40,000 canadians trapped in lebanon, 7 killed by israeli bombing

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
The former is an immature dig trying to make Stern out as racist (it was funny the first few times).

The latter is an immature dig at Gh0st because he's joining the army/marines/whateverican'tremember which served the other purpose of reinforcing our impression of Stern's rather negative opinion of the military.

MAKE SENSE LOL?

PS: Hizbollah are shits but Israel is just batf*ck insane.
 

15357

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
15,217
Reaction score
19
The former is an immature dig trying to make Stern out as racist (it was funny the first few times).

The latter is an immature dig at Gh0st because he's joining the army/marines/whateverican'tremember which served the other purpose of reinforcing our impression of Stern's rather negative opinion of the military.
And both don't make any sense at this time, but gh0st more than stern. I mean, what the heck did stern say in this thread to get called racist?

But stern saying that soldiers = meat shield really makes me wonder why there is a military force in Canada. If everyone was like that there, Canada's already insignificant number of soldiers would have quit.
 

Mr Stabby

Tank
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
0
Well, you see, raids are fast. Fast as in a day or two's work. And with relatively smaller forces. There is not enough 'occupation' to start an insurgency with a raid.

But when you use the vastly superior land force, its not a raid anymore.
If you insist on being pedantic...

raids are incursions which don't end in prolonged occupation, ie. attacking then leaving after completing the objective, they are generally relatively small in comparison to an army, but that can still be hundreds, even a few thousand .

vastly superior forces don't need numerical advantage, as in this case, Hezbollah have very few weapons that can be used against Israeli tanks, giving Israel a huge advantage.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
man I think some of you go out of your way to attach all kinds of elaborate ideas behind what I say: sometimes a spade is just a spade ...no numbers I didnt say soldiers = meatshield ..I said he'd be deployed AS a meat shield ..kinda like the soldiers in iraq (their government lied; therefore they are "expendable")
 

15357

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
15,217
Reaction score
19
If you insist on being pedantic...

raids are incursions which don't end in prolonged occupation, ie. attacking then leaving after completing the objective, they are generally relatively small in comparison to an army, but that can still be hundreds, even a few thousand .

vastly superior forces don't need numerical advantage, as in this case, Hezbollah have very few weapons that can be used against Israeli tanks, giving Israel a huge advantage.
I'm sorry, I thought you meant numerically superior.

man I think some of you go out of your way to attach all kinds of elaborate ideas behind what I say: sometimes a spade is just a spade ...no numbers I didnt say soldiers = meatshield ..I said he'd be deployed AS a meat shield ..kinda like the soldiers in iraq (their government lied; therefore they are "expendable")
Well, excuse me for misunderstanding.
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
CptStern said:
sometimes a spade is just a spade
Racist.

Gh0st said:
screw the collateral damage
Gh0st said:
ya cause im the one suicide bombing and terrorizing israel (innocent people)
Oh look, you shot yourself in the foot. But hey, screw the collateral damage! Screw the civilian casualties you so frequently lambast terrorist organisations for creating!

With the ratio of civilian to insurgent casualties that was illustrated earlier in this thread, nobody can legitimately claim that Israel are really just targeting militants and civilians are getting in the way. That level of destruction is not acceptable whether deliberate or accidental.

This is terrorism perpetrated by both sides - it's as simple as that.
 

Ome_Vince

Newbie
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
0
why not? they've negotiated in the past why is this any different?
Negotiation after terrorists kill Israeli soldiers and kidnap 2? Lebannon should take responsibility, turn over the soldiers and disarm Hezbollah.
But that seems not in the agenda for Iran and Syria, so the only option is manually disarming them. Preferbly by the UN imo.

very effective way of debating Vince ..throw in that age old excuse of anti-semitism and no one would dare disagree right? utter blind siding bullshit (excuse my anger but that was a low blow) ...I really dont give a **** what they are
I apologise; The comment was aimed at the lack of interest certain people have that Israeli's also want to live in peace without getting bombed on a daily basis or face random kidnappings.

yes the are ..by dropping bombs in highly concentratyed areas they are executing innocent men, women and children
...ya you believe whatever the hell you want to, regardless if accurate or not:
I'm sure there's plenty of other examples ...like the topic of this thread
Its called reality
Though i do disagree with bombardment, simply because i dont believe you can defeat Hezbollah by bombardment and too many civilians get hit.
In these kinds of cases getting rid of this militia is virtually impossible, since in 2000 Israeli land forces also failed.

