your arrogance is commendable.  I have no idea who's gonna step in, no idea.



Then why posit it? 



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> But seriously, I would like that US foreign aid suspended, seeing as how you've proven to me Isreal can do so well on it's own and there are other countries, like Lebanon now, that can use it alot more.



Why? It serves as an effective diplomatic barginning chip, and under Camp David if we suspend it we have to do that countries like Egypt too, who really need it.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

> *You are aware that if it looks like Israel is about to be crushed Israel plays it's nuke card right? *Of course, this assumes Arab armies can beat the Israelis in conventional styles.


Man this is messed up, I suppose Isreal can't accept a defeat , is that what you are saying ?  Seems the mid east will inevitably be nuked, bc I don't see that as being a fight that should ever be given up.

Not to mention this is why Iran will continue researching it's nukes or some terrorist group will aquire one. 



> Israel defeated the Arab alliance twice (once wwhen it sufered a suprise attack!) without their nuke card (which assures peace or MAD). Egypt and Jordan aren't playing ball this time. Iraq can't save Syria's ass. Lebanon is impotent.
> 
> Let's not even mention Iran, they'd have to go through the USMC and US Army, and actively invade Iraq to get to Israel. That's the only way this scenario gets the Americans involved and the Iranians aren't that crazy.
> 
> Who'd march now? You can't fight a war without forces.



Seems Isreal is invincible , oh man, if only anything in life was gauranteed, I'm sure it's not the survival of Isreal, not under these conditions.



> Then why posit it?


What r u the post police?  I can post what i feel like that's within the forum rules, just as u keep cursing me out.



> Why? It serves as an effective diplomatic barginning chip, and under Camp David if we suspend it we have to do that countries like Egypt too, who really need it.



I'm sorry but only the US makes conditions on who it gives US foreign Aid to. If we want to suspend Camp David and give money to egypt it's our prerogative.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> your arrogance is commendable.  I have no idea who's gonna step in, no idea.



Then what was the point of mentioning it?  Why make a statement you can't back with either reasoning or evidence?



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I made an attempt to explain my view.  You don't want to buy it.  End of story.  Take it as a victory if u want, I have things to do with my time than hear you go on and on about how perfect Isreal is and nothing they do is wrong.



Let's not get childish here.  That NOS Guy has initiated a debate with you in a section of the forum where debates routinely occur.  To act offended when your ideas are attacked is to be offended at the point of this section of the forum.

Secondly, your story doesn't make much sense in light of history.  I'm not making things up, or demogaguing in order to support my view, I'm generalizing the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Before World War 1 the Palestinians attacked, before World War 2, they instigated riots and attacked Jews, in 1948 they attempted to destroy the newly declared state, and they have continued an agressive and hateful stance unto this day, with leaders of major Arabic nations saying they wish to "destroy Israel", and that the holocaust "never happened".

I'm not saying the Jews are perfect, but what I am saying is that the Arab community has no moral superiority.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> But seriously, I would like that US foreign aid suspended, seeing as how you've proven to me Isreal can do so well on it's own and there are other countries, like Lebanon now, that can use it alot more.



This is another thing that baffles me.  Why are you so angry that Israel receives assistance?  There's nothing morally or politically wrong with giving assistance to another nation.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Man this is messed up, I suppose Isreal can't accept a defeat , is that what you are saying ?  Seems the mid east will inevitably be nuked, bc I don't see that as being a fight that should ever be given up.



You do realize that the Israelis wouldn't mind not having to devote nearly 10% of their economy to their military right? Hell, the Israelis can and will make accords, but then some assholes launch rockets or rattle sabers and Israel is forced into these things.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Not to mention this is why Iran will continue researching it's nukes or some terrorist group will aquire one.



That'd be lovely. Israeli TMD still puts their strategic rocket forces years ahead of Iranian capability. If a terrorist nuke went off, that'd be a very quick one shot affair for the country who provided it.




			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Seems Isreal is invincible h man, if only anything in life was gauranteed, I'm sure it's not the survival of Isreal, not under these conditions.



Do you have evidence that the current status quo is being broken somehow?



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> What r u the post police?  I can post what i feel like that's within the forum rules, just as u keep cursing me out.



Asking you to provide evidence is not a crime.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but only the US makes conditions on who it gives US foreign Aid to. If we want to suspend Camp David and give money to egypt it's our prerogative.



Israel then has precedent to ignore it's treaty obligations if it feels like it, wanna give that a shot seeing as how that would only inflame the situation?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 19, 2006)

BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Erm about your Last comment... you shouldn't say that, because like I stated in the end, there are plenty of them who can. One of the reasons why Egypt and Syria lost previous wars (I think one of them was at the same time 2vs1) was because both of them couldn't cooperate.



Cooperation was only a major issue in the 1948 war. In the war of Egypt and Syria alone against Israel, that was the 1973 war and Egyptian/Syrian coordination was quite good. They planned a simaltaneous suprise attack. Yet by the end of that war, Israel was in a position to attack both Cairo and Damascus and the entire Egyptian 3rd army was trapped and encircled in the Sinai. Only the ceasefire saved the 3rd army from total destruction.



> Now it's a little bit different. For one, after Iraq the Arab nations have began to cooperate politically with one another and when it comes to Isreal it won't take much for them to decleare war at the same time. If that happens, Israel is going to have a tough fight in their hands, as they will be surrounded by all sides.



Israel has fought multi-front wars 4 times before and has won (often overwhelmingly). Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon on 3 major battlefronts in 6 days for instance.

Also, among the actual Arab nations the idea of destroying Israel has grown old. Egypt and Jordan have made peace and nations like the UAE, Oman, and Bahrain have business deals or informal relations with them. 

All but Syria has grown tired of the old and pointless struggle. They tried again and again to destroy Israel and each time it backfired and turned into a debacle. Keep in mind that with every Arab attempt to destroy Israel, it resulted in either Israel becoming militarily stronger or gaining more land then it did originally. The Arab realization that their wars were futile came in 1973 really. The Arabs held every advantage. They had vastly superior numbers, better equipment, suprise, and attacks from both the north and south. Yet Israel still won within a matter of weeks, and inflicted around 5x's more casualties on Arab forces then it endured.

These days for the Arabs Israel makes a good scapegoat. With Israel the various Arab governments can distract their poor and oppressed populations from the truth, that their governments are the ones responsible for their problems, not Israel.

Also, Israel checks what many Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Egypt, and others see as a greater threat, Iran and Hezbollah. Both are Shiite radical groups intent on turning all of the Middle East into another Iran. The Saudi and Jordanian royal families know what happened to the Shah of Iran, they don't want that to happen. Israel being the economic and military power of the region bares the brunt of radical Islam.

Notice that the FREAKIN ARAB LEAGUE condemned an attack on Israel. That was a remarkable political turn of events. It shows that they're very very uneasy about Hezbollah as well.



> Not to mention their big brother is kinda streched to its limits. USA won't be able to help Israel this time unless they decide to play with their Nukes.



America has never militarily helped Israel in any of its wars, even when the situation was far worse such as the 1948 or 1973 wars. I don't see why they would help over this situation.



> Their soliders are still trying to finish their war in Iraq and given how George W. "I am a Dumbass" Bush berated both Syria, Jordan and Iran as their possible 'next terrorist war' he'll most likely have to face all three of them at the same time.



XD Jordan? It's true that Jordan has a lot of radical Islamic elements within its society but the Jordanian government is not only oppressive enough to keep these elements down, but is pro-American and dependent on the West.



> Add that with more Al-Qaida/Hamas/Hesbollah going Gurilla on their ass and Taliban rising back in Afgan (which The US had claimed the war was over) and you got total depletion of American Armed forces.



All 3 of those said groups have proven themselves very ineffective and none are really furthering their objective in any way.

Al-Qaeda: Much of its leadership has been destroyed, it was scattered in Afghanistan and has been unable to do anything in retaliation against the U.S.

Hamas: Has been reduced to a pathetic state. Israel has wiped out most of their leadership and the group is unable to really do anything anymore. It's currently being decimated in Gaza as a result of their reckless attack on an Israeli military outpost. All Hamas is capable of in response are Quassam Rocket attacks on Israeli towns, which rarely do anything.

Hezbollah: Is being isolated and put under enormous pressure by the IDF currently. Their only method of response is by launching a (now limited) supply of inaccurate and overall crappy rockets on Israeli cities and hoping they do some damage (which the majority of time they don't).



> Oh did I mention of the Tension in the China sea? You know that as one of the biggest contributers of American Loans Japan is going to put a dagger in American ass if US just leave the North Koreans play with thier little drop dead nukie experiments. Which could also lead them a confrontation with China, because you know that as soon as the WWIII starts in the Middle East, NK will either try to throw one on Japan or try to conquor South Korea. Now I know what you are thinking, how the hell would they do it, they got barely any food to eat? Well this is the part were the answer happens to be : "because they will starve eitherway" so for a fanatic like the one that rules NK it's a do-or-die war, where if they do and get a hold of SK they become rich again and if they don't he can do a Saddam on us and go in hiding. Note I am not saying that China will support NK in the invasion, they wont, they aren't dumb. But they will hold an iron fist if anyone tries to invade NK, thus your proverbial stalemate.



The fact that America won't become directly military involved in this matter makes most of that void. However, I would like to point out that:

A north korean invasion of south korea would be a TOTAL North Korean disaster. There are 600,000 well armed and trained South Korean and 27,000 even more well armed and trained Americans along a defensive line that has been constantly upgraded since 1953. Also, they would have to cross the worlds largest minefield and face TOTAL American and South Korean naval and air superiority. They would get blown away in a matter of days if they tried to invade.

The current condition of the North Korean military is pretty sad. They operate rusty old equipment and their last battle experience dates back to the 1950's.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

bacon said:
			
		

> Let's not get childish here. That NOS Guy has initiated a debate with you in a section of the forum where debates routinely occur. To act offended when your ideas are attacked is to be offended at the point of this section of the forum.



Besides him there are other posters who have views different from mine and are MORE POLITE, so it's worth it to end my dialouge with him as i see fit.  
And when a person says " I don't know...", that usually means end of story.  I won't comment beyond the things I don't know.



			
				bacon said:
			
		

> This is another thing that baffles me. Why are you so angry that Israel receives assistance? There's nothing morally or politically wrong with giving assistance to another nation.



don't paint me as angry.  It's been proven very well in threads here that Isreal can function perfectly without US aid.  There's something morally wrong with giving a nation help that doesn't need it when other nations desperately need it.



			
				nosguy said:
			
		

> Israel then has precedent to ignore it's treaty obligations if it feels like it, wanna give that a shot seeing as how that would only inflame the situation?



Isreal can ignore whatever treaties it feels like, like I said they are just paper and promises.  Whoever accepts a promise expecting it to be fulfilled unconditionally is somewhat a fool.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> And when a person says " I don't know...", that usually means end of story.  I won't comment beyond the things I don't know.



Then why even begin to insinuate it? A concession is required. Now.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> don't paint me as angry.  It's been proven very well in threads here that Isreal can function perfectly without US aid. There's something morally wrong with giving a nation help that doesn't need it when other nations desperately need it.



If Israel can't function without it why withdraw it under your own logic, since they desperately need it?

I don't think you understand the point of "political bargaining chips."



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Isreal can ignore whatever treaties it feels like, like I said they are just paper and promises.  Whoever accepts a promise expecting it to be fulfilled unconditionally is somewhat a fool.



Oh, it _can_, but a cosmic sky donkey _can_ land in my yard. What is required is proof of treaty violations before you can say what Israel can/will realistically do.

One needs historical precendent, and there is none.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 19, 2006)

> Oh, it can, but a cosmic sky donkey can land in my yard. What is required is proof of treaty violations before you can say what Israel can/will realistically do.
> 
> One needs historical precendent, and there is none.



haha, u just don't get it....



> I don't think you understand the point of "political bargaining chips."



i believe in practical things, not political things.  If Isreal doesn't need the money US shouldn't give it to them.  Forget about bargaining chips, it's not my concern.




> Then why even begin to insinuate it? A concession is required. Now.



I can say whatever i want, u get no concession!!


----------



## Zodd (Jul 19, 2006)

I love this thread. The defenders of Israel keep bringing up past events to cover up the fact that they have no answer to the basic question: Why are people in Lebanon being killed when they are innocent and have no ties to Hizb'Allah? 

Lebanon is partially Christian, what ties do they have to "radical" Islam? What ties do foreigners have to Hizb'Allah, like the Canadian family that was killed? It can't be answered. What about the targeting of bridges, overpasses, sewer systems, and power plants? Is that a legitimate target? Now the death toll has reached 300 in Lebanon, with a report of 2 Hizb'Allah deaths (today). It's fairly obvious that collective punishment is being employed here. The above targets have no strategic value. No one is launching long range rockets out of the sewer. 

One man in Munich said it well, when you put people in a cage, and the animal misbehaves, it is natural for spectators to question the conditions within the cage. I see three prominent (some might say radical) right wing conservatives have come out questioning Israel's use of force: , , and Pat Buchanan. To give you an idea, Michael Savage claims that he wants the Sunni Triangle leveled and to go to war with Iran, he's no leftist.


----------



## BattousaiMS (Jul 19, 2006)

baconbits said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree less with this narrative.  It seems you are are either uninformed or intentionally neglected to mention the fact that Arabs attacked the Jews, unprovoked, at least three major times before World War 2.  Secondly, you act as if Israel went mad and started attacking the Middle East.  This is not the case as the 1948 war was instigated by the Arab forces.
> 
> So lets not act as if there is some type of moral neutrality or that Israel is in the wrong.  If you go through every major section of history you see the Palestinians instigating conflict with the intent to destroy Israel.  You can't say the same for Israel, or Palestine would be destroyed.  What you do see is the occasional plea for peace, which is soon taken advantage of by the Palestinians.



Erm I never said they were kissing the jews. Yes Arabs did attack zionists, but most of the reasons weren't specifically because they were jews, it was a matter of land and jobs, which I already talked about above. There was once I think a pasha or two who actually hunted jews out during the 800s but still majority of them accepted the jews and allowed them to live in the land without much trouble.

I never said Isreal was the wrong party. What I said was that some of their actions lead to increase of hatred. Their situation was somewhat understandable, they were being berated in europe and tried to be protective of thier own in their new relocation, but they over did it a bit and that is lead the palestanians to become more hostile. Also don't give the Plaestine wanted to destroy Israel crap it was reciprocal. They were kingdoms back then so obviously they want destory each other, thats what kingdoms in the old days did. 

I also didn't say they were mad and they attacked the middle-east. I said they were cocky. Most of those wars were started by both sides and Isreal took their advantages and won. That's not the problem. The problem is that you can't grab a land and then try to segregate and push off the people out of their lands for your own and hope that everything will be fine and dandy. There is no solution to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict apart disimissle of both Israel and Palestine and the formation of one sole country that would be controlled by both groups.

Look at it this way, say Israel whips off all the Palestinians, they will then get whiped out by all the Arab nations around them. The palestinians on the other hand can't whip out the Israelis either, since their are 10+ Million jews elsewhere and most of them have enough money to comeback and whip them out on their turn. It's a dead lock. The only way for them to work is to break down both governments and form a new government with both sides representing it. By now the proportion should be much more equal then in the 40's, so they wouldn't have problems democratically. But that is only a dream because both sides have become extremists. Palestinians via Hamas want to exterminate Israel, while Israel with it's Radical leader like Sharon (who should have been taken to War Crime tribunals for some of his atrocities while he was a general) want to exterminate the Palestinians of their land.



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Bullshit, in '67 they were allied and in '73 they acted _in concert_ with each other in suprise attacks.
> 
> You are aware that if it looks like Israel is about to be crushed Israel plays it's nuke card right? Of course, this assumes Arab armies can beat the Israelis in conventional styles.
> 
> ...



First, they were allies by name in the first one. The second one they were allies and had cooperation but by that time Israel had a sophisticalted military and was greatly by the US technologically. They had F-15s under their services, something that at that time (and even today) was only a US war machine. They built their tank based on American tank technology (these guys really worked hard in school to gain any adavanced technological knowledge they could). They were simply far advanced. On the other side, the Egyptians and Syrians had only number and few tactical area advantages. So before you go and say Israel did it by themselves don't forget who gave them the technological help first.

Erm, Iran can simply send their troops via Syria and Jordan (they already do). So no Iran doesn't have do go trough USMC or any US what so ever. Second if this goes to War, Americans won't able to show much of their finger. Their forces are stuck in Iraq and Afganistan. Their M-E Bases are in Arab nations. Not to mention that most likely if this starts Saudi and the Oil countries will join in too and let's just say America needs it Oil. 

Third, China may have backed out of supporting any NK offenses but they certainly didn't when it came to Invashion of NK. Guess why the latest saction deal proposed by Japan was vetoed by China and Russia? It was stated that if NK didn't accept it would be invaded.

Finally, SK amry is better, but it's NK who got the nukes. One Nukein the hand of a fanatic > Better then one better conventional army.

That is a possible scenario sure it looks abit sureal, but people thought WWII was sureal too till it hit them right in the face.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 19, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> I love this thread. The defenders of Israel keep bringing up past events to cover up the fact that they have no answer to the basic question: Why are people in Lebanon being killed when they are innocent and have no ties to Hizb'Allah?
> 
> Lebanon is partially Christian, what ties do they have to "radical" Islam? What ties do foreigners have to Hizb'Allah, like the Canadian family that was killed? It can't be answered. What about the targeting of bridges, overpasses, sewer systems, and power plants? Is that a legitimate target? Now the death toll has reached 300 in Lebanon, without a report of a single Hizb'Allah death (that I've seen). It's fairly obvious that collective punishment is being employed here. The above targets have no strategic value. No one is launching long range rockets out of the sewer.
> 
> One man in Munich said it well, when you put people in a cage, and the animal misbehaves, it is natural for spectators to question the conditions within the cage. I see three prominent (some might say radical) right wing conservatives have come out questioning Israel's use of force: , , and Pat Buchanan. To give you an idea, Michael Savage claims that he wants the Sunni Triangle leveled and to go to war with Iran, he's no leftist.




I agree that we should question some of the targets Israel has hammered away against. However i think its been proved that Hezbollah has hidden its weapons and rocket lauchers among civilian property. Which of course is great propaganda material when Israel deliberately bomb "civilians".

Another thing is your continiuing stress that no Hezbollah fighters have been killed. First, why do you believe that Hezbollah would ever admit candidly their casualty reports? and second, according to Israeli sources an estimated 50% of their weapons have been destroyed by Israel. Is it logical to assume that there is no fatalities among the members stationed at rocket ramps? Thirdly most Hezbollah members mix with the average civilian population and are unlikely to show of anything that may identify them as Hezbollah fighters. So for all we know several of the 300 supposedly civilians killed might avtually be fighters after all. 

And not to forget. Hezbollah was the one who made a unprovoced attack on Israeli territory in the first place. And since people claim that the Lebanese government has no control over them then who are going to reign these militants in? Of course the one who was assaulted by them. To think that Israel would just ignore such outright aggresion strains beyond belief for me. 

So in order to clear up any misunderstandings, Zodd. Are you only against the Israeli retaliations because they many civilians are killed or would you be against it even if Israel only targeted Hezbollah related institusions and it would have minimum effect on civilians?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 19, 2006)

Hezbollah's taken casualties, but so far only 5 have been confirmed.

One sees a bit of a problem with Hezbollah reporting in the following 2 instances:

1.)The well known incident where Israel destroyed a Hezbollah convoy carrying a long range missle. Hezbollah reported no casualties here despite the fact that the convoy was moving, and it was hit multiple times by Israeli aircraft which caused all the missles on the vehicles to explode.

2.)There are multiple videos being shown on CNN, MSNBC, Israeli media, Whoever that show Israeli aircraft cameras bombing rocket sites mere seconds after they've launched rockets.

Morale is one of the few weapons Hezbollah has. It's obvious they want to hide their loses as much as possible while stressing Lebanese civilian casualties in order to keep their morale up.

But regardless of this fact, Hezbollah is being put in a bad situation strategically. They're being isolated with no means of re-supply, can no longer organize or base themselves effectively without being bombed, are facing international condemnation from the likes of even the Arab league, and worst of all are going through their rocket supply at a very fast rate. If this becomes a bombardment war of attrition (which it seems to be) Hezbollah will lose their rocket supply in the course of a few months at this rate and that's it for them. 

Rocketing Israeli cities is the only thing they can really do, it's a militarily ineffective tactic but Hezbollah has no other options. While Israel is able to strike anywhere at will, the vast majority of Hezbollah's rockets do nothing and they're causing little damage. After firing some 2,000 all they've managed to kill 14 civilians, 2 of which were Arab children. We also have the Israeli military reporting that they've destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's rocket supply, meaing the situation for them is even far worse. I understand most will deny this, but it was a military estimated given by the IDF to the Olmert cabinet. 

So if Hezbollah wishes to continue this they are faced with 2 options:

1.)Reduce their rocket fire. Of course, the vast majority of Hezbollah rockets don't do any damage and this means their chances of killing civilians will become even less.

2.)They continue at their current rate and run out of rockets, and now are facing daily bombardment by the IDF with no means of responding. The conflict is now completely 1 sided. Their only other option would be to break through the Israeli defenses along the northern border. But in open conventional combat against a prepared IDF, the guerilla fighters would get massacred.

Yes, With a good 9,000 rockets (around 4,000-5,000 if you believe the Israeli military report) left Hezbollah will probably get "lucky" eventually and hit some place killing 25 civilians, but even so the tactic of launching these limited and very inaccurate supply of rockets achieves little militarily for them.

We see Hezbollah slowly being isolated both militarily and politically and quickly running out of options, not even looking at the body count.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 19, 2006)

BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> First, they were allies by name in the first one. The second one they were allies and had cooperation but by that time Israel had a sophisticalted military and was greatly by the US technologically.



The fact that they had extensive Soviet support and suprise does nothing to dent this?



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> They had F-15s under their services, something that at that time (and even today) was only a US war machine.



Source. Now. Only F-4s were operated during '73. Hell, the Eagle hadn't even flown at that point.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> They built their tank based on American tank technology (these guys really worked hard in school to gain any adavanced technological knowledge they could).



The Merkeva wasn't out then (1977). The primiere tanks of the IDF were the Centurion, M48, and M60 tanks.

of course, your notion that IDF tech is gained from America is something new. The Merkeva is a completely different tank then the M1 Abrams, a quick glance at design philosophies/use shows that.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> On the other side, the Egyptians and Syrians had only number and few tactical area advantages. So before you go and say Israel did it by themselves don't forget who gave them the technological help first.



This is laughable. Who provided the Arabs with a deluge of free modern equipment? Nevermind the fact you're claiming weapons systems that weren't even invented yet were fielded by the Israelis.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Erm, Iran can simply send their troops via Syria and Jordan (they already do). So no Iran doesn't have do go trough USMC or any US what so ever. Second if this goes to War, Americans won't able to show much of their finger. Their forces are stuck in Iraq and Afganistan. Their M-E Bases are in Arab nations. Not to mention that most likely if this starts Saudi and the Oil countries will join in too and let's just say America needs it Oil.



Jordan doesn't want to get into a fight with Israel, in fact that's been their history, they sought peace first. 

Nevermind that Iranian forces have to go through Iraq to reach other countries (you have looked at a map right?). Then there's the fact that the Syrian front favors defensive and superior firepower, which the IDF has in spades.

Your cunning plan is failing left and right here.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Third, China may have backed out of supporting any NK offenses but they certainly didn't when it came to Invashion of NK. Guess why the latest saction deal proposed by Japan was vetoed by China and Russia? It was stated that if NK didn't accept it would be invaded.



Oh shock, they don't want a war on their border, does that mean they'll throw their lot with the DPRK and sacrifice their most valuable trading partners with it? Of course not.

Mao no longer lives.



			
				BattousaiMS said:
			
		

> Finally, SK amry is better, but it's NK who got the nukes. One Nukein the hand of a fanatic > Better then one better conventional army.



You do realize that invites a glassing of the DPRK right? The Great Leader realizes this. Of course, your insane notion that one nuke equals the advantage belies your inexperience with military matters.

Oh sure, it can do damage, but it's hardly the equalizer you make it out to be.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 20, 2006)

I have to admit, the palestinian situation can't be that desperate because they haven't resorted to putting m-16's and rocket launchers in the kids hands, like is done in Africa and Haiti.  

When that happens it will be a real ugly scene....


----------



## Zodd (Jul 20, 2006)

Jin-E said:
			
		

> I agree that we should question some of the targets Israel has hammered away against. However...
> 
> And not to forget. Hezbollah was the one who made a unprovoced attack on Israeli territory in the first place. And since people claim that the Lebanese government has no control over them then who are going to reign these militants in? Of course the one who was assaulted by them. To think that Israel would just ignore such outright aggresion strains beyond belief for me.
> 
> So in order to clear up any misunderstandings, Zodd. Are you only against the Israeli retaliations because they many civilians are killed or would you be against it even if Israel only targeted Hezbollah related institusions and it would have minimum effect on civilians?



I have some issues with this statement. You say we should question Israeli targets, however- there is no however when you're talking about slaughtering innocents. You can't say "however," the fact is this: it is and it needs to stop. Not however. Either you agree with it or you do not. Rationalization is not needed: you are either on the moral side of this argument or the hypocritical (assuming you dislike terrorism). 

Another universal truth here: An unprovoked attack by Hizb'Allah (killing one) can't justify a reaction of unprovoked attacks on civilians (killing hundreds). What if an inner-city gang from Los Angeles killed one, does that justify the killing of 300 unrelated people in the inner city? What if one Mexican attacked and killed one American on US soil and retreated to Juarez, does that justify the killing of 300 in Juarez? Reasonable people would answer "no," yet hypocritically praise Israel's response even though it is identical. 

I would have absolutely no problem if Israel fought Hizb'Allah only. Also, let me point out that the AP and others have had little difficulty quantifying a body count in Iraq, which is far more unstable than Lebanon. And they did not have problems doing this with at least one incident, so I don't think Hizb'Allah is being "decimated" as (predictably) people like Meg claim. In fact, an analysis by one Israeli paper claims the opposite. 
perhaps?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 20, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> haha, u just don't get it....



Yes, it would appear I'm not privy to some sort of bastion of knowledge you have that Israel disregards it's treaties. The ball's still in your court, and you've yet to support your statement.




			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> i believe in practical things, not political things.  If Isreal doesn't need the money US shouldn't give it to them.  Forget about bargaining chips, it's not my concern.



Obviously a master of interntional relations and cunning. It quickly becomes your concern when the US can't get a war weary Israel to the table.

Think of it as an insurance policy if anything.



			
				narutosimpson said:
			
		

> I can say whatever i want, u get no concession!!



Is this a stated admission that you refuse to yeild no matter what? If it is I scarcely think it news, after reality has pimpslapped you in this thread. Several times.


----------



## anime_junkie_1821 (Jul 20, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Radical, don't sugar-coat this, you're a damn racist. .



 we're all racist in some way. Hasnt there been a time when your walking down the street and  see a black, white, middle easter,etc  looking person and you got nrevous and walked faster? Hell, i know i have and alot of times i dont relize that im doing it, and i hatte that about myself.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 20, 2006)

anime_junkie_1821 said:
			
		

> we're all racist in some way. Hasnt there been a time when your walking down the street and  see a black, white, middle easter,etc  looking person and you got nrevous and walked faster? Hell, i know i have and alot of times i dont relize that im doing it, and i hatte that about myself.


yeah, u should probably fix that...sounds pretty bad. need help?


*Spoiler*: _spoiler for animejunkie, pm me when u open it!_ 



 smacks the crap out of u !!


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 20, 2006)

anime_junkie_1821 said:
			
		

> we're all racist in some way. Hasnt there been a time when your walking down the street and  see a black, white, middle easter,etc  looking person and you got nrevous and walked faster? Hell, i know i have and alot of times i dont relize that im doing it, and i hatte that about myself.



I'm going to do two things for you junkie. I'm going to answer this question and I'm also going to explain the difference between this scenario and the blatant ignorant racism displayed before.

If I saw a Black, White or Middle-Eastern person walking, I'd continue on my way. That's one man, I can bleed but so can he. Why should I fear one man walking on a street because of the colour of his skin? The answer is I shouldn't.

Now, if I saw a group of men who were obviously up to no good, regardless of colour, as awesome and phenomenal as I am, I would avoid confrontation.



Now onto the second part. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend the difference between worrying about a persons safety due to his or her own ignorance and this shit.


Go figure. 






------------------------------------------------------------------------






*And to add to topic.* There is no excuse for what happening. 300+ innocent Lebanese dead, one-third of who were children and the displacement of 500'000 civilians not forgetting the fact that the countries infrastructure is getting raped, because of something the government of Lebanon had no control over. In the words of Kofi Annan it was an excessive use of force. 

People are talking about Lebanon breaking UN resolutions and Israel acting upon them, Israel themselves have an illustrious history of ignoring UN resolutions. So if the death of 300+ innocent (in which one-third are children), having 500'000 of your civilians displaced and the ongoing rape of your infrastructure are justified for your lack of compliance in a single UN resolution in which you and the US government admit, have no control over; explain what the breaches in the following link would equate to.

A couple of UN resolutions Israel felt it should ignore.

Source from which the listings were compiled: 


_"This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation."_


No justification.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 20, 2006)

um, if it hasn't been mentioned already that isreali blockade on Beirut port is also illegal under UN charter.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 20, 2006)

Jedi Mind Tricks said:
			
		

> Snip on UN resolutions



For your UN resolution statement, it's entirely correct. Of course, let's note some things like:

In reference to why no action has been taken because of resolution breaches:

_The British government says that's because many of the resolutions demand action from both Israel and the Palestinians. So Israel can't be singled out as the only state in breach of them. _



We note a key thing here. One is that most of the resolutions are not as you paint them (sole Israeli violation). If that was not your intention, I apologize, but the intent of your source is rather pointing towards demonizing Israel.

Another thing is more then a few of them are in reference to the cross-border raids that happened by both sides in the early years of the Israeli state. Say what you will about their legality (they are in fact illegal under normal circumstances, make no mistake), a de facto state of war existed at that point. Israeli border raids were often in _response_ to Arab raids. 

I'm not trying to whitewash either side here, but let's be real.

Then there's the vast amount of resolutions against the 1982-2000 Lebanon incursion. Notice most of them call for "immediate" rather then eventual disengagement (which the Israelis did). I don't care who you are, it's damn hard to just up and leave.

Especially when the entire raison d'etre was the fact that elements in Lebanon were shelling Israel proper (funny that) and Israel responded trying to secure the safety of it's citizens. Of course, Israel pounds the shit out of Lebanon and doesn't invade and it's still wrong. 

I enjoy the fact that people labor under this idea that it's possible to fight a war without civilian casulties. They chide Israel for killing a couple hundred civilians accidentally when trying to pound a terrorist group (a very large one) into submission but expect people to excuse the fact that Hezbollah attacks civilian targets without regard for military worth as a matter of operational record.

If the IDF wanted to do a terror bombing campaign there would be no Beirut. Does this excuse the severity of the bombing? No. I think hitting roads and power stations can be justifiable, but sewers and such? Overkill.

This entire situation would not exist without Hezbollah pulling this crap. Jordan is a weak neighbour but I don't see Israel pounding them. That's because they have the good sense not to poke a big guard dog with a stick.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 20, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Hezbollah's taken casualties, but so far only 5 have been confirmed.
> 
> One sees a bit of a problem with Hezbollah reporting in the following 2 instances:
> 
> ...


Awesome.  Great news.  Now maybe you could have done that by just bombing Hezbollah targets insetad of THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY OF LEBANON.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 21, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Jedi Mind Tricks said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Snip on UN resolutions


Please stop doing that.



			
				That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Israeli border raids were often in _response_ to Arab raids.


Which were in response to Israeli raids, which were in response to Arab raids, which were in response to Israeli raids...



> I enjoy the fact that people labor under this idea that it's possible to fight a war without civilian casulties. They chide Israel for killing a couple hundred civilians accidentally when trying to pound a terrorist group (a very large one) into submission but expect people to excuse the fact that Hezbollah attacks civilian targets without regard for military worth as a matter of operational record.


Quite true, and something I touch on often in debates such as the Iraq war (it's aggravating as hell when people say one casualty is too many, or one incidence of abuse is grounds for abolishing war), although it far from excuses bombing critical elements of the state of Lebanon that had nothing to do with Hezbollah, which you touch on...


> If the IDF wanted to do a terror bombing campaign there would be no Beirut. Does this excuse the severity of the bombing? No. I think hitting roads and power stations can be justifiable, but sewers and such? Overkill.


And suddenly, I like you.  I disagree with the justifiability of bombing such things as roads, airports, and power stations, but if you admit the attack is overkill, we aren't going to have much of a difference of opinion here.



> This entire situation would not exist without Hezbollah pulling this crap. Jordan is a weak neighbour but I don't see Israel pounding them. That's because they have the good sense not to poke a big guard dog with a stick.


The situation would also not exist if Israel had not used excessive force against the entire country of Lebanon.  If a kid pokes his older brother with a stick and gets walloped in the face, does Mom blame the younger one?  There's more than enough blame to go around.  Hezbollah's attack was, like most terrorist attacks on Israel, moronic, but Israel's response was, like most responses by Israel, entirely out of line.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 21, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Please stop doing that.



Trying to cut down on space.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Which were in response to Israeli raids, which were in response to Arab raids, which were in response to Israeli raids...



No, Arab infiltrators were the primary cause of the entire back-and-forth attacks in the early years. Frontier Guard was established in trying to prevent that from happening, after the attacks still presisted counter-raids started occuring.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Quite true, and something I touch on often in debates such as the Iraq war (it's aggravating as hell when people say one casualty is too many, or one incidence of abuse is grounds for abolishing war), although it far from excuses bombing critical elements of the state of Lebanon that had nothing to do with Hezbollah, which you touch on...



Though the fact that Hezbollah is recognized and still not touched by the Lebanonese government (who very well could ask for outside help) still denotes a massive flaw in the current system. 

It's not unheard of in international history that one nation having a lawless border with another country is attacked for allowing the situation to presist unabated.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> And suddenly, I like you.  I disagree with the justifiability of bombing such things as roads, airports, and power stations, but if you admit the attack is overkill, we aren't going to have much of a difference of opinion here.



I hate to make an unneccessary opponent, but I've noted portions of the attack have been overkill, which erodes my confidence that this will end anytime soon.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> The situation would also not exist if Israel had not used excessive force against the entire country of Lebanon.



Remember, Hezbollah started launching rocket/artillery attacks previous to the 80s. The original invasion was in response to this.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> If a kid pokes his older brother with a stick and gets walloped in the face, does Mom blame the younger one?  There's more than enough blame to go around. Hezbollah's attack was, like most terrorist attacks on Israel, moronic, but Israel's response was, like most responses by Israel, entirely out of line.



This is an interestingly analogy actually. We note that there is still enough blame to go around, but one can only push people so far. 

To use personal ancedote I grew up in the middle of two brothers, this makes me the target often. When we were younger my younger brother would often poke me or do that innane shit younger brothers do. One day after I warned him moe then a few times I socked him in the face. Incidentally, he didn't touch me for a good long while after that.

We note that on over-riding amount of force can be more effective then standard measures in the case of a particarly stupid foe.

_BUT_ the problem that the Israeli reaction is bordering on vindictive at times, not concentrating on ending it, which makes the situation so much more complex and infinately gray.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 21, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> We note that on over-riding amount of force can be more effective then standard measures in the case of a particarly stupid foe.


Don't feel like typing a long response now, maybe later.  I'm just going to respond to this.

You seem to want to discuss the strategic implications of this attack.  There is absolutely no doubt that bombing the crap out of Lebanon could not possibly have a worse outcome for Israel than just bombing Hezbollah targets.  Lebanon can't (or won't) counterattack, and the most anyone else is going to do is tell Israel to stop bombing them.  So Israel cannot lose anything by bombing Lebanon.  From the POV of Israel, it is strategically perfect.