warcrimes against Article 51, 52, 54, 57 Protocol 1 of the geneva conventions
The middle-east is one big ass shitting all over the Geneva convention.
With terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah removed, this might change.

many saw that as a war crime
Dresden yes, because it was a deliberate bombardment to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
The other countless bombardments in World War 2, which cost many German civilian lives (and the occupied countries civilians too) were were aimed to liberate people from Nazi's.
Civilian casualties were just an "unfortunate case of collateral damage" blamed on the German occupier.

ummm could it be because hezbollah is a militia? and not controlled by lebanon? The UN recognises that lebanon doesnt have the means/will to disarm hezbollah
Exactly = Lebannon does not have the means, so Israel needs to disarm it or (preferbly) the UN.

that's your opinion, doesnt mean it's the correct one ..Israel wants lebanon to control hezbollah ...by bombing it's civilian populace back into the stone age ...how is that NOT an act of aggression?
Israel does not want Lebannon to control Hezbollah, Israel wants Hezbollah removed and its northern border safe.
Its an out of proportion act of retaliation aiming to destroy Hezbollah.

Yes, its way out of proportion :(
 

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
Oh look, you shot yourself in the foot. But hey, screw the collateral damage! Screw the civilian casualties you so frequently lambast terrorist organisations for creating!
um context? i was speaking from the point of view of the israelis with regard to their soldiers and an insurgency...

fine fine, ill be a meatshield/bullet sponge if stern just admits he hates the jews :p
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
Negotiation after terrorists kill Israeli soldiers and kidnap 2? Lebannon should take responsibility, turn over the soldiers and disarm Hezbollah.
and the flipside is "negotiate? after terrorists kill 166 innocents just to get at 13 of our guys, Israel should take responsibility and hand over those that gave the order"

But that seems not in the agenda for Iran and Syria, so the only option is manually disarming them. Preferbly by the UN imo.
what confidence do the lebanese have in the UN? they failed to condemn israel's act of aggression , the UN are slow to do anything except be israel's and the US' bitch



I apologise; The comment was aimed at the lack of interest certain people have that Israeli's also want to live in peace without getting bombed on a daily basis or face random kidnappings.
apology accepted however that rational has been used all to often. most troubling is that it's meant to steer any sort of criticism away from israel. Why does it always have to be so black and white, race against race, nationality against nationality? ...all I care about are the civilians ..regardless of which side it is



Its called reality
your link is not working

Though i do disagree with bombardment, simply because i dont believe you can defeat Hezbollah by bombardment and too many civilians get hit.
you'd think the israelis would have realised that ...........

In these kinds of cases getting rid of this militia is virtually impossible, since in 2000 Israeli land forces also failed.
taking out hezbollah will do nothing, this incursion into lebanon will lead to countless more attacks ..regardless if hezbollah is dismantled or not



The middle-east is one big ass shitting all over the Geneva convention.
not really ..the convention applies to warfare not human rights in general

With terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah removed, this might change.
I think the opposite is true. ..in fact iraq and the war on terror is a fitting parrallel



Dresden yes, because it was a deliberate bombardment to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.
it also talks about targeting infrastructure essential to sustain the civilian populace ..it's because of dresden that that particular article was included

The other countless bombardments in World War 2, which cost many German civilian lives (and the occupied countries civilians too) were were aimed to liberate people from Nazi's.
excuse my candor but I cant help but lol at bombing the civilain populace in order to liberate them

Civilian casualties were just an "unfortunate case of collateral damage" blamed on the German occupier.
I hate that term with a passion; it's meant to dehumanise aerial bombardment in order to negate some of the horror associated with it ...in any given conflict the majority of casualties are civilian ..that "collarteral damage" excuse isnt working anymore



Exactly = Lebannon does not have the means, so Israel needs to disarm it or (preferbly) the UN.
that's like burning down the house to get rid of the cockroaches



Israel does not want Lebannon to control Hezbollah, Israel wants Hezbollah removed and its northern border safe.
Its an out of proportion act of retaliation aiming to destroy Hezbollah.
by destroying lebanon's infrastructure and bombing it's civilian populace?



Yes, its way out of proportion :(
yet you think it's justified





sulkdodds: you're just a spade apologist, race traitor! ;)
 

pomegranate

Newbie
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
1
what do you think would happen if israel OCCUPIED lebanon with ground troops? and yes, they can happen with military raids. why risk urban fighting when you can just bomb houses. screw the collateral damage, if i was israel i would rather they died than my troops.

ya cause im the one suicide bombing and terrorizing israel
You're the one advocating bombing and terrorising innocent civilians, proving my point very well.
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
He's right, y'know - he only expressed that he didn't really care about collateral damage (nasty as that is).

Still...it seems that Israel is attempting to pressurise the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people into taking action by completely raping the infrastructure.

Pressure exerted by killing civilians is pretty much terrorism, even if it's not exclusively civilians they're targeting.

Gah, the whole thing pisses me off and fills me with sorrow. In places in Israel itself there are all kinds of people - Christians arabs, muslim israelis, jewish arabs, christian israelis, etc - all living together just fine.

The sad thing is that Israel's terror/pressure tactics might work. They'll flatten the country and then what? Conversely, the same tactics by militia forces aren't ever going to work because the Israeli government has this insane self-righteous notion that they have the right to do everything they do - the same madness that causes them to think "they took two of our soldiers? DESTROY! Never mind about the hundreds of them we kill and arrest all the time, let alone the hundreds of our normal citizens that our enemies have killed."
 

pomegranate

Newbie
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
1
The fact is that you would remorselessly follow a course of action that would lead to collateral damage to avoid harm coming to people who are paid to be in dangerous situations. That sort of attitude always inspires resentment against the aggressor by the victims of collateral damage, inspiring terrorists in the first place and giving them popular support. People don't turn to terrorism for the fun of it. They have reasons. The reasons don't justify their actions, and perhaps strategies like Israel's could argued to be reasonable, but until governments acknowledge and break the cycle of aggression and hate by acting the 'bigger man' in situations like this, terrorism will never end.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
it will end when you give them a reason to end it ..I agree pomegranate, this will lead to a further escalation of terrorism for decades to come
 

Tr0n

Newbie
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
9,934
Reaction score
0
Is it bad that a part of me actually wants to see this go into a full scale war with Syria and Iran?

I've always loved war, even when I was like 7 years old. D:
 

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
Is it bad that a part of me actually wants to see this go into a full scale war with Syria and Iran?

I've always loved war, even when I was like 7 years old. D:
ill make sure to tell you if its fun or not :rolleyes:
 
D

DreadLord

Guest
The United States' position on this is such a massive factor.. and yet we're so indecisive.. I feel like we should be doing something, even though I don't know what that is.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
The United States' position on this is such a massive factor.. and yet we're so indecisive.. I feel like we should be doing something, even though I don't know what that is.
Cut all funding from Isreal and give it to palestinian humanitarian aid projects.
Ban all arms dealing with Isreal, pressure other countries that don't.
Withdraw from Iraq
Impose sanctions on Isreal
 

gh0st

Newbie
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
6,023
Reaction score
0
Cut all funding from Isreal and give it to palestinian humanitarian aid projects.
Ban all arms dealing with Isreal, pressure other countries that don't.
Withdraw from Iraq
Impose sanctions on Isreal
**** no.
 

Ome_Vince

Newbie
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
0
and the flipside is "negotiate? after terrorists kill 166 innocents just to get at 13 of our guys, Israel should take responsibility and hand over those that gave the order"
I believe most western countries have a policy never to negotiate or give into terrorism. Why do we demand Israel to negotiate with terrorists?
Hezbollah can end this conflict now by handing over the soldiers, yet they choose not to, and engage in a full rocket spree into Israel.
I can understand Israel is sick of negotiating with these terrorists, especially since they're a mere puppet of Iran and Syria.
Hezbollah needs to be no more, its the best thing for both Israel and Lebannon.

what confidence do the lebanese have in the UN? they failed to condemn israel's act of aggression , the UN are slow to do anything except be israel's and the US' bitch
The UN is indeed slow, but havent they stated Hezbollah's act of aggression should stop, they should free the soldiers and Israel should then commence a cease-fire?

your link is not working
sorry, its the CNN video on how the Hamas Headquarters in Beirut got hit. Interesting video as it shows you where they were located (nice "neighbourhood" where lots of people live).
Its on the cnn main page i think.

taking out hezbollah will do nothing, this incursion into lebanon will lead to countless more attacks ..regardless if hezbollah is dismantled or not
Unfortunate, but true. :(

not really ..the convention applies to warfare not human rights in general
Do you define warfare based on an army fighting an army? since in the middle-east its mostly civilians vs civilians vs army vs militia..
Hence the shitting on Geneva convention and any kind of human rights.