However, we have to consider what Israel has gained by bombing the crap out of Lebanon versus what Lebanon and its people have lost by the bombing out of the crap of Lebanon.  Israel has gained... let's see... nothing.  Bombing power stations and airports and overpasses and sewage systems has done Israel no good against Hezbollah.  Nobody in Hezbollah has been scared away because they bombed the sewage system.  No rockets have gotten stuck in traffic behind a bombed-out bridge on the way to Israel.  Israel has gained nothing except by direct attacks on Hezbollah, to which I am not opposed.  Lebanon has lost its ability to handle commercial air traffic (more importantly out than in; the easiest way to get out of the Middle East if you're there from another country is by air), cannot fully produce and distribute electricity necessary to people and businesses, is having traffic problems with vehicles unable to use critical routes (ground transportation also being the other way to get out of the Middle East), and has sanitation problems.  The people of Lebanon probably aren't really enjoying this very much.
In other words, due to the bombing of non-Hezbollah targets, Lebanon is having major problems, and Israel has gained... nothing.  Therefore, Israel shouldn't have been bombing non-Hezbollah targets and should not be continuing to bomb non-Hezbollah targets.

Looks like I ended up writing a fair amount anyway.  Bah.


----------



## niko (Jul 21, 2006)

A random Australian having his share of _reasonable_ thoughts on the war between Lebanon and Isreal. Too funny.

_And 3
_

How un-informative can he get? Seriously.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 21, 2006)

Isn't it funny that you could save like 100000 lives a day with the money that all  those bombs cost?

But why think about that, lets bomb other territories.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 21, 2006)

JMT said:
			
		

> (It would also give me a good enough reason, to verbally tear him apart.)


b-b-but why... ;_;


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 21, 2006)

Zakuzaru said:
			
		

> Isn't it funny that you could save like 100000 lives a day with the money that all  those bombs cost?
> 
> But why think about that, lets bomb other territories.


Um.  You really couldn't, but thanks.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 21, 2006)

Zakuzaru said:
			
		

> Isn't it funny that you could save like 100000 lives a day with the money that all  those bombs cost?
> 
> But why think about that, lets bomb other territories.



24,000 die every day due to hunger and hunger-related causes. That's eight 9/11's every day. I'm sure Israel manages to spend at least one million dollars per day of missiles, bombs, jet fuel, etc in Lebanon. That's like 40+ dollars per day, which would feed the starving for a month. Israel and the US would defeat far more terrorists this way than with weapons.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 21, 2006)

Zodd said:
			
		

> 24,000 die every day due to hunger and hunger-related causes. That's eight 9/11's every day. I'm sure Israel manages to spend at least one million dollars per day of missiles, bombs, jet fuel, etc in Lebanon. That's like 40+ dollars per day, which would feed the starving for a month. Israel and the US would defeat far more terrorists this way than with weapons.


aah but
:whisper some governments want the deaths of stagnant neither reactive or proactive groups. Considered a burden on earth. 'They have no money to buy our food or medication... so letem die the fucktards.'
Although they live in hunger they still reproduce, helping them (keeping them alive) will make them reproduce even more... how will they be financed then? i can give a portion of my economy as aid, but i can only do so for so long and in certain quantities. I will actually create more hunger death and disease in the future if i support them in the present. 

What can be done is give them sex/general education as i help feed them, only problem is who's willing to go though with all this besides religious NGO's who don't have a large influence and with religious motivation?
In other words... just let it go, the world is ugly... i thank god everyday for the position i am in and i hope that someday ill be able to better what i have influence on.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 21, 2006)

So today, it seems the prospect of a ground invasion are forming. Israeli troops are massing along the border, and over the last 2 days fighting 4 Israeli's soldiers and around 100 Hezbollah have been killed during Israeli probing raids on the area.



Also, Israel is warning hundreds of thousands of residents in southern Lebanon to leave in order to avoid civilian casualties.

My prediction would be if this occurs, the invasion will advance to the point of the Litani river and then create a buffer zone. Stopping at the Litani would not only put Haifa out of range, but the river presents good ground for the creation of a defensive line.

But most amazing of all...The Lebanese government is saying that if Israel invades the south, Lebanon will fight them. So Lebanon is supposedly so weak that they can't move troops to the south of the country and disarm a militia, but they feel confident in taking on the regional power? The last thing Lebanon needs is to have what little military power they possess wiped out by Israel (because as of this point, the Lebanese army has been mostly untouched by Israel).


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 21, 2006)

my friends family is still stuck in lebanon though he returned last week.  His wife and kids are stuck there and have been having immense difficulty getting out.  Being that it's his little kids they are already traumatized by fear of getting killed.  He's pretty down about it and he's a grown man.


----------



## jdama (Jul 21, 2006)

Yoroshiku minna, 1st post.

I live in Lebanon, and though this last odd week has been harrowing, I think the worst is yet to come for us here, and things will never be the same again. 

All conspiracy theories aside, there is a real danger of sectarian feuds erupting after this bullshit war is over, as the so-called "balance of power" in the sectarian hierarchy of the country is being thoroughly shaken. If you think Hezb is an extremist group, I fear for future possibilities if the "Shia of Lebanon" (pardon the generalization) get further marginalized and impoverished after this war, regardless of its outcome. The less you got, the crazier you get.

Hope peole start negotiating and swapping hostages etc. rather than swapping missiles and innocents. Nobody wants that.

Ijou da.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 21, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> 100 Hezbollah have been killed during Israeli probing raids on the area.


Hezzbolah is the new word for civilians there right? 

And jdama, ana min alKuwait. As far as the media has shown there is no sign of of internal struggle, but i am fearing that this is gonna be the last wars alll over again. A Lebanese friend of mine told me that the "Christians are really angered by the Shiets". I dunno what you guys are planning to do, but look at Iraq now... the US has fucked it in the ass and now it's in chaos, you guys better not do the same (i realise i am in no position to preach, but this feeling of helplesness makes me obligated to do what i can... in this case give usless advice, damn now i am to depressed... i am gonna go sleep


----------



## mgrace (Jul 21, 2006)

Watching the news I feel like I'm being lied to when I see Israeli bombs hit civilian targets...... 
I just worry about those who are in Lebanon.... and believe you me there are over 4,000 australian citizens living there..... and I'm grateful that now they are being transported out but what about those left behind...

I hear many are moving to the north of Lebanon where mainly Christian Lebanese live in the mountains...... I hear business is going well in the north while the south is being bombed


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 21, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> You seem to want to discuss the strategic implications of this attack.  There is absolutely no doubt that bombing the crap out of Lebanon could not possibly have a worse outcome for Israel than just bombing Hezbollah targets.  Lebanon can't (or won't) counterattack, and the most anyone else is going to do is tell Israel to stop bombing them.  So Israel cannot lose anything by bombing Lebanon.  From the POV of Israel, it is strategically perfect.



Except it's a veritable PR minefield. If anyone plans a campaign of bombing without taking into effect of the world media they're just stupid or ignorant of one of the most powerful tools of warfare coming of age in the late 20th century/early 21st.

Israel has quite a lot to lose in whatever international political capital it has.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> However, we have to consider what Israel has gained by bombing the crap out of Lebanon versus what Lebanon and its people have lost by the bombing out of the crap of Lebanon.  Israel has gained... let's see... nothing.



Conversely one could say that it's certaintly been too little time to really look at ramifications and snap calls are precisely that. There's also the argument that Hezbollah has had a lot of material go poof, which is a strategic setback.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Bombing power stations and airports and overpasses and sewage systems has done Israel no good against Hezbollah.  Nobody in Hezbollah has been scared away because they bombed the sewage system.  No rockets have gotten stuck in traffic behind a bombed-out bridge on the way to Israel.



Well, when you note that airports, roads, and ports are all invovled with the importation and distrubution of said rockets all Hezbollah has to work with is field stocks which can and will grow increasingly scarce. Power and such are needed to maximize fighting poential. Without it an enemy is fighting at reduced capacity.

Look at the Egyptian and Syrian SAM networks in 1973 for evidence of that principle in action.

Once again, some targets boggle the mind like said sewers.


----------



## Zodd (Jul 21, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> Hezzbolah is the new word for civilians there right?
> 
> And jdama, ana min alKuwait. As far as the media has shown there is no sign of of internal struggle, but i am fearing that this is gonna be the last wars alll over again. A Lebanese friend of mine told me that the "Christians are really angered by the Shiets". I dunno what you guys are planning to do, but look at Iraq now... the US has fucked it in the ass and now it's in chaos, you guys better not do the same (i realise i am in no position to preach, but this feeling of helplesness makes me obligated to do what i can... in this case give usless advice, damn now i am to depressed... i am gonna go sleep




100 Hizb'Allah dead! *

*According to Daniel Halutz


----------



## jdama (Jul 21, 2006)

I7tiramatna lil Kuwait u sha3buha, ya akhi (trans. mad respect to Kuwait, bro).

Indeed, most Lebanese really hate eachother, I am afraid to say. I hate to admit that we have a huge "ignorance problem" here that makes some people feel that "other" people are "non-people". Unfortunately, and most obviously, although the Lebanese are quite good at it, they don't hold the exclusive rights to being short-sighted and dehumanizing.

The war in Iraq draws many a painful paralell to the Lebanese Civil War of the last century, which I think is still going on here, but without as much weaponry. The sectarian (ta2ifi) rifts in the Middle East are getting taken advantage of to weaken the Arabs, leading to tragic and violent consequences. All these problems are similar and interconnected. When will we learn? 

I think it is sad but fair to say that it's "evolve or die", I guess.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 22, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Except it's a veritable PR minefield. If anyone plans a campaign of bombing without taking into effect of the world media they're just stupid or ignorant of one of the most powerful tools of warfare coming of age in the late 20th century/early 21st.
> 
> Israel has quite a lot to lose in whatever international political capital it has.


The US's support isn't going to change.  Besides the US, who, exactly, likes Israel?  I'm thinking nobody.  They don't really have many enemies left to make.  The only ones they can make angry enough to smack them in the face are the Arab countries, all of which are, militarily, quite inferior to Israel.



> Conversely one could say that it's certaintly been too little time to really look at ramifications and snap calls are precisely that. There's also the argument that Hezbollah has had a lot of material go poof, which is a strategic setback.


That material went poof because of Israel bombing Hezbollah supplies, not bridges and airports and sewage systems and power stations and God knows what else.



> Well, when you note that airports, roads, and ports are all invovled with the importation and distrubution of said rockets all Hezbollah has to work with is field stocks which can and will grow increasingly scarce. Power and such are needed to maximize fighting poential. Without it an enemy is fighting at reduced capacity.


Let's see here.  Hezbollah is based in the southern portion of Lebanon.  Hezbollah has very little control in the rest of Lebanon.  Hezbollah is not likely to be storing rockets in places where it has little control; it's going to store them where they're well-protected and easily accessible, which is in the south, exactly where they're launching them from.  They're not going to ship in 2,000 rockets by truck.  You stop maybe a few dozen, at most a few hundred missiles, and you prevent thousands of people from going where they need to go and cost the Lebanese government large amounts of money to reguild them.  They don't have cargo planes, so what are they going to use an airport for?  Transporting rockets by commercial jet?

Now, one thing that has never been made clear, and that continues to cloud my understanding of this whole issue is, how large are these rockets they're firing?  Can you sling one over your shoulder, walk across a field, and fire one, or does it require a more elaborate setup?  Are they too large for that?



> Look at the Egyptian and Syrian SAM networks in 1973 for evidence of that principle in action.


It's poor debate etiquette to make your opponent research your points.  I would love to learn more about this.  Do you have a good link?



> Once again, some targets boggle the mind like said sewers.


Right.  The problem is the gray area:  Things like airports, bridges, and power stations, which could theoretically be useful for a terrorist but are more used by civilians, and which we're not in any way sure are actually being used significantly by the terrorists.


----------



## Jedi Mind Tricks (Jul 22, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> b-b-but why... ;_;



Of course, If I know you well enough, you would never ask for the death of all Jews.

Plus, you know I love you.


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 22, 2006)

jdama said:
			
		

> I think it is sad but fair to say that it's "evolve or die", I guess.


yeah... > i say evolve


			
				JMT said:
			
		

> Of course, If I know you well enough, you would never ask for the death of all Jews.
> 
> Plus, you know I love you.



i love you to!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 22, 2006)

*US never fails to make war money, rushes weapons for Isreal*

Thankfully the US is coming to the aid of the Isreal war machine and sending them a rush shipment of laser guided bombs because Isreal needs them for it's current conflict.  This is not according to some anonymous interviewees "an emergency resupply".  Well thats officially.  Call it what you want, US is supplying the missiles for Isreal in this conflict.



			
				New York Times article below said:
			
		

> The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran?s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
> 
> The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel?s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> The US's support isn't going to change.  Besides the US, who, exactly, likes Israel?  I'm thinking nobody.  They don't really have many enemies left to make.  The only ones they can make angry enough to smack them in the face are the Arab countries, all of which are, militarily, quite inferior to Israel.



Push something hard enough you'll lose any support. Digging themselves deeper does them no good, at all. 



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> That material went poof because of Israel bombing Hezbollah supplies, not bridges and airports and sewage systems and power stations and God knows what else.



Hitting field supplies is one thing, wrecking transport and re-supply to these destroyed forward depts is instrumental in stopping the flow of rockets being fired at Israel. It's called "interdiction."



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Let's see here.  Hezbollah is based in the southern portion of Lebanon.  Hezbollah has very little control in the rest of Lebanon.  Hezbollah is not likely to be storing rockets in places where it has little control; it's going to store them where they're well-protected and easily accessible, which is in the south, exactly where they're launching them from.  They're not going to ship in 2,000 rockets by truck.  You stop maybe a few dozen, at most a few hundred missiles, and you prevent thousands of people from going where they need to go and cost the Lebanese government large amounts of money to reguild them.  They don't have cargo planes, so what are they going to use an airport for?  Transporting rockets by commercial jet?



How do you think they get into the country? Katyusha's are brought in by sea, or by crago aircraft flying into the country. The blockade and airport bombings are meant to stem the incoming flow. Destruction of roads to prevent distrubtion/re-siting them.

Interesting piece on Lebanon's dichotomy with Hezbollah



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Now, one thing that has never been made clear, and that continues to cloud my understanding of this whole issue is, how large are these rockets they're firing?  Can you sling one over your shoulder, walk across a field, and fire one, or does it require a more elaborate setup?  Are they too large for that?



Wait. What? You're telling me you've been talking about the costs/results for bombing transport infrastructure this entire time and you don't know what's being fired?

Katyusha rockets are not manportable, there's a reason their launchers are truck-mobile. These aren't mortars we're dealing with here.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> It's poor debate etiquette to make your opponent research your points.  I would love to learn more about this.  Do you have a good link?



Oh my God. I'm so sorry. Really, I apologize that's a gross slip I made. I was thinking of the wrong supply issue. I apologize again.

What I meant to use as my example was Operation Linebacker II against North Vietnam in 1972. Haiphong was mined (as it being the primary source of Soviet SAM imports this was a massive blow to re-supply efforts) and over 11 nights of bombing the North Vietnamese had virtually shot their entire SAM reserve. Had the bombings continued all that would've been left would've been compartively useless AAA.

_Aircraft of the Seventh Fleet performed the most extensive aerial mining operation in history, blockading the enemy's main avenues of supply. The reseeding of the mine fields was resumed and concentrated strikes were carried out against surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery sites, enemy army barracks, petroleum storage areas, Haiphong Naval and shipyard areas, and railroad and truck stations. _



_?By 29 December the North had exhausted its SAM supply making further defense impossible.?_

Be warned, PDF


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> Thankfully the US is coming to the aid of the Isreal war machine and sending them a rush shipment of laser guided bombs because Isreal needs them for it's current conflict.  This is not according to some anonymous interviewees "an emergency resupply".  Well thats officially.  Call it what you want, US is supplying the missiles for Isreal in this conflict.



Quick question, would you rather them drop area effect weapons which would kill a lot more civilians? You'd think them depleting stocks of _precision_ munitions would be a sign that they're trying to limit casualites.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 23, 2006)

they should make fancy missile knock offs with their fancy R&D and tech and military industries.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> they should make fancy missile knock offs with their fancy R&D and tech and military industries.



You are aware it's cheaper and internationally a gold standard to use US LGBs right? Why the hell are you suggesting they commit several kinds of international copyright infraction?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 23, 2006)

No i am not aware about ur gold standard or the price, nod am i interested. 
I suggest they commit infractions so as to not use US missiles.  which part didn't u understand, i even wrote it?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> No i am not aware about ur gold standard or the price, nod am i interested. I suggest they commit infractions so as to not use US missiles.  which part didn't u understand, i even wrote it?



No, you suggested they knock-off LGBs and commit several crimes for no specific reason. If you want to suggest they don't use ordinance that they pay for because it has "MADE IN USA" on it go nuts.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 23, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Hitting field supplies is one thing, wrecking transport and re-supply to these destroyed forward depts is instrumental in stopping the flow of rockets being fired at Israel. It's called "interdiction."


So how many rockets have you actually stopped?
Israel has claimed to have successfully attacked at least one convoy transporting rockets by ground, so clearly you have some way of identifying them.  Why not continue attacking convoys, which also prevents them from finding alternative means of getting them in because the rockets are destroyed?
Much less damage done that way.  Of course, Israel doesn't seem to be concerned about collateral damage here, which might be just a slight problem.



> How do you think they get into the country? Katyusha's are brought in by sea, or by crago aircraft flying into the country. The blockade and airport bombings are meant to stem the incoming flow. Destruction of roads to prevent distrubtion/re-siting them.


Okay...
1. Can cargo planes only land on commercial airstrips?  I'd think Hezbollah could easily find a field or something to send them to.  Attacking the planes themselves would be far more effective.
2. Has Israel destroyed every road into southern Lebanon?  If so, does that not seem to be quite a problem for the vast majority of Lebanon that is not Hezbollah?



> Interesting piece on Lebanon's dichotomy with Hezbollah


Oh that's cute.  Citing the Jerusalem Post.  That's definitely entirely unbiased and completely reliable.
It repeatedly mentions Lebanon's active participation in facilitating Hezbollah's attacks--but every accusation of such says "Lebanon failed to stop...", "Lebanon failed to do...", or similar.  Not stopping someone is not the same as helping them.  Statements in support of Hezbollah are not justification for going to war with them.  Iran has said they support Hezbollah.  Has Israel attacked them?



> Wait. What? You're telling me you've been talking about the costs/results for bombing transport infrastructure this entire time and you don't know what's being fired?


Actually, I was fairly sure until I kept hearing about how easy they are to transport by road, as if they were much smaller than I thought.



> Katyusha rockets are not manportable, there's a reason their launchers are truck-mobile. These aren't mortars we're dealing with here.