I think the opposite is true. ..in fact iraq and the war on terror is a fitting parrallel
Are you saying destroying terrorist organisations/militia will not reduce organised terrorism?
You might get more "angry muslims" but the organised branch is dead, which is good. No more systematic indoctrination, organised suicide/terrorist attacks etc.

it also talks about targeting infrastructure essential to sustain the civilian populace ..it's because of dresden that that particular article was included
Yes, though my point was not on the deliberate targetting/destroying of civilian infrastructure. I refered to World War 2 as an example of how civilians got hit when ridding Europe of Nazism (like in France, Belgium, Italy and Holland for instance, where civilians died due to allied bombardment).
Even in Germany when bombing the Wehrmacht civilians got hit, or infrastructure got knocked out.

Dresden is another story, its a deliberate assault to anihilate civilians.

excuse my candor but I cant help but lol at bombing the civilain populace in order to liberate them
Because they didnt bomb civilians "on purpose" (with the exception of Dresden i believe). Its.. (yes that dirty word) Collateral Damage.. :(

I hate that term with a passion; it's meant to dehumanise aerial bombardment in order to negate some of the horror associated with it ...in any given conflict the majority of casualties are civilian ..that "collarteral damage" excuse isnt working anymore
you mean "humanise" aerial bombardment?

Unfortunatly civilians are always drawn into modern-combat.
It seems the Rules of Engagement only get respected by countries who are not in a desperate situation.
Once the shit really hits the fan, there are no more rules.

that's like burning down the house to get rid of the cockroaches
Israel's attempt to bring lebannon "back 20 years" is indeed way out of proportion. Though Hezbollah can hardly be considered "just a cockroach".
They're in the parliament, and control the entire south of lebannon + have a large armed militia with over 10 thousand rockets facing Israel..

by destroying lebanon's infrastructure and bombing it's civilian populace?
I cant grasp the tactics, though i didnt see any deliberate bombing with the aim to kill civilians.
Infrastructure bombing is meant to paralise not anihilate.
(and yes i disagree with that tactic :( ).

yet you think it's justified
I have mixed thoughts on the issue.
Imo:
-Israel has the right to defend itself and destroy Hezbollah's threat.
-Israel has the right to act and retrieve its kidnapped personel.
but:
-This "tactic" will not solve the problem, it will only make it worse.
-Bombing Lebannon's infrastructure creating god knows what kind of future death is just way out of proportion.

In the case of responsibility, imo Hezbollah shares the biggest load, they're the terrorist aggressors.
They spawned the situation, and can end it today.

I cant help but think there's a deeper reason why Hezbollah would suddenly do something like that.
I'm guessing Iran wants to cloud the G8, and get attention away from its nuclear ambitions, so it staged this with Hezbollah.
Its also "interesting" to hear the reports, Iranian missiles were used to fire on Haifa and on the Israeli warship.
ah well, i guess we'll never know.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
It's wrong to use civillians as a human shield, but it's even worse to shoot knowing your going to hit a human sheild made of civillians.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Israel at the very least... needs to allow efforts to evacuate all foreign and domestic individuals, whether vacationers or residents who want to leave the area... before they continue any military efforts.

I realize I personally have no power to intervene in their goals, as they are a completely foreign nation, but at least they can do the right thing by not jeapordizing the lives of people who want to get out and not be involved.
 
D

DreadLord

Guest
Are they not allowing ships through the blockade? I can't picture them saying no to an American ship..
 

VirusType2

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
18,192
Reaction score
2
again how does it justify killing civilians? how does incinerating a wide swath killing dozens of civilians just to take out a few "suspected" militants justifiable? they are the aggressor here ..they have entered into a situation that will lead to widespread attacks against Israel and it's allies for generations to come

Thats just bullshit Stern. Maybe you forgot that they had been launching hundreds of missiles into Israel prior? If that is not a reason for war then nothing is.