Excellent.  Why can't you figure out where they're launching them from?



> What I meant to use as my example was Operation Linebacker II against North Vietnam in 1972. Haiphong was mined (as it being the primary source of Soviet SAM imports this was a massive blow to re-supply efforts) and over 11 nights of bombing the North Vietnamese had virtually shot their entire SAM reserve. Had the bombings continued all that would've been left would've been compartively useless AAA.
> 
> Quoted stuff.


There is, of course, a significant difference here.  North Vietnam's army was actively participating in attacks against the US.  It's much easier to justify attacking and blockading a country when the country is actually attacking you.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> So how many rockets have you actually stopped?



I'm not going to pull a number out of my ass and insult all of our intelligences. The extent of the disruption to Hezbollah re-supply networks needs time to be accurately compiled. I can certainly ask you to think how the cutting off of re-supply and destruction of road networks affects trying to get one rocket trying to get to a battery from 25 miles away.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Israel has claimed to have successfully attacked at least one convoy transporting rockets by ground, so clearly you have some way of identifying them.



Catching one convoy in the open is a lot different then being able to spot check and destroy all convoys like it. This convoy could've been stupid and had a Katuysha truck in full display. I'm not fimiliar with the details of the attack, but I seem to recall they were stalled at a collapsed bridge where they were identified.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Why not continue attacking convoys, which also prevents them from finding alternative means of getting them in because the rockets are destroyed?
> Much less damage done that way.  Of course, Israel doesn't seem to be concerned about collateral damage here, which might be just a slight problem.



Well, because Israel doesn't have 1,000 fighter-bombers over Lebanon round the clock. Destroying the means for convoys to get to where their going is a good way to stall/stop re-supply when the resources available to the IDF are considered. 



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> 1. Can cargo planes only land on commercial airstrips?  I'd think Hezbollah could easily find a field or something to send them to.  Attacking the planes themselves would be far more effective.



Rockets were carried in on civilian craft, unless you want to institute a no-fly zone and be prepared to shoot down a few non-combatants feel free to do that. Destroying runways makes it so the jets they were brought in on (intermingled _with_ regular goods) cannot land. The civilian transports we're talking about don't have rough field capability.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> 2. Has Israel destroyed every road into southern Lebanon?  If so, does that not seem to be quite a problem for the vast majority of Lebanon that is not Hezbollah?



Don't be silly, "destroying every road" is months (if not years) worth of work, targeted work. Would you rather them indiscrimantely attack all road traffic?



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Oh that's cute.  Citing the Jerusalem Post.  That's definitely entirely unbiased and completely reliable.



Genetic fallacy first of all. Unless you can show they've falsified information it's still a valid source. 



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> It repeatedly mentions Lebanon's active participation in facilitating Hezbollah's attacks--but every accusation of such says "Lebanon failed to stop...", "Lebanon failed to do...", or similar.  Not stopping someone is not the same as helping them.  Statements in support of Hezbollah are not justification for going to war with them.  Iran has said they support Hezbollah.  Has Israel attacked them?



That's a bit different when you're proclaiming support for a group which is engaging in belligerent actions ... from the southern regions of your country. Proclaiming active support for a belligerent party operating from your country is tantamont to declaring hostilities on the country whose suffering from said groups belligerency.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon in accordance with UN law. Hezbollah is supposed to be dismantled, but shockingly enough, isn't. I can count several violations of international law there.

I'm not trying to defend Israels frankly spotty human rights record and compliance with international law, but both sides suck when it comes to this.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Actually, I was fairly sure until I kept hearing about how easy they are to transport by road, as if they were much smaller than I thought.



A common mistake. You probably heard "they're transported by road" and though something like a car or technical could carry them. They require a dedicated support vehicle to move.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Excellent.  Why can't you figure out where they're launching them from?



Counter-battery fire can really only spot things after they've fired. You're forgetting these are fom batteries that are well concealed  and you don't have a lot of HUMINT on the ground. Unless you want M270s firing submunitions (which would clear a square kilometer of life, litterally) and civilian casualties shooting through the roof concentrated pinpoint barages / air strikes are the only way to kill the batteries realiably. Some batteries are spotted, but concelment does a lot.

U.S. intelligence estimates that, as of Thursday, a third of Hezbollah's rocket supply has been fired or destroyed by the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. 





			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> There is, of course, a significant difference here.  North Vietnam's army was actively participating in attacks against the US.  It's much easier to justify attacking and blockading a country when the country is actually attacking you.



That's certiantly not what I was getting at. An air/naval blockade has the effect of forcing an enemy to deplete stocks with no prospect of resupply.


----------



## Cece (Jul 23, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> U.S. intelligence estimates that, as of Thursday, a third of Hezbollah's rocket supply has been fired or destroyed by the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.



ehe it's kind of obious that that is US intelligence.  No one else would make such as stupid comment--

According to Hezbollah, Israel has not even destroyed one of Hezbollah's rockets.  Of course they are probably exaggerating just a bit.  I would assume that Israel destroyed very little of Hezbollah's rockets.

That is because the US intelligence report says that they had either been fired _or _destroyed.

Hezbollah is firing hundreds of rockets to Israel everyday.  I'd bet all of my rep points saying that almost all of the third 'fired or destroyed' was fired.

And, you're quoting the CBS? 

People in the US don't count the CBS as reliable at all, If American's laugh at CBS, what do you think the rest of the world would do?

 x 10


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 23, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> And, you're quoting the CBS?
> 
> People in the US don't count the CBS as reliable at all, If American's laugh at CBS, what do you think the rest of the world would do?



As an American you're quite frankly full of shit. I like how a major US news outlet and intelligence service are being doubted in favor of a terrorist group that believes Sheeba farms is part of Lebanon. I dunno, whose more delusional here?

As for claimed destroyed: 

What many people fail to realize is that once a _launcher_ fires it stands a pretty big chance of being whacked. The useful thing about these relatively simple MLRS systems is they can be concealed pretty well, but when they fire you know it.

Now, onto the nuts and bolts.

To really stop the barrages you need to mission kill the launchers, and if they haven't been revealed, kill resupply routes for areas where the rockets are based. 

_Since Operation Change of Direction, launched last week following the abduction of two reservists in a cross-border attack, more than 200 rocket launchers have been destroyed as well as dozens of weapons warehouses throughout southern Lebanon. Some of the launchers, he said, were hidden in bushes and underneath homes and trees. _

Source

_There is no way to destroy all the rockets through air strikes. Hizballah has twelve thousand katyushas; it has launched only a few hundred of those. These are rockets that can be stored in cars and launched anywhere, so the idea of a ground operation would be to suppress the rocket launching, not to destroy the rockets. In the end, the way to end the rocket barrages is to exact a price for the use of such weapons. _

Remember folks, area suppression is the best counter-battery fire


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 23, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> I can certainly ask you to think how the cutting off of re-supply and destruction of road networks affects trying to get one rocket trying to get to a battery from 25 miles away.


Um.  Longer trip?



> Catching one convoy in the open is a lot different then being able to spot check and destroy all convoys like it. This convoy could've been stupid and had a Katuysha truck in full display. I'm not fimiliar with the details of the attack, but I seem to recall they were stalled at a collapsed bridge where they were identified.


Interesting, if it's accurate.
More interesting if it's accurate:  Wouldn't the strike have hit nearby vehicles as well, if the convoy was in stopped traffic because of a dead bridge?



> Well, because Israel doesn't have 1,000 fighter-bombers over Lebanon round the clock. Destroying the means for convoys to get to where their going is a good way to stall/stop re-supply when the resources available to the IDF are considered.


Here's the interesting part.  If the rockets are sitting somewhere in Lebanon, bombing most of the bridges just forces them to do things in reverse and send a launcher to the rockets instead of the rockets to the launcher to compensate for increased travel distance.  If they're in Iran, they can't exactly get there by truck.  If they're in Syria,  (penultimate paragraph).



> Rockets were carried in on civilian craft, unless you want to institute a no-fly zone and be prepared to shoot down a few non-combatants feel free to do that. Destroying runways makes it so the jets they were brought in on (intermingled _with_ regular goods) cannot land. The civilian transports we're talking about don't have rough field capability.


Now that's really interesting.  Got a source?



> Don't be silly, "destroying every road" is months (if not years) worth of work, targeted work. Would you rather them indiscrimantely attack all road traffic?


In that case, aren't you just delaying transports?  They just have to go elsewhere to find a bridge that's still there.
All that will really do is force them to string their rocket launches out over a longer period.



> Genetic fallacy first of all. Unless you can show they've falsified information it's still a valid source.


Alright, then.





> Remember folks, area suppression is the best counter-battery fire


What's really interesting in that article is some of the statements by Lebanese leaders.

_The initial position of the Lebanese government and several leading politicians largely reflected this sentiment [anger at Hizbollah's kidnapping of the soldiers]. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora announced that the government ?did not condone? Hizballah?s kidnapping raid. Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Armed Forces, condemned Hizballah?s actions, albeit mainly on procedural grounds: Geagea said Hizballah did not have the authority to take such provocative actions without government approval._

Which runs in stark contrast to the Jerulalem Post's assertions:

_In reality, Hizbullah's attack was far from a rogue action committed in defiance of the government: The Lebanese government has actively supported it, in both word and deed._

Moreover, the Post's example of Lebanese support for Hezbollah was the following:

_... Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh... presented a draft resolution defending the attack.

The resolution stated that Lebanon has the "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means," demanded the release of Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails, and asserted Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."_

Which of course has nothing to do with supporting Hezbollah.  He's just telling Israel to get the hell out of their country.



> That's a bit different when you're proclaiming support for a group which is engaging in belligerent actions ... from the southern regions of your country. Proclaiming active support for a belligerent party operating from your country is tantamont to declaring hostilities on the country whose suffering from said groups belligerency.


See above.  They're not proclaiming support.  The vast majority of the Lebanese government has shown disapproval for Hezbollah's actions.



> Israel withdrew from Lebanon in accordance with UN law. Hezbollah is supposed to be dismantled, but shockingly enough, isn't. I can count several violations of international law there.


Unfortunately, Israel isn't allowed to enforce international law.



> A common mistake. You probably heard "they're transported by road" and though something like a car or technical could carry them. They require a dedicated support vehicle to move.


Actually, I was more concerned with how many you could fit into a truck, etc.  That gives me a better idea.



> Counter-battery fire can really only spot things after they've fired.


Although from your most recent post, it's been fairly effective at doing that.  Seems like they're going to run out of launchers before they run out of missiles, which makes me wonder what good slowing (or even stopping) the flow of rockets is.



> U.S. intelligence estimates that, as of Thursday, a third of Hezbollah's rocket supply has been fired or destroyed by the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon.


Fabulous.

How much effect has bombing bridges and power stations had on that?



> That's certiantly not what I was getting at. An air/naval blockade has the effect of forcing an enemy to deplete stocks with no prospect of resupply.


True enough, but it still brings into question both the tactics and the extent of the operations.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 23, 2006)

seems isreal hit a convoy of refugees, but i can't find more info.  If it's true it's messed up.  



			
				yahoo news article said:
			
		

> Israel faced tougher-than-expected ground battles and bombarded targets in southern Lebanon, hitting a convoy of refugees.


 news link


----------



## Cece (Jul 24, 2006)

I dunno about that, but I've read that Israel has hit UN convoys, full of aid a few times...


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 24, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> news link


Um.  I do believe it killed an incredible three people.

But here's another interesting tidbit out of that article:

_Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said that once the offensive had gotten Hezbollah away from the border, his country would be willing to see an international force move in to help the Lebanese army deploy across the south, where the guerrillas have held sway for years.

"Israel's goal is to see the Lebanese army deployed along the border with Israel, but we understand that we are talking about a weak army and that in the midterm period Israel will have to accept a multinational force," Peretz told the Cabinet, suggesting NATO be in charge of the force._

... you mean putting pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and/or comply with UN resolutions has nothing to do with it?  Wow.  That definitely changes things.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 24, 2006)

3 people who are fleeing for their lives.


----------



## MJJF (Jul 24, 2006)

I truly think this war will not end until Israel has destroyed Hezbollah and Hamas, and probably started a war with Iran, which the US will finish.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 24, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I dunno about that, but I've read that Israel has hit UN convoys, full of aid a few times...


Do you have a source?  I haven't seen anything of the sort.

Please do adequate research before posting in a debate thread (actually, our source links would be an excellent start).


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 24, 2006)

MJJF said:
			
		

> I truly think this war will not end until Israel has destroyed Hezbollah and Hamas, and probably started a war with Iran, which the US will finish.


Hamas is not involved in this one, which I think we're all glad for.  The last thing we need is Israel attacking two countries at once. (Yes, I know Palestine is not technically a country.)


----------



## MJJF (Jul 24, 2006)

Hamas is not involved yet, but let's not forget that this all started over the Kidnapping of one soldier by Hamas.  I don't think Israel is going to let that one go.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 24, 2006)

ummm, excuse me but the recent Isreali battles have been called a two front war.   Over the past 11 days while bombing Lebanon, Isreal has also bombed hamas and palestinian ministry offices several times.

The Risks of Israel's Two-Front War from Time.com


----------



## MJJF (Jul 24, 2006)

Exactly my point, Israel is on an all out offensive.


----------



## Cece (Jul 24, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Do you have a source?  I haven't seen anything of the sort.
> 
> Please do adequate research before posting in a debate thread (actually, our source links would be an excellent start).



Well, If you read anything other then the Jerusalem times I think you would have seen it... (I personally read it in the BBC, seeing that BBC news is a huge site It would be pretty hard finding the link again.  NOTE FOR VASH: BBC = British Broadcasting Company)

Also, please refrain from double posting, your sig is big as it is...


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 24, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> Um.  Longer trip?



Well, that's part of teh answer. When road networks are ruined and they're not manportable how much longer do you suppose eh? That time is crucial in any military campagin.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> More interesting if it's accurate:  Wouldn't the strike have hit nearby vehicles as well, if the convoy was in stopped traffic because of a dead bridge?



Interesting thought, but I haven't heard of anything like that happening.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Here's the interesting part.  If the rockets are sitting somewhere in Lebanon, bombing most of the bridges just forces them to do things in reverse and send a launcher to the rockets instead of the rockets to the launcher to compensate for increased travel distance.  If they're in Iran, they can't exactly get there by truck.  If they're in Syria,  (penultimate paragraph).



In that case it would probably throw the target range out of whack, the less of Israel there is to hit, the better as far as the IDF is concerned. There's also the fact that the launcher is still truck mounted as well, and not to beat a dead horse, but longer trips.



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> Now that's really interesting.  Got a source?



It was actually in the article I cited earlier.

_In fact, this blockade would arguably be justified even if the conflict were solely between Israel and Hizbullah, since its main purpose is to cut off Hizbullah's supply of rockets - for which Beirut Airport, in particular, has been a major conduit for years. _



			
				Vash!? said:
			
		

> In that case, aren't you just delaying transports?  They just have to go elsewhere to find a bridge that's still there. All that will really do is force them to string their rocket launches out over a longer period.



Well, looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint less intense barrages mean a correpsonding less hitting the target. Plus, Israel won't continue this indefinately, I'd actually hedge my bets that in a month this will be back to normal (the occasional sniping).

As for your take on the competiting articles we note a few things. Like from the washignton think tank one:

_Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Armed Forces, condemned Hizballah?s actions, *albeit mainly on procedural grounds*: Geagea said Hizballah did not have the authority to take such provocative actions without government approval._

We also note that the declaration to resist occupation is nice and all, but Israel hadn't even deployed ground forces, and even now Israel simply doesn't want to deal with a long drawn out land occupation in southern Lebanon.

Actually, the thing that gets me is the controversy over what that Israeli ship was hit with. I hear it was hit by an Iranian explosives laden drone, which was guided by Lebanonese army radar. We can quarrel about intent of proclaimations all day, but that's certaintly a sign of ... cooperation between Hezbollah and the government?

As loathe as I am to say it, Bush was right.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> See above.  They're not proclaiming support.  The vast majority of the Lebanese government has shown disapproval for Hezbollah's actions.



I would somehow buy that if it wasn't verbotten to call a terrorist a terrorist in Lebanon. We note from the one article, disaproval on procedural, not actual idea, grounds.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Israel isn't allowed to enforce international law.



The lovely little social contracts that give nations just cause for war apply to Israel too. International law hardly faults a country for taking action (albiet harsh) against belligerency of it's neighbour.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Although from your most recent post, it's been fairly effective at doing that.  Seems like they're going to run out of launchers before they run out of missiles, which makes me wonder what good slowing (or even stopping) the flow of rockets is.



That's actually a really good question. To use an analogy, when fighting an opponent you don't just strip him of his guns, you take out his ammo reserves too. It feels odd to say that here, but one can never be too careful.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> How much effect has bombing bridges and power stations had on that?



Bridges affect road networks, I shouldn't have to say more then that. Power stations make phone networks, TV, a myraid forms of communication more difficult. It also deprives certain creature comforts and forces an opponent to operate with something he normally wouldn't have too (no power). 

If Hezbollah can't get electricity to anything remotely complicated of theres it reduces the battle efficency of said object. Like liquid-fuel rockets, limiting power supplies for the refgerients their fuels are kept in would have an obvious effect.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> True enough, but it still brings into question both the tactics and the extent of the operations.



I guess that certaintly does. Unfortunately blockades by their very nature have to be near total to have any effect.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 24, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> Well, If you read anything other then the Jerusalem times I think you would have seen it... (I personally read it in the BBC, seeing that BBC news is a huge site It would be pretty hard finding the link again.  NOTE FOR VASH: BBC = British Broadcasting Company)
> 
> Also, please refrain from double posting, your sig is big as it is...


I'm at a loss at this point.  The longest tenured mod on the site, and the mind behind the creation of the Debate Corner, is being taught forum etiquette and explained to what the BBC is.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 24, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Well, that's part of teh answer. When road networks are ruined and they're not manportable how much longer do you suppose eh? That time is crucial in any military campagin.


Not when they have 8,000 rockets, of which they've shot about 200.



> In that case it would probably throw the target range out of whack, the less of Israel there is to hit, the better as far as the IDF is concerned. There's also the fact that the launcher is still truck mounted as well, and not to beat a dead horse, but longer trips.


If you can get to the same distance from your target, you get the same result... usually an overshot rocket in the water, apparently.



> It was actually in the article I cited earlier.
> 
> _In fact, this blockade would arguably be justified even if the conflict were solely between Israel and Hizbullah, since its main purpose is to cut off Hizbullah's supply of rockets - for which Beirut Airport, in particular, has been a major conduit for years. _


I'm fairly certain you can fly cargo planes into an airport.  Anything that says these were civilian planes carrying rocket supplies?



> Well, looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint less intense barrages mean a correpsonding less hitting the target. Plus, Israel won't continue this indefinately, I'd actually hedge my bets that in a month this will be back to normal (the occasional sniping).


I don't think bombing fewer bridges means hitting fewer convoys.  Doesn't make much sense to me.  Did you mean something else?



> As for your take on the competiting articles we note a few things. Like from the washignton think tank one:
> 
> _Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Armed Forces, condemned Hizballah?s actions, *albeit mainly on procedural grounds*: Geagea said Hizballah did not have the authority to take such provocative actions without government approval._


I'm still fairly certain that doesn't count as support.  His statement wasn't really the focus of my quote because it's more neutral than anything.



> We also note that the declaration to resist occupation is nice and all, but Israel hadn't even deployed ground forces, and even now Israel simply doesn't want to deal with a long drawn out land occupation in southern Lebanon.


I do believe air occupation counts, and I'd certainly feel like my country was being occupied if I was watching planes flying over my head all day and hearing reports of them dropping bombs everywhere.



> Actually, the thing that gets me is the controversy over what that Israeli ship was hit with. I hear it was hit by an Iranian explosives laden drone, which was guided by Lebanonese army radar. We can quarrel about intent of proclaimations all day, but that's certaintly a sign of ... cooperation between Hezbollah and the government?


I have no doubt there are a few Hezbollah operatives hidden in the military (not even necessarily the government) who could get such basic information as a ship's coordinates.  All you need is access to an operational radar system.
They clearly weren't operating on very much information, as they also hit an Egyptian civilian boat.  That makes it seem like they just picked the first few ships they saw on radar and missiled them, hoping they were Israeli ships.  If there was any high level of cooperation from the military and/or government, they probably would have had more complete information.



> I would somehow buy that if it wasn't verbotten to call a terrorist a terrorist in Lebanon. We note from the one article, disaproval on procedural, not actual idea, grounds.


We also note from the article, the Prime Minister's statement that he "does not condone" the attacks by Hezbollah.  I do believe that registers as disapproval.



> The lovely little social contracts that give nations just cause for war apply to Israel too. International law hardly faults a country for taking action (albiet harsh) against belligerency of it's neighbour.


Lebanon isn't exactly being belligerent.  Doing nothing does not usually count as opposition, and in the post after, I noted that none other than the Israeli Defense Minster agreed Lebanon's army was too weak to actually carry out the actions required by the UN resolutions.



> That's actually a really good question. To use an analogy, when fighting an opponent you don't just strip him of his guns, you take out his ammo reserves too. It feels odd to say that here, but one can never be too careful.


If the enemy has no guns, what use is ammo?  They supposedly have 8,000 rockets in their hands.  They've managed to shoot about 200 in about 2 weeks.  There is no way that stopping resupply efforts is going to have any effect because Israel is not going to be able to destroy every rocket, and with about 200 rockets fired, they've lost dozens of launchers (correct?).  They cannot have nearly as many launchers as they have rockets, but they're losing a launcher for every few rockets they fire.  Therefore, they're going to run out of launchers far faster than they run out of rockets, making attacks on the supply chain entirely useless.



> Bridges affect road networks, I shouldn't have to say more then that. Power stations make phone networks, TV, a myraid forms of communication more difficult. It also deprives certain creature comforts and forces an opponent to operate with something he normally wouldn't have too (no power).


Oh.  So you're trying to make the enemy less comfortable, so while they're running and hiding they have to do it without electricity.  Because, you know, that has such a massive effect on the morale of a group that doesn't care about anything but destroying Israel, and doesn't have a huge effect on the comfort level, or even ability to survive, of the average citizen or anything.



> If Hezbollah can't get electricity to anything remotely complicated of theres it reduces the battle efficency of said object. Like liquid-fuel rockets, limiting power supplies for the refgerients their fuels are kept in would have an obvious effect.


Apparently nearly everything they have is mobile (if your launchers are mobile, what use is having entirely stationary missile stores?).  Vehicles aren't exactly dependent on electrical power.  Also, I'm fairly sure that if they can afford 12,000 rockets, they can afford a few generators.



> I guess that certaintly does. Unfortunately blockades by their very nature have to be near total to have any effect.


Blockades make sense.  Stationing warships to cut off ports is a blockade.  Keeping air patrols over the Syria-Lebanon border to attack weapons convoys and cargo planes is a blockade.  Bombing travelways (roads, airports) is not a blockade.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 24, 2006)

Actually Vash, Hezbollah is suspected to have around 11,000-13,000 rockets of which they've fired around 2,000. A report was also posted earlier, by U.S. intelligence that around 1/3rd of Hezbollah rockets have been fired or destroy by Israel.

That fraction may of increased in recent days though, as Hezbollah has stepped up their rocket firing in response to their defeats at Bint Jubeil and Maroun al-Ras, which have both been captured by the IDF in the last 2 days. The IDF is reporting that hundreds of rockets were captured in the towns once Hezbollah forces there were wiped out.

It should be noted that once Hezbollah runs out of rockets, that's it for them. They have no other means of resistance. Having 11,000-13,000 units of ammo meant for inaccurate artillery fire isn't that much either. These rockets were designed by the Russians in WW2 and are meant to be fired by the thousands each time on military positions. Which is why Israeli civilian casualties have been pretty minimal, and the Hezbollah rocket firing strategy largely ineffective as of this point.


----------



## Sayo (Jul 24, 2006)

Wouldn't surprise me if the mess continues for another 10-20 years there. . :/


----------



## Zodd (Jul 24, 2006)

> Israel is overstating the damage its air war has inflicted on the Hezbollah militia, which hides its weapons in tunnels and civilian neighborhoods throughout Lebanon, Bush administration and intelligence officials said yesterday.





Israel lying?! No!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 24, 2006)

general question for the best and brightest amongst you:
where does Isreal get the fuel for it's military operations?

(i actually asked this a few times and thought someone could give me a hint cause I'm at a loss )


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 24, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> general question for the best and brightest amongst you:
> where does Isreal get the fuel for it's military operations?
> 
> (i actually asked this a few times and thought someone could give me a hint cause I'm at a loss )



Israel imports fuel from Russia, Egypt, and India mainly.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 24, 2006)

interesting , though i didn't see anything about india


----------



## Zhongda (Jul 24, 2006)

> Israel lying?! No!


i am as shocked as you are!


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 24, 2006)

_"We are not getting into numbers."_

Hrm. Interesing quotes from that Washington times article. I like how US intel agrees with the Israeli figure see my earlier cited CBS article, yet one figure coming out of the darkness without numbers, or even a confirmed area of expertise is enough to proclaim "Israel is lying!"



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Not when they have 8,000 rockets, of which they've shot about 200.



The Israelis have shot up about 200 launchers and things like that, plus they've managed to hit caches. If that's what Hezbollah considers a full-on rocket barrage they're certaintly very stingy.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> If you can get to the same distance from your target, you get the same result... usually an overshot rocket in the water, apparently



Remember, these are area effect weapons, high accuracy was never on their selling points. Still, wouldn't you agree it is advantageous to force an opponent to displace his artillery, and in this case, ways of striking your home soil?



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> I don't think bombing fewer bridges means hitting fewer convoys. Doesn't make much sense to me. Did you mean something else?




No, what I meant was that it severly hampers any re-supply/ movement/ attempt at concentration of force. That means the more sparing Hezbollah has to be in firing rockets, and given their poor accuracy less weight thrown at the target means a coorespondingly less chance said target will be hit.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> I'm still fairly certain that doesn't count as support. His statement wasn't really the focus of my quote because it's more neutral than anything.



In the international sense, turning a blind eye or being netural to belligerents often counts as support of said belligerents. Offering them safe haven from legal retalation by the nation state they aggressed upon is just as bad as smuggling weapons and arms to them in the country they're attacking.

That quote was significant to me at least because it indicated "Well, not that I really fault them, but I wish they told us beforehand." The US went to war with Afganistan after that country refused to turnover terrorists operating out of that country who attacked the US.

Lebanon refuses to turn over Hezbollah raiders who cross the border and kill and kidnap. Afganistan was clearly justified and there are obvious parallels to the current situation.

Lebanon gives offical recognition and even allows a free hand to someone they were supposed to disarm. A blind eye at best, working with terrorists at worst. Neither are justifiable. At least the Jordanians had the good sense to eject these guys when they started causing trouble.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain you can fly cargo planes into an airport. Anything that says these were civilian planes carrying rocket supplies?



I don't think it was saying that all cargo planes or even many of them carried supplies in. The rationale behind the squeezing off the water and land routes for re-supply still applies to the air. A total blockade is just that.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> I do believe air occupation counts, and I'd certainly feel like my country was being occupied if I was watching planes flying over my head all day and hearing reports of them dropping bombs everywhere.



Did the US occupy Iraq from 1991-2003 then? Occupation is forceable taking by infantry who sit and well, occupy. Current Israeli land operations are meant for trying to clear away fire zones and wreck Hezbollah military infrastructure (firing points, caches, etc.). The Israelis have no intent to stay in Lebanon, there's a reason they pulled out in the first place.

Incidentally, assholes raiding and shelling their northern border was the reason for the first time. The more things change, the more they stay the same.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> I have no doubt there are a few Hezbollah operatives hidden in the military (not even necessarily the government) who could get such basic information as a ship's coordinates. All you need is access to an operational radar system.
> They clearly weren't operating on very much information, as they also hit an Egyptian civilian boat. That makes it seem like they just picked the first few ships they saw on radar and missiled them, hoping they were Israeli ships. If there was any high level of cooperation from the military and/or government, they probably would have had more complete information.



Actually, upon further review it would appear the drone claim has been finally trashed and a reasonable contruction of events has emerged. Two missiles were fired, one missed and went active searching for it's next target along a flight path. That next target was the Egyptian boat.

Launching ASMs is no small matter, use of terminal guidance and intial spotting always has to be in close conjunction with shore based radars. It's not something you can slap togeteher with a few agents. You need a radar crew working with you most of the way.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> We also note from the article, the Prime Minister's statement that he "does not condone" the attacks by Hezbollah. I do believe that registers as disapproval.



I must've missed that actually. While that certaintly gains him a few points in my book, he still does little to punish militants who are effectively using the southern part of his country as a human shield. 



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Lebanon isn't exactly being belligerent. Doing nothing does not usually count as opposition, and in the post after, I noted that none other than the Israeli Defense Minster agreed Lebanon's army was too weak to actually carry out the actions required by the UN resolutions.



Lebanon isn't being belligerent, but it's refusal to ask for help carrying through a resolution it was obliged to carry out is a strike against it. The Israelis upheld their end of the bargin. The fact that it even includes this organization that it was supposed to disarm in it's government (a recognized terrorist group at that!) but gives it essentially autonomy in the south while claiming the region as it's own is most telling.

Oh, I'm not saying it should've carried it out by it's lonesome. If it really wanted to comply with UN resolutions it could've asked for help from the outside. It didn't.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> If the enemy has no guns, what use is ammo? They supposedly have 8,000 rockets in their hands. They've managed to shoot about 200 in about 2 weeks. There is no way that stopping resupply efforts is going to have any effect because Israel is not going to be able to destroy every rocket, and with about 200 rockets fired, they've lost dozens of launchers (correct?). They cannot have nearly as many launchers as they have rockets, but they're losing a launcher for every few rockets they fire. Therefore, they're going to run out of launchers far faster than they run out of rockets, making attacks on the supply chain entirely useless.



I'm a bit perplexed by that statement of only two hundred rockets launched. It's quite a bit more then that. Your thinking while meticulious in a given scenario misses a few things. 

For example, with that much HE laying around, fun things can be made, giving a terrorist group explosives? This somehow doesn't strike me as a clever idea. There's also the fact that they really don't mind giving away rockets to Gaza, where they have been fired in the past. Giving an enemy weapons even without an apparent use for their primary function degrades their effiency immensely, but a quick look at the Viet Cong's skill at creating weapons from dud bombs and such shows that's a dangerous idea.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Oh. So you're trying to make the enemy less comfortable, so while they're running and hiding they have to do it without electricity. Because, you know, that has such a massive effect on the morale of a group that doesn't care about anything but destroying Israel, and doesn't have a huge effect on the comfort level, or even ability to survive, of the average citizen or anything.



The suffering of the civilians at hand is one of the things that makes me think of bombing power stations as one of the most difficult calls to make, but depriving the enemy of his maximum potential in a gunfight is imperative in any operation. 

One can only try and fight a war when your communications revert back to the 17th century.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Apparently nearly everything they have is mobile (if your launchers are mobile, what use is having entirely stationary missile stores?).



Weapons caches are based around firing points. There's only so many to be had, and people need to re-supply on the go.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Vehicles aren't exactly dependent on electrical power. Also, I'm fairly sure that if they can afford 12,000 rockets, they can afford a few generators.



Generators and vehicles depend on what again? When there's no electricity to power the gas pumps and the fuel depots have been bombed one has a fun time trying to keep mobile.



			
				Vash?! said:
			
		

> Blockades make sense. Stationing warships to cut off ports is a blockade. Keeping air patrols over the Syria-Lebanon border to attack weapons convoys and cargo planes is a blockade. Bombing travelways (roads, airports) is not a blockade.



Interdiction is part of any total denial effort.


----------



## proleptical (Jul 24, 2006)

This speaks volumes:


----------



## Zodd (Jul 25, 2006)

proleptical said:
			
		

> This speaks volumes:



Very nice. Reps.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm very curious about something. Are any of those countries suffering unprovoked rocket and kidnapping attacks?

Until Hezbollah actually ceases this bullshit they've been pulling for the last six years any cease fire reached is essentially meaningless seeing tht the situation will merely repeat in 5-10 years. Let's remember why this shit got kicked off after all.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 25, 2006)

An immediate ceasefire would do nothing but give Hezbollah time to re-supply, re-organize, and re-arm. It seems nice now but a year or two down the road this same mess would be happening again when Hezbollah gets itself into more trouble.

A viable solution needs to be developed this time. So that Israel's northern border is no longer bothered by Hezbollah.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jul 25, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> A viable solution needs to be developed this time. So that Israel's northern border is no longer bothered by Hezbollah.



There is nothing "viable" about the present "solution" either. No matter what damage the Isrealis do to Hezbollah, all the children of Lebanon will remember is Isreali tanks and bombers steamrolling their homes and families.

Much like our fool's errand in Iraq, all this so-called "strategy" is doing is sowing the seeds of movements and organizations that didn't even exist two weeks / three years ago.

Airports (no evacuations/supplies for multiplying refugees), bridges, roads, and the civilian facilities Hezbollah is very shrewdly hiding behind. The Isrealis have done more damage to Lebanese civilians than Hezbolah has done to Isreali civilians. Lebanese democracy hangs in the balance, and Lebanon has only a small fraction of the Isrealis' resources to rebuild. There is no victory here, only retribution.

In another life, I may have felt bad for an earlier generation of Isrealis, but these days it's impossible to tell who the real terrorists are.

PS: And that is to say nothing of Dubya's "oops, my bad" response to having no available resources (all tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq) to evacuate Americans or others for days and days after the attacks began.


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> An immediate ceasefire would do nothing but give Hezbollah time to re-supply, re-organize, and re-arm. It seems nice now but a year or two down the road this same mess would be happening again when Hezbollah gets itself into more trouble.
> 
> A viable solution needs to be developed this time. So that Israel's northern border is no longer bothered by Hezbollah.



You've so far killed 27 Hezbollah members.  
Hundreds more are rising to join Hezbollah and such organizations.  While millions are starting to support them.

So really, they'll really be no peace until Israel kills all the Lebanese and the people that are supporting the Lebanese people (The world - US, UK, themselves)


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> You've so far killed 27 Hezbollah members.
> Hundreds more are rising to join Hezbollah and such organizations.  While millions are starting to support them.
> 
> So really, they'll really be no peace until Israel kills all the Lebanese and the people that are supporting the Lebanese people (The world - US, UK, themselves)



Oh please, you're believing the words of a terrorist organization.

I understand you'll flat out deny this. But U.S. and Israeli intelligence are both in agreement that about 1/3rd of hezbollah rockets were destroyed as of 2 days ago, and the IDF's capturing of Bint Jubeil and Maroun al-Ras has resulted in around 100 Hezbollah dead in that fighting alone.

Also, there are clear examples of Hezbollah taking casualties where it did not report casualties. Such as the IDF attack on a MOVING Hezbollah convoy of missle trucks. Hezbollah reported no casualties in that incident, despite the moving convoy getting bombed, and having the vehicles rockets go off inside the trucks.

Once Hezbollah's rockets are gone and Israel sees to it they can not get re-supplyed again, they'll become a minor annoyance like Hamas and the Palestinian terrorists are today as opposed to the problem Hezbollah is now.

Anyway, an immediate ceasefire would result in another war with more Lebanese civilian deaths a few years from now. Hezbollah just uses ceasefires as a means of escape when they're in trouble. Something that would actually work needs to be done. Which is why NATO or effective UN (effective and UN are sort of an oxymoron though) peacekeepers should be deployed in southern Lebanon.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 25, 2006)

proleptical said:
			
		

> This speaks volumes:



Technically, Denmark should be included on the side with The US and GB since the Foreign Minister also stated that it was to early for a cease fire because Hezbollah could use it to strengthen and reinforce their troops in the area. 

And just out of curiosity. How could a "immediate cease fire" become reality when Hezbollah has rejected every call from the UN and others to do just so? So even if Israel were to subdue from international pressure and retreat/end hostilities what would stop Hezbollah from launching more rockets into N.Israel since the Lebanese government is to impotent to deal with them? Who are to offer Israel those guarentees? 

A ceasefire normally happens only when both parties are commited to it  which neither Israel or Hezbollah have shown any significant signs of doing ATM.


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Also, there are clear examples of Hezbollah taking casualties where it did not report casualties. Such as the IDF attack on a MOVING Hezbollah convoy of missle trucks. Hezbollah reported no casualties in that incident, despite the moving convoy getting bombed, and having the vehicles rockets go off inside the trucks.