A few suspected militants?! OH, that is funny how you say that. Maybe one could also say there are 'a few Canadians' there.

It's quite simple:
Israel doesn't have a choice, they have been brought into the war by hostage taking and constant shelling. They would rather fight on enemy turf than on Israeli ground where they are very vulerable, so they are bringing the battle to the enemy, rather than have Israel the battleground.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
Thats just bullshit Stern. Maybe you forgot that they had been launching hundreds of missiles into Israel prior? If that is not a reason for war then nothing is.

A few suspected militants?!

yes:

Reuters said:
Israel's campaign has killed 179 people, all but 13 of them civilians, and wounded more than 500. It has also destroyed much of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. Twenty-four Israelis have been killed in the fighting, including 12 civilians hit in rocket attacks.
seems disporportionate dont you think?

http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-17T140236Z_01_L17714117_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-UN-EGELAND.xml
 

pvtbones

Spy
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
899
Reaction score
0
i think we need to take a step back and look at thing through less rosey-eyed glasses (both parties)

ok lets look at some of the facts (I use this term lightly)

- several countries have attempted (that includes massing at their borders) to invade Isreal on different occasions (6 day war, Yom kuppir war, etc)
- Jews has a history of being the punching bag of history
- several leaders of various countries in the ME have stated they will to destroy Isreal utterly and completely.
- the UN is ineffective at best (too much corruption and people looking out for their own interest first these days)
- Militants have been attacking Israel almost daily with rockets and bombings
- fighting militants isn't the same as fighting a regular army, often using hit and runs tactics or propaganda to swing the local populace to their side. which includes hiding them or "allowing" them to attack from nearby.
- Israel has mandatory service for it's population both male and female.

now this list is by no means unbiased as is any of us and my knowledge of the whole situation is lacking. I believe this points are important in understanding the context of Israel's actions.

I believe Israel sees it'self to be backed into a corner by several nations who want them wiped from existance, it believes that the best possible action is to moved the fight to the enemy instead of letting them hit home and destroy Israel's infrastructure (when all units are activated this costs several millions and it's production capability so any extra factors could cause disaster) so they will pre-emptively attack the enemy (as seen in the 6-day war) like a wild animal cornered by it's hunter. their mindset is if their going down their going down kicking and screaming.

I think the Yom kippur War scared Israel, bad too. For those unfimilar with the Yom Kippur War. In October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surpise invasion on the day of Yom kippur (a day of fasting and minimal use of technology I believe) on two different fronts. Israel managed to barely push back Egypt and Syria but at a heavy cost. Not to mention the constant rocket attacks and bombings. I think this is a case of the straw that broke the camel's back. They finally had enough and used the three soldiers to their advantage (not to imply they didn't want their soldiers back) and decided to send a very clear message to Hamas and Hezbollah that they will pay for their continued to attacks on Israel and it's people.

I admit I'm by no means unbiased but thats my take on the situation, I don't agree with some of Israel's actions but I think I understand how their going about it.

I apologize for the length and that some of my thoughts are a little rough, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
 

DaMaN

Newbie
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
405
Reaction score
0
I agree with quite a few things you've said pvtbones, and I thank you for being as level-headed as possible. (It really helps in political discussions ;) )

pvtbones said:
ok lets look at some of the facts (I use this term lightly)
- several countries have attempted (that includes massing at their borders) to invade Isreal on different occasions (6 day war, Yom kuppir war, etc)
- Jews has a history of being the punching bag of history
- several leaders of various countries in the ME have stated they will to destroy Isreal utterly and completely.
- the UN is ineffective at best (too much corruption and people looking out for their own interest first these days)
- fighting militants isn't the same as fighting a regular army, often using hit and runs tactics or propaganda to swing the local populace to their side. which includes hiding them or "allowing" them to attack from nearby.
- Israel has mandatory service for it's population both male and female.
I agree with all of these points. (Though I don't see how Israeli military being made up of both male and female has to do with the occupation of Palestine and invasion of Lebanon, nor with Jews being the punching bag of history. Racism/secularism/religionism against one group does not mean the afflicted group can perform the same actions against another group).