I'm still very shocked after reading that statement.

The UN has stated that Israelies bomb anything that's moving on the roads.  There is an incident where Israel even bombs a UN aid convoy.  How in the world can you tell what you've bombed?  I mean, I suppose you just checked to see if the ones dead were arabs, so you called them Hezbollah members?

You probably know, but seeing that you seem to be ignoring this fact, I'll say it again.  There are also many other organizations on this world that would like to do damage to Israel.  Do you think that Hezbollah actually created those missles themselves?  Well, they certainly didn't.  They got them from somewhere, Iran according to you.

So, there are these arabs supposedly transporting missles in Lebenon, you automatically think that they are Hezbollah?  

Looks like Israeli intelligence has hit an all time low...  Or maybe it's just the people in general?!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 25, 2006)

You have to look at it mathematically,the destruction isreal is creating constitutes such a great amount of the destruction in total, that Isreal stopping by itself would be like a cease fire


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> So, there are these arabs supposedly transporting missles in Lebenon, you automatically think that they are Hezbollah?



Here's a quick question, why would foreign nationals not affliated with hezbollah be in Lebanon? The entire point of proxy warfare is not getting involved yourself, i.e. letting other people do your dirty work.


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

Jin-E said:
			
		

> Technically, Denmark should be included on the side with The US and GB since the Foreign Minister also stated that it was to early for a cease fire because Hezbollah could use it to strengthen and reinforce their troops in the area.
> 
> And just out of curiosity. How could a "immediate cease fire" become reality when Hezbollah has rejected every call from the UN and others to do just so? So even if Israel were to subdue from international pressure and retreat/end hostilities what would stop Hezbollah from launching more rockets into N.Israel since the Lebanese government is to impotent to deal with them? Who are to offer Israel those guarentees?
> 
> A ceasefire normally happens only when both parties are commited to it  which neither Israel or Hezbollah have shown any significant signs of doing ATM.



You are ignoring a very important fact.

The US is calling Hezbollah to give all of their weapons to Israel and surrender.  Then, maybe Israel might stop attacking them.  (The statement saying Israel will stop attacking them doesn't exist.)

So, you're expecting one side to drop all of their weapons and surrender to a gov't whoose only goal is to kill every member of Hezbollah?

Then you're sitting there acting like you thought they'd accept, that Hezbollah doesn't want peace?  

(Sorry for the double post btw, but two posts in responce to two others...)


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

That NOS Guy said:
			
		

> Here's a quick question, why would foreign nationals not affliated with hezbollah be in Lebanon? The entire point of proxy warfare is not getting involved yourself, i.e. letting other people do your dirty work.



That gives no offence to my comment?
You just validated it?

There are just so many people wanting Israel destroyed, that it's extremely foolish calling all of them Hezbollah.  The drivers of that truck could just as well been Saudis or Egyption,  you really don't have to be Lebanese to support a common goal which Hezbollah made apparent.

And where is the part about the foreign nationals being in Lebenon in my post?  You also probably forgot that Lebenon is also a tourist destination...


----------



## ANBU Hatake Kakashi (Jul 25, 2006)

This all comes down to Wealth power and Greed Once again, 

Look at it this way, if you had someone standing between you and your dream of one day becoming Hokage, you would push him aside by all means necessary to get or follow your dream so that would consist of doing anything to get there, people take adavntage of any oppertunity to get ahead.

I think Israel has gone too far in self defence...


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I'm still very shocked after reading that statement.
> 
> The UN has stated that Israelies bomb anything that's moving on the roads.  There is an incident where Israel even bombs a UN aid convoy.  How in the world can you tell what you've bombed?  I mean, I suppose you just checked to see if the ones dead were arabs, so you called them Hezbollah members?
> 
> ...



The convoy I mentioned was confirmed to be Hezbollah, because Hezbollah missles went off in the trucks when the convoy was hit. A piece of a missle flying up in the air and then falling from the sky was captured on film and many thought it was an Israeli jet that had crashed at first.

And yes, Iran funded and armed Hezbollah. But due to their isolation currently Hezbollah's forces can no longer get missles or rockets (the only thing they can do damage with) into Lebanon. So when Hezbollah runs out of their limited supply of rockets (of which over 1/3rd have been fired or destroyed already), that's it for them.

And the trucks were in southern Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold. I guess you can speculate that maybe they weren't hezbollah. But there's no evidence of that at all.

Also for a bit of an update, a senior Hezbollah leader Abu Jafar was found dead today in a Lebanese border town which was recently captured by the Israeli army.


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> The convoy I mentioned was confirmed to be Hezbollah, because Hezbollah missles went off in the trucks when the convoy was hit. A piece of a missle flying up in the air and then falling from the sky was captured on film and many thought it was an Israeli jet that had crashed at first.
> 
> And yes, Iran funded and armed Hezbollah. But due to their isolation currently Hezbollah's forces can no longer get missles or rockets (the only thing they can do damage with) into Lebanon. So when Hezbollah runs out of their limited supply of rockets (of which over 1/3rd have been fired or destroyed already), that's it for them.
> 
> ...



Of course, I have no well documented evidence, but you have failed to show me any as well.

As for running out of missles, I'm sitting here thinking that when that happens, there will be many Hezbollah/Hamas members and Lebanese/Palestinians volunteering to try to kill Isralies by any means possible.  Suicide bombing is a method which some prefer.

As for an update, Israel has bombed a UN watchpost, killing 4 UN peacekeepers.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon," Mr Annan (UN Secretary General) said in a statement from Rome.



			
				http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5215366.stm said:
			
		

> The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the observer post, in which four military observers were sheltering.
> 
> It said the four, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery.
> 
> A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble.


Israel has expressed "deep regret".

I guess Israel wanted to hide what they were about to do in the region?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 25, 2006)

Hesbollah has recognized the gravity of Condy's recent statements calling for a new middle east, and has vowed deeper rocket attacks into Isreal.

This touches precisely on my thread about a new world order sought by the US and Isreal and my thread has the news link!


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> You are ignoring a very important fact.
> 
> The US is calling Hezbollah to give all of their weapons to Israel and surrender.  Then, maybe Israel might stop attacking them.  (The statement saying Israel will stop attacking them doesn't exist.)
> 
> ...



1.First off, the fact that Hezbollah should turn is weapons in isnt merely a Israeli demand but something that the UN has demanded in resolution 1559. Dont tell me that this is an smartly enginered Zionist plot?

2. Israel said that they would stop its actions if 
  - The soldiers were returned unconditionally
  - That the rocket attacks stop
  - That the Hezbollah militia is disarmed according to international demands.

Why would Israel care about Hezbollah if they no longer posed a threat militarilly?

And i most say its amusing that you portray yourself as a champion for the Lebanese peoples rights yet support the idea that a Militia organization packed with weapons and with the heavy support of Lebanons arch enemy Syria is in its full rights to draw a entire country into a quagmire which only leads to misery and death on both sides. 

3.The point is that we havent seen Hezbollah really trying to do anything from stopping this crisis at all. And besides who were the original aggressors here? thats right, Hezbollah. They are the ones who should make concessions not Israel. To believe that they could attack an souverine state and get away from the concequences is simply delusional thinking. 

Statements from Hezbollah which hints at peace is mear lipservice IMO. Actions do speak louder than words on these issues.


----------



## Cece (Jul 25, 2006)

heh, I've never used the word 'Zion' in any of my 70+ posts in this forum.  Where did you get the idea that I even knew that word?

You fail to tell us what 'international' means here.  England at first, had expressed great concern over Israels responce and called for them to stop the offensive.  After hearing a few words from good ol' Bush, Blair suddenly changed his mind and supported the US entirely.

The world has called for a cease-fire on both sides, at the same time.  Not just Hezbollah.

I also really like your "Lebanons arch enemy Syria" comment.  I was able to laugh at that for a bit over 5s.

It is true that Israel would not care about Hezbollah after they disarm.  They would care so little, they would not even help their neighbors regain economically.

I'm very curious, where do I 'portray myself as a champion for the Lebanese people'?  I mean, I guess being a 'Champion' would be 'cool' but I don't think I ever portrayed anything to that extent.

And there was the _maniac_ Hitler saying that there would be no peace in the world with a Jewish state occupying it.

Eh, where did he ever get that idea?!

You forget to mention, that Hezbollah has stated that they have taken 2 soldiers hostage _after_ Israel started on a mission to assasinate Hamas leaders.  And _after_ it went about killing a few influential people, people that happened to be a member of an organization that was very friendly to Hezbollah.

btw, good link NarutoS.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 25, 2006)

> heh, I've never used the word 'Zion' in any of my 70+ posts in this forum. Where did you get the idea that I even knew that word?



Anti-Israelis frequently use that expression.




> You fail to tell us what 'international' means here. England at first, had expressed great concern over Israels responce and called for them to stop the offensive. After hearing a few words from good ol' Bush, Blair suddenly changed his mind and supported the US entirely.



Have you ever heard about the United Nations? It doesnt only comprise of Israel and the US. And IIRC the first reactions of the Britains that were critical on the Israeli attacks were people whos stated their own views and not government policy. Besides the criticism were only on the questions about bombing civilian infrastructure, NOT that Israel didnt have the right to defend itself.



> The world has called for a cease-fire on both sides, at the same time. Not just Hezbollah.



True, but Israel has atleast taken steps towards good will by opening up humanitarian corridors and getting innocent civilians to flee before attacking. Hezbollah on the other hand has shown what a pathetic group of losers it is by cowardly hiding among the civilian population. 



> I also really like your "Lebanons arch enemy Syria" comment. I was able to laugh at that for a bit over 5s.



So the 1 000 000+ people that protested and drove the Syrian forces out of Lebanon after the Hariri murder was just saying an heartly farewell to an good neighbour and ally then?



> It is true that Israel would not care about Hezbollah after they disarm. They would care so little, they would not even help their neighbors regain economically



Why should they? They are responsible for their own actions.



> I'm very curious, where do I 'portray myself as a champion for the Lebanese people'? I mean, I guess being a 'Champion' would be 'cool' but I don't think I ever portrayed anything to that extent.



Youre right. Someone who are excusing and condoning Hezbollahs actions can hardly be thinking about the best interests of the Lebanese people.



> You forget to mention, that Hezbollah has stated that they have taken 2 soldiers hostage after Israel started on a mission to assasinate Hamas leaders. And after it went about killing a few influential people, people that happened to be a member of an organization that was very friendly to Hezbollah.



But they still have to take the concequences. That is even more severe because then they cant claim that they acted in ignorance and didnt know of the results of their attacks. Besides Hamas is largely a Sunni dominated party in contrast to Hezbollah who is Shia. There are no evidence that i know of that linked these two groups before this conflict except that they both were enemies of Israel. So its clear that Hezbollah was just looking for an excuse to attack Israel. You really think that an organization that doesnt even recognize Israels right to exist would suddenly halt its plans if Israel hadnt done anything in the Palesinian territories?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I also really like your "Lebanons arch enemy Syria" comment.  I was able to laugh at that for a bit over 5s.



Who did they try and kick out during the cedar revolution again? Certaintly not the Syrians .... oh wait.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> It is true that Israel would not care about Hezbollah after they disarm.  They would care so little, they would not even help their neighbors regain economically.



Israel would leave everyone alone if they left them alone. We don't see artillery duels and border raids on the borders with Egypt and Jordan. Those countries made their peace and quit while they were ahead. 

This entire situation wouldn't have started without Hezbollah's insanity of attacking a far more powerful foe. Lebanon can actually re-build decently when they clean their own damn house, otherwise it's useless as this situation will flare up again. 

Of course, asking the there could be something Camp David accords where US aid helps rebuild the Lebanese state as soon as they can stop terrorists from participating in their governement and using the southern portion of it's country as their own little playground.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> And there was the _maniac_ Hitler saying that there would be no peace in the world with a Jewish state occupying it.



Egypt and Jordan disagree. Once again, who started flinging rockets and kidnapping people here?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> You forget to mention, that Hezbollah has stated that they have taken 2 soldiers hostage _after_ Israel started on a mission to assasinate Hamas leaders.



After they kidnapped an IDF soldier, and had rockets pouring out of areas under their contrrol.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> And _after_ it went about killing a few influential people, people that happened to be a member of an organization that was very friendly to Hezbollah.



Oh boy a terrorist network being friendly to another terrorist network. Oh where does the fun even begin?


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 25, 2006)

> Egypt and Jordan disagree. Once again, who started flinging rockets and kidnapping people here?



Unfortunately i think this is only true in regards to the rulers of these countries. The average Joe in Egypt and Jordan probably share this distorted view.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Jin-E said:
			
		

> Unfortunately i think this is only true in regards to the rulers of these countries. The average Joe in Egypt and Jordan probably share this distorted view.



Well, I guess that's. However, the parties that maintain control over said countries (y'know the people that actually matter) actually actively support the peace that's maintained with Israel. As long as they have two bits of common sense I have the slightest feeling they'll keep it that way.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 25, 2006)

I agree as long as these countries doesnt fall into the grasp of radical Islamists. Those more moderate governments do stand on shaky soil after all. After all, Iran did a completly 180 flip from US ally to a Ayatollah regime and a member of the "axis of evil". Todays friend might become Tomorrows enemy.  

What im going at is that few things in the Middle East seams stable to me.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Jin-E said:
			
		

> I agree as long as these countries doesnt fall into the grasp of radical Islamists. Those more moderate governments do stand on shaky soil after all. After all, Iran did a completly 180 flip from US ally to a Ayatollah regime and a member of the "axis of evil". Todays friend might become Tomorrows enemy.  What im going at is that few things in the Middle East seams stable to me.



Actually that's quite true. An interesting observation, but the Shah's regime was tyrannical and all opposition that resembled anything that could oppose the extremists was eliminated long before the coup.

While Egypt is certaintly no civil rights lovefest, Jordan is a bit more progressive. Even at that, even organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood wish they could rattle the saber at Israel. They do that that $2.1 billion US they get a year goes kerplunk, and nobody wants that gone.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> There are just so many people wanting Israel destroyed, that it's extremely foolish calling all of them Hezbollah.  The drivers of that truck could just as well been Saudis or Egyption,  you really don't have to be Lebanese to support a common goal which Hezbollah made apparent.
> 
> And where is the part about the foreign nationals being in Lebenon in my post?  You also probably forgot that Lebenon is also a tourist destination...



I apologize that I missed this earlier. I repeat myself, proxy wars are started and funded by nations so they don't have to risk themselves or their people in confrontations.

Whose the militant group in operation in Lebanon? Even if they are Iranians or some such (prove this I implore you), they actively work for Hezbollah, which interestingly enough makes the strike on Hezbollah members.

Ahem, you said that they didn't have to be members of Hezbollah, which would make them foreign nationals independent of Hezbollah. I find that odd because they were driving around rockets for Hezbollah. I would think it good taste not to let random foreign national #1 drive around your ammo.

To make the case that these are unaffilated foreign nationals requires some evidence I've not seen.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 25, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> You keep repeating points that I and many others have answered many times.  I'm sure that you're just trying to annoy us by making us write the same thing over and over again.



Oh, like?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> However, it doesn't really matter what this topic really says, the way it sways.  Anybody in the world would know a decent news agency would be the BBC, not the Jerusalem times.  Reading a few BBC articles is more then enough to see that your arguments are nothing near concrete.



For someone who sourced fromisraeltolebanon.com you sure are picky.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> So, if you're not a member of Hezbollah, you're a foreign national?



Am I in Lebanon? If I am in Lebanon and am not attached to a group such as hezbollah I'm an independent foreign national. Foreign nationals who are attached to said groups such as Hezbollah are shockingly enough members of Hezbollah. 

Thus, an airstrike against them counts as a Hezbollah kill. Apparently legal definations escape your ironclad grip on reason.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Come on! just wtf to that.



wtf indeed.


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

lol, according to your reasoning you've managed to kill 350+ Hezbollah terrorists... Some of them infants.

But then, I'm probably 'misunderstanding' your post.  You seem to be giving the impression that Lebanese = Hezbollah'ese' 

And, next time I urge you to look at the screen while reading the forums.  I have never sourced fromisrealtolebanon.

btw, just out of complete curiosity, are you Jewish?  I urge you not to comprehend the question the wrong way.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> lol, according to your reasoning you've managed to kill 350+ Hezbollah terrorists... Some of them infants.



lol, civilian casualites are regrettable but it's impossible to fight a war without them. I suppose 38 dead Israelis is fine enough for you eh?

The difference between the two sides is one targets military assets and accidentally hits civilians. The other purely targets civilains. Guess which one does that.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> But then, I'm probably 'misunderstanding' your post.  You seem to be giving the impression that Lebanese = Hezbollah'ese'



Blatant mis-representation. Find anywhere I came close to say to that. 



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> And, next time I urge you to look at the screen while reading the forums.  I have never sourced fromisrealtolebanon.



You posted a link here and insitinatued that the server went down due to complaints of anti-semitism. You however effectively sourced it by stating it carried the same accurate content as your perviously linked site.

Nevermind the initial site you linked, that was just rife with anything worse then the post. You see, the difference between your sites and mine, is mine is actually fact checked and is a reputable source of public information. Small differences.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> btw, just out of complete curiosity, are you Jewish?  I urge you not to comprehend the question the wrong way.



No, I'm an atheist. Out of complete curiousity, are you a Hezbollah supporter? Of course not, useless questioning.


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

"I also wanted to repost the link to a site someone had posted" Is what I said.  I'm quoting someone that posted that site, however I was had forgotten the username so I didn't write it.

I would also like to add that the pictures also appeared on CNN (According to one member) and were posted on Yahoo (According to one member and my eyes)

You say:
"If I am in Lebanon and am not attached to a group such as hezbollah I'm an independent foreign national."

You leave no room of Lebanese civilians.  If I'm a Lebanese and in Lebenon and not attached to Hezbollah then according to your sentence I'm 'a foreign national' seeing that that impossible for millions of people to immedeadly be accepted to another nationality if they say they are not supporting Hezbollah then I must be whatever choice is left, a Hezbollah supporter.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060720/photos_wl_pc_afp/6a9b7a5446421d12211ef52b56018cfc

The sites I have posted the images from a larger series of the images taken by AFP, trusted enough to be posted on yahoo.com as news.  All of the information that I post is based off of the BBC and AFP news agencies. (BBC news and yahoo news sites)

Can I see the sources which you have quoted?

What war is Israel fighting?  Did a country attack Israel?!?!?!

You're saying that Hezbollah 'purely targets civilians' 
Lets look at the numbers:

Israel has killed 300/400 civilians. %75 
Hezbollah has killed 15/40 civilians. %37

(Please note that the numbers are inflated in Israel's favour, according the Hezbollah Israel has killed 27 of their members, according to the BBC it is around twice that number)
Who has killed more civilians?
Who has killed more civilians out of the total number of people killed?
Who has killed UN peacekeepers?


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

And, what is all of this talk about Isarel supporting the extraction of foreigners from Israel?  BS--

Source:


A Turkish yaht/boat was going to Israel to pick up Australian nationals from Israel was met from warning fire from Israeli ships.  As a result, the small boat had to wait for a day in Israeli waters (Not the safest place in the world)

Israeli military said that the ship hadn't gotten permission to depart from Turkey.

After learning that the ship had in fact gotten permission to depart from Turkey, the explanation was changed shortly afterword saying that they were stopping the ship from entering 'crossfire'.

If you doubt this informations please feel free to contact the Australlian embassy in your country to verify it. 

Please note that I have also found images of an Israeli attack on a ambulance carrying ~10 civilians. 1 died, 4 workers injured and the rest civilians injured.

I think that seeing an ambulance from far away is pretty easy.  See, ambulances have weired shapes like this ambulance did.




Please note the great aiming done by Israeli pilots in the first image.  I dunno, but the main dent is almost in middle of the first aid sign.  Not bad, but just a bit rusty.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> You leave no room of Lebanese civilians.  If I'm a Lebanese and in Lebenon and not attached to Hezbollah then according to your sentence I'm 'a foreign national' seeing that that impossible for millions of people to immedeadly be accepted to another nationality if they say they are not supporting Hezbollah then I must be whatever choice is left, a Hezbollah supporter.



Absurd strawman. I meant that in reference to non citizens.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Can I see the sources which you have quoted?



They're quite open to viewing. CBS news (which you derided as faulty), and the J post are among them. Can you give me something in reference too?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> What war is Israel fighting?  Did a country attack Israel?!?!?!



Forces recognized and participating in Leabonese government, operating out of the claimed land of the Lebanon government _attacked_ Israel and her citizenry at the onset of this. Really, how many times do I have to say this?

This is more then sufficent cassus belli. It's not even that the riads were staged or anything, Lebanon has given effective safe haven to those who engage in belligerent activites against the state of Israel, hostilites can be justifably expected.

Not that I support said course of action, but it's quite legally sound.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Israel has killed 300/400 civilians. %75
> Hezbollah has killed 15/40 civilians. %37
> 
> (Please note that the numbers are inflated in Israel's favour, according the Hezbollah Israel has killed 27 of their members, according to the BBC it is around twice that number)
> ...



Red herring. 

Does this do anything to disprove my assertion? No. It merely shows casualties inflicted. This is for a variety of reasons. One Israel has launched a 1000+ fighter-bomber sorties, given that number the number of dead civilians is actually quite low. Two Hezbollah uses antique weaponry which often misses the target altogher. It's inability to bring heavy weaponry to bear does not negate the fact that it still targets are almost exclusively civilian targets.

Israel drops laser-guided precision munitions and attempts to keep it to military targets/targets that for military potential. There are some rather odd aspects to the bombing campaign, but it does not explictly target civilians. Really, if Israel wanted to do a general bombing/artillery campaign that number wiuld be a slight bit higher. Ever see what a MLRS battery can do?


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

I had edited a post for this. but its now in the page before so you won't be able to see it.

Please note that I have also found images of an Israeli attack on a ambulance carrying ~10 civilians. 1 died, 4 workers injured and the rest civilians injured.

I think that seeing an ambulance from far away is pretty easy.  See, ambulances have weired shapes like this ambulance did.




Please note the great aiming done by Israeli pilots in the first image.  I dunno, but the main dent is almost in middle of the first aid sign.  Not bad, but just a bit rusty.

It is not a question if Israel is trying to kill civilians.  It is if they are really caring at all of the civilian loss they incurr.

The course of action taken by Israel is legally sound?

I'd suggest telling that to France, Germany, Russia, China, Spain, the UN, NK, because all of them don't think so.

UN Human Rights Organization is talking about war crimes against humanity, you're saying legally sound?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I had edited a post for this. but its now in the page before so you won't be able to see it.
> 
> Please note that I have also found images of an Israeli attack on a ambulance carrying ~10 civilians. 1 died, 4 workers injured and the rest civilians injured.
> 
> ...



First of all, I need context of said incident. Second of all, dates and the like. Third, citing one incident does not mean that it couldn't have been a mistake (they happen. A lot.).

I'm still waiting for you to answer something. Why would they use such intensive amounts of laser guided and precision ordinance if they weren't trying to eliminate casulaties. To my knowledge they haven't started dropping stacks of Mk. 82s in Beirut.

For an example, the Israelis have been playing mostly counter-battery fire this entire deal. Say they pick up a rocket launch, how do they usually respond? Well, vectoring in aircraft or trying to strike with a precise amount of artillery is their usual SOP.

Let's go to what I like to call "Fantasy Israel"

Okay, full barrage of M270 MLRS battery is fired at said site. Everything in a  square km is dead or dying. 

We note that they don't employ the full manner of brute force capable of them, and using precision guidance weapons doesn't show at least an attempt at restraint, I don't know what does. Hell, they drop leaflets. _Leaflets_.

There's also that pesky little Hezbollah tactic of using basically the entire nation of Lebanon as a human shield. When you hide your organization behind civilians in built-up urban areas things can get messy.


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

I already answered to question to why they would use laser guided missles a long time ago.  Check one of my previous posts.

Also, the Nazi's dropped _leaflets_ warning the Jews to leave.  Israel is doing the same.  Look at what happened to the Nazi's, everyone attacked them.  Look at what's happening to Israel, no ones attacking them?  Not to mention Israel is supporting said action, not trying to hide it.  There are even some countries (2 to be exact) that are supporting Israel.  

You know, the civilians, after reading the leaflets do run, but how and where to run? I mean, Israel is bombing anywhere they want, there are really no roads or bridges, anything that moves on the roads get instantly bombed (As you can see in the image above, they even bomb ambulanced and UN outposts)

If you had ever read the BBC you would see that Israel is bombing port cities where civilians had taken refuge.  I supose Israel should tell them to run again before bombing that city?

Well, there really isn't anywhere to run to in Lebenon.

However, someone had posted this information earlier, because you have great difficulty reading I shall post it again.

Neighbors of Lebenon (I seem to remember Syria) have been accepting people through the Lebanese border after seeing only some picture id.  They get food, shelter, help in finding loved ones, and even an international calling card for the foreigners.  ALL FOR FREE.

If Syria hated Lebenon so much, why would they do this?

If the Lebanese had anywhere else to run, why would they run out of Lebenon?


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I already answered to question to why they would use laser guided missles a long time ago.  Check one of my previous posts.



Bombs, they use laser guided _bombs_. Enlighten me, I'm quite sure you know more about LGB practice in urban areas then I do.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Also, the Nazi's dropped _leaflets_ warning the Jews to leave.  Israel is doing the same.  Look at what happened to the Nazi's, everyone attacked them.  Look at what's happening to Israel, no ones attacking them?  Not to mention Israel is supporting said action, not trying to hide it.  There are even some countries (2 to be exact) that are supporting Israel.



*checks off* Go Godwin!

When the hell did the Nazis do _anything_ comprable? You either are blind or stupid. Why did Israel kick this off again? Something about "kidnappings"? There's also that whole rocket thing, but no cares about that right?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> You know, the civilians, after reading the leaflets do run, but how and where to run? I mean, Israel is bombing anywhere they want, there are really no roads or bridges, anything that moves on the roads get instantly bombed (As you can see in the image above, they even bomb ambulanced and UN outposts)



Citing two incidents is not evidence that Israel is strafing convoys, I assure you if they were casualties would be at least 10x higher.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> If you had ever read the BBC you would see that Israel is bombing port cities where civilians had taken refuge.  I supose Israel should tell them to run again before bombing that city?



Is Israel firebombing said cities? I dunno, according to you it's okay for Hezbollah to launch attacks on civilian targets without warning, but the IDF warning civilians to stay away from military targets because they might get caught in the cross-fire is wrong? How the hell does that work?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Well, there really isn't anywhere to run to in Lebenon.
> 
> However, someone had posted this information earlier, because you have great difficulty reading I shall post it again.



Oh hit me again with that sweet stuff, because I haven't been explaining the finer points of international law and military for some 24 pages. 



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Neighbors of Lebenon (I seem to remember Syria) have been accepting people through the Lebanese border after seeing only some picture id.  They get food, shelter, help in finding loved ones, and even an international calling card for the foreigners.  ALL FOR FREE. If Syria hated Lebenon so much, why would they do this?
> 
> If the Lebanese had anywhere else to run, why would they run out of Lebenon?



Wow, that's a massive move of misdirection. The Syrian government, which has a vested interest in seeing it's pet movement Hezbollah well liked supplies refugees with aid? You don't say.

Nevermind what was stated was that the Lebanonese people disliked Syrian influence in it's politics, not that the Syrains hated Lebanon. That's what the cedar revolution was about.

The entire point of a total war is that a country is itself a warzone. I'm not suprised at this at all. Lebanon flouted UN calls to disarm Hezbollah, Hezbollah strikes at Israel, we hold the nation state in whom the organization operates from and is in charge of regulating them responsible.

This is a glorified spanking to Lebanon, though a bit of an overly thorugh spanking.


----------



## Cece (Jul 26, 2006)

I have never heard of the 'LGB practice' that you speak of.  All I'm saying, Israel could show more restraint when it comes to bombing targets and it would be better if it actually cared when it actually killed 'Hezbollah supporting Lebanese'.  What does this have anything to do with the type of laser guidance systems Israel uses?

If you knew any int. and military law you wouldn't be saying that it is legal for Israel to attack Lebenon.  Or maybe you know, and the US know, the rest of the world is just dumb.

Israel here is playing a game.  Bomb, run, say wasn't us,  I dunno if you think it is easy to take pictures in a 'war zone' however it is not.  The world has pretty much seen so far that nothing good has come from Israel, that it doesn't look like the situation will improve at all either.

Syria has stated that if the Israeli army moves deep within Lebenon it would attack Israel.  Iran under guidance of Russia has stated that if Israel doesn't stop the offensive there would be a bit more then a militant organization attacking Israel.

Israel should have fun spanking his little step brother, because when his father sees that his calls for him to stop don't seem to have any effect he might have to do some spanking himself.

Yes, Israel is firebombing suchs cities.  I've been saying this for the bast 29! pages. I have no idea what news agency you're getting your news from, but whatever you're reading it was completely written as a joke.  Check out the BBC. Or anything other then a news agency that is not based in Israel or the US.

You have a really short term memory, because you seem to forget that *Hezbollah started to attack Israeli targets after Israel started to bomb Lebenon.*


----------



## Amra (Jul 26, 2006)

Has anyone noticed that there are nearly 300 Lebonese dead from Israels attacks and only 11 of those are known to be linked to Hezbollah.

Things that make you go hmmm....


----------



## ANBU Hatake Kakashi (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I have never heard of the 'LGB practice' that you speak of.  All I'm saying, Israel could show more restraint when it comes to bombing targets and it would be better if it actually cared when it actually killed 'Hezbollah supporting Lebanese'.  What does this have anything to do with the type of laser guidance systems Israel uses?
> 
> If you knew any int. and military law you wouldn't be saying that it is legal for Israel to attack Lebenon.  Or maybe you know, and the US know, the rest of the world is just dumb.
> 
> ...




Some people are completely in denial, and do not wish to accept the following  
facts, some maybe ashamed.

It is just plain sad really.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 26, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I have never heard of the 'LGB practice' that you speak of.  All I'm saying, Israel could show more restraint when it comes to bombing targets and it would be better if it actually cared when it actually killed 'Hezbollah supporting Lebanese'.  What does this have anything to do with the type of laser guidance systems Israel uses?



If you don't know the acronym for "Laser Guided Bomb" I can't really count on you to know much about said topic.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> If you knew any int. and military law you wouldn't be saying that it is legal for Israel to attack Lebenon.  Or maybe you know, and the US know, the rest of the world is just dumb.



Oh, how is it illegal? Nevermind both sides constantly float international military conventions. Retaliation is justified. Lebanon has given safe haven and recognition to a belligerent group operation from it's borders. You've obviously never heard of the 1916 Pershing Expedition.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Israel here is playing a game.  Bomb, run, say wasn't us,  I dunno if you think it is easy to take pictures in a 'war zone' however it is not.  The world has pretty much seen so far that nothing good has come from Israel, that it doesn't look like the situation will improve at all either.



"Nothing good"? Compared to a region whose primary export next to oil is violence I find that hilarious. The Israelis abided by UN resolutions to pull out of Lebanon, Lebanon flouts a resolution to disarm Hezbollah. Whose playing what game here?



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Syria has stated that if the Israeli army moves deep within Lebenon it would attack Israel.  Iran under guidance of Russia has stated that if Israel doesn't stop the offensive there would be a bit more then a militant organization attacking Israel.



Like what? Saber rattaling. If you honestly think either of those armies would actually move you don't know an iota of military/political strategy. What are the Syrians going to do? Stall at the Golan again? 



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Israel should have fun spanking his little step brother, because when his father sees that his calls for him to stop don't seem to have any effect he might have to do some spanking himself.



Whose "father"? Your analogy is stupifyingly disjointed. When using one, make sure to have it actually relate to something.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> Yes, Israel is firebombing suchs cities.



*red flag*

Look at Hamburg 1943. Look at Beirut 2006. No.



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> I have no idea what news agency you're getting your news from, but whatever you're reading it was completely written as a joke.  Check out the BBC. Or anything other then a news agency that is not based in Israel or the US.



Find me a source that shows complete indiscriminate bombing took place with the intention of leveling cities. 



			
				Cece said:
			
		

> You have a really short term memory, because you seem to forget that *Hezbollah started to attack Israeli targets after Israel started to bomb Lebenon.*



No, Hezbollah pledged "Total War" (interesting that they pledge that and Israel hasn't. Huh.) after that. Of course, you ignore both sides have been trading fire for sometime now. You also totally omit the fact that Israelis were _kidnapped_, and Lebanon's refusal to move on Hezbollah to force a turnover is what started this.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 27, 2006)

By the way, I concede this debate simply because it is becoming tedious and not fun.  Feel free to think I just got owned, if desired.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Jul 27, 2006)

Vash!? said:
			
		

> By the way, I concede this debate simply because it is becoming tedious and not fun.  Feel free to think I just got owned, if desired.



Eh, it happens. Thanks for the ride though, it's given me much to pounder.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 27, 2006)

pounder? wtf...400 dead lebanese, 7 dead canadians, 4 dead UN workers of various nationalities.  No end in sight


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 28, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> pounder? wtf...400 dead lebanese, 7 dead canadians, 4 dead UN workers of various nationalities.  No end in sight


That's not very fair.  How many dead Israelis?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 28, 2006)

not funny....

can't be more than 50...u know how isreal keeps that ratio about 1:10

its truly one of the more peculiar figures...


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Jul 28, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> not funny....
> 
> can't be more than 50...u know how isreal keeps that ratio about 1:10
> 
> its truly one of the more peculiar figures...


I'm entirely serious.  How many dead Israelis?  You have to count them to be fair.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jul 28, 2006)

would you believe me if i said exactly 50?  my prediction skills should be praised...anyway, that's the number on cnn.com.  





> The IDF said the Israeli death toll is 50 -- 19 of them civilians.


----------



## Baki (Jul 28, 2006)

Came across this interesting interview on AlJazeerah with a Lebanese Psychologist Dr. Wafa Sultan, who, in my opinion, sheds a little light on the situation.
Didn't work for me on Firefox, but did on explorer  

_ZOMG a Witch!!! Burn her!_


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2006)

*will wonders never cease?*

who knew that Americans can enlist in a foreign army?  He's dead now, but I wonder if he retained his citizenship, and how many cases there are like this...



			
				yahoo news said:
			
		

> Michael Levine, 21, of Philadelphia, moved to Israel three years ago and enlisted in the paratroopers, Israeli media reported. Levine cut short a visit to his family four days ago and returned to his unit.


 link

Doesn't sound very American to me, and I should know, I am American !

@MH: I guess Hesbollah maintained some of their capabilities


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 2, 2006)

narutosimpson said:
			
		

> @MH: I guess Hesbollah maintained some of their capabilities




Hezbollah had a number of humiliations recently.

Yesterday, Israeli commando's were helicopter dropped into town far north (70 miles) of the Israeli border. They were targetting Hezbollah officials and killed 10 militants, captured 5, and suffered no casualties in the operation. The Hezbollah captured there brings the total to 7 Hezbollah detained by Israel this war. Also 25 additional Hezbollah militants and 3 Israeli soldiers were killed in ground operations near the border yesterday, in an Israeli move into the Bekka Valley.

Hezbollah also tried to fire on an Israeli warship, but ended up sinking a Cambodian merchant vessel. No Israeli ships were hit.

Lastly, Hezbollah fired 215 rockets today at Israel. Despite all that show they only managed to kill 1 civilian, and hit the Palestinian inhabited West Bank as well. This sums up how ineffective their rocket campaign is. None of the rockets hit the city of Haifa, their primary target. This shows that Hezbollah is running low on their medium range rockets.


----------



## Cece (Aug 2, 2006)

Sorry.... But what is your point again?

Hezbollah had killed 8 and kidnapped 2 soldiers w/o suffering any casualties (As far as I know).

So should I be saying--
'Israel had a number of humiliations recently' ?


----------



## hoshika (Aug 2, 2006)

Hezbollah is still in the wrong, they are terrorist afterall right?

There are so many casualties probably because Hezbollah is hiding under ladies' skirts. Another fact is Isreal did warn the people to get the hell out, that is more then generous. 

Accidents do happen. Should Israel stop? Yes, but they are too stubborn, and Hezbollah declared war on them. They do not take terrorist lightly, just as the same as the U.S. does not. 

I mean really, this should have been expected. :| I'm just sad that the people can't get out and are being killed. It isn't fair, and I put the blame on Hezbollah for being cowards.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2006)

> Hezbollah is still in the wrong, they are terrorist afterall right?


you don't sound convinced...