One thing that I would like to add is that while many countries (in the ME and elsewhere) have stated they will destroy Israel utterly and completely, that does not always translate into "we will destroy all Israeli and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" - a lot of the time it translates into what chief of Hamas' political bureau, Khalid Meshaal said:
Khalid Meshaal said:
Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected.

Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people
Demands or declarations such as these are not saying: "We will kill every Israeli man woman and child", it is saying "We want the oppression of our people to cease along with the occupation of our land."

- Militants have been attacking Israel almost daily with rockets and bombings
I disagree with the validity of this statement. Palestine and Hezbolla have only attacked with rockets in the past week - since the invasion of the Gaza Strip.

I believe Israel sees it'self to be backed into a corner by several nations who want them wiped from existance, it believes that the best possible action is to moved the fight to the enemy instead of letting them hit home and destroy Israel's infrastructure (when all units are activated this costs several millions and it's production capability so any extra factors could cause disaster) so they will pre-emptively attack the enemy (as seen in the 6-day war) like a wild animal cornered by it's hunter. their mindset is if their going down their going down kicking and screaming.
I believe Israel is in the opposite position than what you describe. In my opinion, Israel has the surrounding Middle East by the balls. It is very true that many nations want it wiped from existance - because it is founded on stolen land. (Much in the same way Canada and the U.S.). Palestine is the one cornered - its populations seperated and suppressed. Also, don't forget that Israel has the support of both the U.S. and Canadian governments.

Up until World War II, violence in Palestine was sporadic, and intensified in relation to increased Jewish immigration as part of the Zionist movement, which sought to create a Jewish state in a land that was overwhelmingly Arab.

Popular Palestinian guerrilla movements came to the fore around 1970. Aircraft hijackings and bombings took place, the 1972 Israeli Olympic team was attacked and eleven athletes were killed. This led Israel to launch reprise assassinations in Operation Wrath of God. Later on suicide bombings became a preferred tool of destruction. These actions were operated by a large number of groups and individuals, which made detection and prevention difficult, and were targeted not only at Israelis, but also at the nationals of other countries felt to be aiding them, principally America. Many of these actions were supported at State level, with countries such as Syria, Libya and others openly sponsoring terrorism of this kind.

In response, there were several actions by the Israeli's, including armed incursion (Lebanon 1980), segregation (cutting off the West Bank and Gaza Strip from mainland Israel), an increased level of aggression (including retaliation against houses and villages), and economic deprival.

Various peace initiatives, such as 1978 Camp David, 1993 Oslo and Camp David 2000 were brokered. That those countries which agreed to peace, such as Jordan and Egypt, were given back by Israel the land which had been occupied, upon conclusion of the peace process.
( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict )

Throughout history, Palestine and other nations have launched offensives, but it has been Israel who has invaded and segregated other nations.



While I do agree that Israel has the right to self-defence, (though that is questionable when one observes that it is built on stolen land), that right does not extend to other countries, no more than the United States does:
Self-defence in English law is a complete defence to all levels of assault and cannot be used to mitigate liability, say, from murder to manslaughter where a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty uses a greater degree of force than necessary for self-defence (compare the situation in some of the Australian states in Self-defence). Hence, self-defence is distinguishable from provocation which only applies to mitigate what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter, i.e. it is not a complete defence. Self-defence is therefore interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defence, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event. Thus, although the jury in self-defence cases are entitled to take into account the physical characteristics of the defendant, that evidence has little probative value in deciding whether excessive force was actually used. The general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property.

Reasonable force
Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law )

The things I would like to highlight in the passage on self-defence are these:
cannot be used to mitigate liability, say, from murder to manslaughter where a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty uses a greater degree of force than necessary for self-defence
one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably
Finally, Article 2 of international law states:
"...that all States take no actions aimed at military intervention and occupation, forcible change in or undermining of the socio-political system of States, destabilization and overthrow of the their Governments and, in particular, initiate no military action to that end under any pretext whatsoever and cease forthwith any such action already in progress."


Therefore, it is clear that Israels actions are illegal, immoral, and unjustified.

-DaMaN

P.S. I thought this was interesting, dug it up while researching: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Demands or declarations such as these are not saying: "We will kill every Israeli man woman and child", it is saying "We want the oppression of our people to cease along with the occupation of our land."
You know the funny thing about that statement, on how they only want to kill the jews who took their lands? The fact that they are indiscriminately killing men, women and especially children in their random and directed attacks on civilians... people who were BORN into the land... not people who had a part in taking the land away.

They're killing people for just being born some place... so if you ask me, their intent is to kill every man woman and child living inside israel... maybe not jews outside of israel, but every single man woman and child living in israel. Because right now... they are not killing only certain individuals... they are trying to kill as many as possible, even targetting innocent women and children. You hear more about them attacking civilians than you do about them attacking military personell.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
It's quite simple:
Israel doesn't have a choice, they have been brought into the war by hostage taking and constant shelling. They would rather fight on enemy turf than on Israeli ground where they are very vulerable, so they are bringing the battle to the enemy, rather than have Israel the battleground.
No, hezbullah didn't start shelling Isreal till Isreal invaded them.
 

dys4iK

Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Regarding Isreal's seemingly absurd reaction to this, it is evidence of something deeper going on. I don't believe Isreal is insane, they have always acted in an extremely ruthless manner. Something else is going on--this is part of a larger war.

And as much as we like to pretend otherwise, war is horribly cruel to civilians.

Someone commented earlier that 'the only intentional bombing of German civilians was Dresden.'

Tell that to the RAF bomber command, who adopted the strategy of night-time wide-area bombing of residental distrincts to drive civilians out of their homes to make them ineffective in the factories (and to those of you who remember that the US strategy in Germany was daylight pinpoint bombing, however inaccurate that was, two words: tokyo firebombing). Every side has war criminals--only the losers are generally prosecuted.

Modern war means war against a people, not neccesarily against an army (although that may be involved). You can see this as far back as world war one, with the blockade against Germany (The hope was that by starving them Germany would undergo a revolution and be forced to capitulate). With the attack on Lebanese infrastructure, Isreal appears to very clearly be saying "you either help us eliminate Hezbollah, or we destroy your nation."

But who do the Lebanese hate more? Isreal, or Hezbollah? Will this strategy succeed? It certainly hasn't succeeded very often in the past. In fact, the nation that suffered the most dramatic revolution in world war one was not Germany, but rather Russia--and that was brought on by an entirely self-induced economic crisis.

In this case, both sides are responsible for this spiralling descent into violence. Every time they respond with violence, they increase the chances that the other side will respond with violence. But that doesn't take the fault away from those who respond with violence.

Should we allow a murderer to get away with killing his neighbour because his neighbour was friends with the man's abusive parents? I realize this is a simplification, but try to bear with me.

My final comment is to say WHAT THE HELL at you people who are enthusiastically supporting EITHER side of this conflict. It is war-mongering at it's worst, and evidence that the propaganda war is in full swing. PLEASE do not become a casualty of this propaganda war. Even if you aren't a diplomat trying to negotiate peace, you should be trying to bring some sanity to this world. We have enough sociopaths to keep war around for a very long time.
 
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
2
Regarding Isreal's seemingly absurd reaction to this, it is evidence of something deeper going on. I don't believe Isreal is insane, they have always acted in an extremely ruthless manner. Something else is going on--this is part of a larger war.

And as much as we like to pretend otherwise, war is horribly cruel to civilians.

Someone commented earlier that 'the only intentional bombing of German civilians was Dresden.'

Tell that to the RAF bomber command, who adopted the strategy of night-time wide-area bombing of residental distrincts to drive civilians out of their homes to make them ineffective in the factories (and to those of you who remember that the US strategy in Germany was daylight pinpoint bombing, however inaccurate that was, two words: tokyo firebombing). Every side has war criminals--only the losers are generally prosecuted.

Modern war means war against a people, not neccesarily against an army (although that may be involved). You can see this as far back as world war one, with the blockade against Germany (The hope was that by starving them Germany would undergo a revolution and be forced to capitulate). With the attack on Lebanese infrastructure, Isreal appears to very clearly be saying "you either help us eliminate Hezbollah, or we destroy your nation."

But who do the Lebanese hate more? Isreal, or Hezbollah? Will this strategy succeed? It certainly hasn't succeeded very often in the past. In fact, the nation that suffered the most dramatic revolution in world war one was not Germany, but rather Russia--and that was brought on by an entirely self-induced economic crisis.

In this case, both sides are responsible for this spiralling descent into violence. Every time they respond with violence, they increase the chances that the other side will respond with violence. But that doesn't take the fault away from those who respond with violence.