----------



## hoshika (Aug 2, 2006)

>_>; I was trying to convince you guys. XD; They are terrorists.


----------



## Cece (Aug 2, 2006)

I still don't understand one thing...

When Israel kills civilians you call it an accident/and or total war.
When Hezbollah kills civilians you say it is a terrorist action.

Israel can kill civilians because it is, as you say a 'total war' however when Hezbollah does the same, they conduct terrorist activities?

Where did you get this logic?! The Jerusalem Post/The Young Jew?


----------



## hoshika (Aug 2, 2006)

Um, well it is well reknown they are terrorist, unless you are supporting them?

Hezbollah is not a "country" they are terrorist group.
Hezbollah threaten Israel.
Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers.
Israel responds to the "terrorists" by invading/bombing. 

Then here we are. It isn't difficult. Hezbollah declares war against Israel, while hiding amongst civilians. This is common with a terrorist, they will hide with the civilians so that other countries will bend to the will of that group, because civilians are in the way and being killed. 

I understand that you are upset that Israel is doing this, but not everyone in Israel likes what is going on. Most of Israel is liberal. And to go about around this forum spreading your opinion that Israel is evil is fine with me. But just realized this: --They TRIED to make peace with Lebanon through politics.
--They only took the offensive when two soldiers were kidnapped, because you know, that is not right.

It isn't like Isreal makes moves w/o substantial evidence. :| But in my opinion the bombing really needs to stop, it is proving to be pointless.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 2, 2006)

hoshika said:
			
		

> Um, well it is well reknown they are terrorist, unless you are supporting them?
> 
> Hezbollah is not a "country" they are terrorist group.
> Hezbollah threaten Israel.
> ...


They aren't at war with Lebanon & Isreal is holding way more low value prisoners than Hesbolla took soldiers, which is actually fair bc Isreal is holding bunches & bunches of civilians in prison while Hesbolla took official  Isreali figures.


----------



## Vetrean (Aug 2, 2006)

Americans killed several thousand Japanese citizens in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Is that a terrorist action?

Basically, it's terrorist action causes war in response.  Which is basically what happened with 9/11, if my memory serves me correctly(which it probably doesn't, I was a little kid uninterested in world events at the time).  

Using laser guided bombs is not indiscriminate attacks against the general Lebanese population.  Why not just fire off a nuke?  Or just level a city, Israel's definitely got the capability to do it.


----------



## Stealth Tomato (Aug 2, 2006)

hoshika said:
			
		

> Um, well it is well reknown they are terrorist, unless you are supporting them?
> 
> Hezbollah is not a "country" they are terrorist group.
> Hezbollah threaten Israel.
> ...


The excuse that they're hiding among civilians doesn't work when you're trying to defend bombing power stations, bridges, and sewage treatment facilities.


----------



## hoshika (Aug 3, 2006)

"The excuse that they're hiding among civilians doesn't work when you're trying to defend bombing power stations, bridges, and sewage treatment facilities." --Vash

That's true. I really don't know why they do that. :S


"Americans killed several thousand Japanese citizens in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is that a terrorist action?" -- Luk.

If I remember correctly that was act happened during a war, and which thankfully ended the war. Terrorist attack when there is peace and strike "fear" into others.


Sorry for the old school quoting, I'm lazy tonight. And I'm not in the mood to debate, sorry.  Carry on.


----------



## Cece (Aug 3, 2006)

'Hezbollah is not a "country" they are terrorist group.'

You said many times when you wanted to, that Hezbollah controlled the Lebanese gov't.  In fact, they WERE the Lebanese gov't (many representatives according to you) as you said many times.

Wats with the sudden change of though? Would it be that you were only trying to prove me wrong?!


----------



## jdama (Aug 3, 2006)

The bombing of Hiroshima was a terrorist action, it was one of the most artocious crimes in the history of humanity. Just because you possess a state, and have the authority to use force, doesn't justify its free use, and doesn't mean that a state cannot and does not terrorize. In many ways, state terrorism is like a "legal" form of terror.

That is like saying the Holocaust wasn't a crime either, if the nazis were still in possession of the German state and had weight in the international community. 

Ridiculous triumphalism.


----------



## Mastermind (Aug 3, 2006)

Cece said:
			
		

> I still don't understand one thing...
> 
> When Israel kills civilians you call it an accident/and or total war.
> When Hezbollah kills civilians you say it is a terrorist action.
> ...


You are joking,right?
I will explain to you,only because i think you really don't understand

Israel is targetting strategic Points,like rockets,bunkers and hideots.
Hizbullah,on the other hand,launching rockets at Israel just to kill as many civilians as they can(Just today they killed 8)

I just can't understand how you think that Israel=Hizbullah -_-


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2006)

> Israel is targetting strategic Points,like rockets,bunkers and hideots.
> Hizbullah,on the other hand,launching rockets at Israel just to kill as many civilians as they can(Just today they killed 8)



the points they target are strategic enough to bring a country to it's knees, like power generation and water plants, not to mention there's a huge oil spill they caused that will ruin lebanese  tourism for a good deal of time..


----------



## Vetrean (Aug 3, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when did Lebanon have huge amounts of tourism?


----------



## jdama (Aug 3, 2006)

Lebanon has practically no resources. Its tourist industry is the country's biggest source of revenue, and the summer is high season.

It's beautiful here, lots of fun stuff to do, lots of variety, as well as history, packed into a small package, and lots of people speak either English, French, or both! Come and visit someday when we aren't being blown to smithereens! Lots of them!!!!


----------



## Cece (Aug 3, 2006)

Well, huge or not, a good part of the countries profits are from tourism... (*were* from tourism now)


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2006)

Lukannon said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when did Lebanon have huge amounts of tourism?


duh, there's no place in that region that you can't go and it's not a biblical sight or religious historical sight.  I believe some famous biblical wedding occured in Qana, correct me if I'm wrong?


----------



## Vetrean (Aug 3, 2006)

Qana?

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but I'm not exactly in touch with the outside world.


----------



## Zhongda (Aug 3, 2006)

Lukannon said:
			
		

> Qana?
> 
> I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but I'm not exactly in touch with the outside world.



The massacre of Qana


----------



## ~Kaio-Cam~ (Aug 3, 2006)

fighting against terrorist is a hard situation, however i am glad in a sense that Isreal is doing something. They've been bombed and bombed and bombed for years by people who hate them. I think the easiest way to deal with this problem will be to go on an all out war against countries who harvest terrorists. U can just sit there and let suicide bombers take over. If the countries who harvest terrorists dont do anything to stop terrorist within their country, then i believe the best action will be to declare war on 'that' country. Terror groups wont get any smaller unless someone eliminates them some how. 

I know these are hard times for the innocent who civilions killed in the mid east, but i dont think we can or should do anything to save everyone single civilian life. I believe the best thing for the world to do will be to help Isreal take out these terror groups. It makes no sense to let them kill ur own people.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 3, 2006)

Mengde said:
			
		

> The massacre of Qana


u should call it the massacre of qana 2, because the same thing but worse happened about 10 years ago.


----------



## jdama (Aug 4, 2006)

Though nowhere near thrilled, I am somewhat glad the diminshing sequel rule applies.


----------



## Zhongda (Aug 4, 2006)

Acapella said:
			
		

> fighting against terrorist is a hard situation, however i am glad in a sense that Isreal is doing something. They've been bombed and bombed and bombed for years by people who hate them. I think the easiest way to deal with this problem will be to go on an all out war against countries who harvest terrorists. U can just sit there and let suicide bombers take over.


When you say "they've been bombed for years and years", i would like to know when. The group inside Lebanon fired rockets after having its land hit by an air strike. The rockets being fired by this group now is 'retaliation' as in responding to an attacker. All Israel has achieved so far is damage infrastructure and kill civilians. 
And coercion against a non-conventional group has been proven to be unsuccessful ('operation rolling thunder' Vietnam) so no.



			
				Acapella said:
			
		

> If the countries who harvest terrorists dont do anything to stop terrorist within their country, then i believe the best action will be to declare war on 'that' country. Terror groups wont get any smaller unless someone eliminates them some how.


The Lebanese do not consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist group, specially the south where they see them as protectors. They are the only force behind the people, they are the people. Wanting to destroy a group which represents the people is wanting to destroy the people themselves (which is what is happening now). Also, i am sure that i don't have to point out that the way you view Hezbollah as a "terror" group, The Lebanese view the IDF as a "terror" group. Terrorism is basically the use of 'force' to generate 'fear' (can be state sponsored) to deliver a political message. Bombing a village for example the massacres of Marwaheen and Qana (the second one) have one effect on the people... and that is 'fear'.
You can use this definition
_Terrorism: 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._

The definition fits the IDF, and the current group who is 'scoring more points' at being a terrorist is the IDF. 



			
				Acapella said:
			
		

> I know these are hard times for the innocent who civilions killed in the mid east, but i dont think we can or should do anything to save everyone single civilian life.


When the body count of civilians exceeds the body count of the insurgent group (80-820) , you can tell you are failing. The problem is not 'trying to avoid civilians?; the problem is 'not caring to avoid civilians'.
As long as it's cheaper than PS3, it'll be status quo


----------



## jdama (Aug 4, 2006)

Spoke too soon, another massacre, this time in the Bekaa, at a vegetable market, 33 civilian casualties. 

Of course it is Hezballah's cynical, evil, dastardly fault for disguising their guerillas as cucumbers or something.


----------



## Mastermind (Aug 4, 2006)

jdama said:
			
		

> Spoke too soon, another massacre, this time in the Bekaa, at a vegetable market, 33 civilian casualties.
> 
> Of course it is Hezballah's cynical, evil, dastardly fault for disguising their guerillas as cucumbers or something.


sarcasm?
Hizbullah does not only hide in towns,they also disguise themself as civilians,and that's a FACT


----------



## jdama (Aug 4, 2006)

They ain't hiding, they live there. It could be that there very well were guerillas doing their shopping that day, incognito or not, but there were also civilians who were massacred today. Doesn't that make you sad? It makes me sad when civilians have been getting killed in Northern Israel, and anywhere else in the world for that matter. We are all human afterall.


----------



## Lakira (Aug 4, 2006)

*???????!*

What the fuck are you talking about? Lesbianese? I hope everything turns back to normal if there is one, war these days


----------



## Zhongda (Aug 4, 2006)

Lebanese, as in the wonderful group of people who identify themselves with 'taboolah', the 'arz’ tree, beautiful woman, amazing scenery and are located north of Israel.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 4, 2006)

lakira , u might wanna stay out of this one, it's rather "hot"....

On another not, the attack on Qaa which killed 23 civilians has been determined to be unneccesary due to the fact there was no Hesbollah near there.... 

Also Lebanon has no access routes by land anymore, cutting off all relief supplies and exit routes.  Sea access is currently controlled by Isreal.  

Seems to me the Lebanese military might have missed it's oppurtunity to act now....


----------



## jdama (Aug 5, 2006)

Act with WHAT homie?  Last time they got weapons was in like 1962, and we got WW II era arms, at best.

Also, if the state army acts against Israel and the US, wouldn't it become a "rogue state"/"Axis of Evil", and then bombing every inch of the country wouldn't even need lame excuses like "Hezballah was there, cynically". This is why Hezballah is allowed to exist, incidentally, and is called the national "muqawama" (resistance).


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 5, 2006)

yeah, but that's why i made my thread about "lebanon has no choice", in the philosophy section.  Basically to say that they should try to salvage their pride by making one or two enourmous counter attacks.  After that they would get whipped by ISreal, but at least they went out right.  Oh well, easier said than done , when u don't have a family and kids and civilians u r responsible for .


----------



## jdama (Aug 5, 2006)

Well, holding on this long is a historical "victory" in and of itself. Well, that's they way people see it here, anyway.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 5, 2006)

jdama said:
			
		

> Well, holding on this long is a historical "victory" in and of itself. Well, that's they way people see it here, anyway.



Lebanon is only "holding on" because Israel chooses it to. Had Israel launched the type of blitzkreig it did in 1982 (90,000 men led by tanks) then they would already be way past the Litani by now and all Lebanese, hezbollah, Syrian, whoever resistance would of been crushed in a matter of days and weeks like it was in 1982.

Israels objective here though, is consisting of surgical strikes. They aren't looking to take over any territory this time around...Which is why Lebanon is still "holding on".

Though it is strange what constitutes a victory for Arab nations. Many consider the 1973 Yom Kippur war an Arab "victory" because they did ok at first, even though by the end of the conflict they had clearly lost.


----------



## jdama (Aug 5, 2006)

We know Lebanon is militarily weaker, homeboy. I am not the Libano-American Sahhaf.  Indeed the violence only continues because Israel has chosen so. We have no say in the matter, save to survive.

Well, I am afraid they have been successful in killing more civilians than guerillas, that's some bad surgery, unless all of Lebanon is some tumor to you.
The guerillas are right there, holding the line at the border. Which isn't easy, since the IDF is the fourth best armed force in the world. I think it is doing a lot worse strategically than it did in the past, indeed as you say. I don't think mercy and restraint are the reasons for this though, since neither have been readily exhibited.

History and battles aren't just about winning and/or losing. This ain't no videogame.

I would rather we just hit reset, if not, pause would be nice.


----------



## Sasuke (Aug 5, 2006)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> Lebanon is only "holding on" because Israel chooses it to. Had Israel launched the type of blitzkreig it did in 1982 (90,000 men led by tanks) then they would already be way past the Litani by now and all Lebanese, hezbollah, Syrian, whoever resistance would of been crushed in a matter of days and weeks like it was in 1982.
> 
> Israels objective here though, is consisting of surgical strikes. They aren't looking to take over any territory this time around...Which is why Lebanon is still "holding on".
> 
> Though it is strange what constitutes a victory for Arab nations. Many consider the 1973 Yom Kippur war an Arab "victory" because they did ok at first, even though by the end of the conflict they had clearly lost.




 Haha..."Surgical strikes"?

Man, you watch too many American/British news programs.

 Granted, no one is carpeting bombs the old fashioned way...but this is FAR from surgical.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 5, 2006)

jdama said:
			
		

> We know Lebanon is militarily weaker, homeboy. I am not the Libano-American Sahhaf.  Indeed the violence only continues because Israel has chosen so. We have no say in the matter, save to survive.
> 
> Well, I am afraid they have been successful in killing more civilians than guerillas, that's some bad surgery, unless all of Lebanon is some tumor to you.
> The guerillas are right there, holding the line at the border. Which isn't easy, since the IDF is the fourth best armed force in the world. I think it is doing a lot worse strategically than it did in the past, indeed as you say. I don't think mercy and restraint are the reasons for this though, since neither have been readily exhibited.
> ...



"Holding the line"? Israeli troops are moving in and out of Lebanon at will, conducting ground operations wherever they want. CNN journalist John Roberts traveled with Israeli troops for 7 HOURS into Lebanon until they met any sort of resistance and approached the current Hezbollah position. On top of that, IDF troops have shown far greater flexibility. Israeli troops have struck as far north as Baalbek, experiencing no casualties and killing over 10 Hezbollah while taking 5 more captive. Today Israeli troops struck into Tyre, killing multiple Hezbollah and not losing any of its own soldiers. Israel isn't looking to occupy southern Lebanon yet, that's the reason Hezbollah remains there (that and they hide in civilian populations, and Israel doesn't want to just kill all the civilians in the south).

No matter which source you use (though it's suprising so many believe Hezbollah) Israeli military casualites are smaller then Hezbollah casualites in the ground fighting, with 32 IDF killed in ground action in Lebanon vs. 80 (Hezbollah account)-300+(Israeli account).


----------



## myle (Aug 5, 2006)

They are killing inoncent people. I don't think that the children are terrorists. And what determines the terrorist? What defines him?
I found  on Wikipedia:
   1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; originally applied to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
   2. Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent, such as a government.
Usage Note: The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, and vice versa.
Doesn't the US president say that the US army in Iraq fights to free Iraquian people? Did anyone ask them if they want this kind of freedom when their childre are dead, their life is destroyed, they haven't a house to stay or sleep. If you don't like your president you cannot choose another one? You can't do a revolution? Do I have to destroy your country to free you? And after this to install a president who will do everything I will tell him? A president who is hated by his own country?
I hate wars. I think they are hurting people always. Think a bomb which destroys your home or kills your friends, your neighbours, your family or yourself? Do you think that all bombs just destroy military targets. They destroy human beeings. Young people are paralysed by them.
But the wars are needed. The are essential. With the wars the oil is going to be more expensive. With wars you can control an area which doesn't belong to you. The wars help you if you haven't to fight. Yes, wars are great. I like them. You can obtain a lot of money after them. Companies will "help" Iraq and Lebanon to "reborn". The oil will give more money to some people.
Surely, there are terrorists very dangerous. Surely we must do something about that. But we can't kill all americans because there is an team of serial killers! Neither we can destroy whole Konoha because Orochimaru is there!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 5, 2006)

MH is so proud  of his military, the amount of civil infrastructure they can destroy and civilians they can kill.  Jerkoff, any body with those weapons can do the same thing.


----------



## jdama (Aug 5, 2006)

Mega-kun, it's like we watch the news on different planets. Interesting. They are holding it, but it is being pushed, there is no doubt since they aren't all dead yet. Even though I'm not one for jingoist patriotism, who could've imagined it would last this long though? Certainly not me, in all honesty. 

I am not going to hinge on all the specifics you brought up, as you will probably ignore me and think I am flaming you, as has been exhibited throughout this debate. 

However, I think it is funny that you suggest that the IDF doesn't want to kill ALL the civilians. How about wanting to kill none of them? Slip of the toungue? Anyway, there is no reason for me to be slighting you so vehemently, it's not your fault all this is happening. You're not an official spokesperson for the IDF, even though you sure like to come off as one. 

myle-san, I think this war was excessive and not at all essential. Lebanon doesn't have any oil either, and we are sick of rebuilding our country OURSELVES every twenty years; and are around 50 billion $ in debt due to that. Our economy, which was finally on the rise this summer, plummets further with each day this conflict is extended. Can't complain, I'm still alive. Regardless, thanks for the support


----------



## myle (Aug 5, 2006)

Yes, Libanon doesn't have oil but this war contributes to the increasement of the oil's price.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Aug 5, 2006)

the war is certainly lining the pockets of arms dealers


----------