Should we allow a murderer to get away with killing his neighbour because his neighbour was friends with the man's abusive parents? I realize this is a simplification, but try to bear with me.

My final comment is to say WHAT THE HELL at you people who are enthusiastically supporting EITHER side of this conflict. It is war-mongering at it's worst, and evidence that the propaganda war is in full swing. PLEASE do not become a casualty of this propaganda war. Even if you aren't a diplomat trying to negotiate peace, you should be trying to bring some sanity to this world. We have enough sociopaths to keep war around for a very long time.
Agreed.
 

VirusType2

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
18,192
Reaction score
2
No, hezbullah didn't start shelling Isreal till Isreal invaded them.
Are you sure about that Solaris? Even weeks ago I heard them [world news] talking about constant random missile attacks on Israel. I should have payed more attention, but I was making dinner. Who was firing the rockets if not hezbullah?

Much of these terrorists seem to be government funded. This is tragedy.

Politically incorrect joke of the day - You know all terrorists look alike, with bombs strapped to them.
 

Korgoth

Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
0
Regarding Isreal's seemingly absurd reaction to this, it is evidence of something deeper going on. I don't believe Isreal is insane, they have always acted in an extremely ruthless manner. Something else is going on--this is part of a larger war.

And as much as we like to pretend otherwise, war is horribly cruel to civilians.

Someone commented earlier that 'the only intentional bombing of German civilians was Dresden.'

Tell that to the RAF bomber command, who adopted the strategy of night-time wide-area bombing of residental distrincts to drive civilians out of their homes to make them ineffective in the factories (and to those of you who remember that the US strategy in Germany was daylight pinpoint bombing, however inaccurate that was, two words: tokyo firebombing). Every side has war criminals--only the losers are generally prosecuted.

Modern war means war against a people, not neccesarily against an army (although that may be involved). You can see this as far back as world war one, with the blockade against Germany (The hope was that by starving them Germany would undergo a revolution and be forced to capitulate). With the attack on Lebanese infrastructure, Isreal appears to very clearly be saying "you either help us eliminate Hezbollah, or we destroy your nation."

But who do the Lebanese hate more? Isreal, or Hezbollah? Will this strategy succeed? It certainly hasn't succeeded very often in the past. In fact, the nation that suffered the most dramatic revolution in world war one was not Germany, but rather Russia--and that was brought on by an entirely self-induced economic crisis.

In this case, both sides are responsible for this spiralling descent into violence. Every time they respond with violence, they increase the chances that the other side will respond with violence. But that doesn't take the fault away from those who respond with violence.

Should we allow a murderer to get away with killing his neighbour because his neighbour was friends with the man's abusive parents? I realize this is a simplification, but try to bear with me.

My final comment is to say WHAT THE HELL at you people who are enthusiastically supporting EITHER side of this conflict. It is war-mongering at it's worst, and evidence that the propaganda war is in full swing. PLEASE do not become a casualty of this propaganda war. Even if you aren't a diplomat trying to negotiate peace, you should be trying to bring some sanity to this world. We have enough sociopaths to keep war around for a very long time.
Agreed as well, but.... Since neither side of this conflict is not going to budge without getting what they want. (what they want being circumstantial) do you suggest we remain neutral while innocent people die?

And I just have to interject here, the hezbollah propaganda machine is indeed in full swing here in the states! Hell I can't turn on the t.v. without some bleeding heart terror supporter shoveling pro hezbollah messages down my throat. (I apologize for the sarcasm ahead of time D:)

I commend you however, for trying to remain as level headed as possible, but when there isn't any easy solution to a problem, nuetrality isn't always the best course of action.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
Are you sure about that Solaris? Even weeks ago I heard them [world news] talking about constant random missile attacks on Israel. I should have payed more attention, but I was making dinner. Who was firing the rockets if not hezbullah?
Palestinian militants were firing rockets into Isreal.
 

JellyWorld

Newbie
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
1
All civilians are equal. If someone from New York kidnapped 2 people from Boston would that be an excuse for the Boston government to invade New York and kill 166 random New Yorkers? The only crime most of the dead have commited is to have been born, or to live in the same country as the terrorists. It's incredible that people suddenly have no regard for other's lives just because of their nationality.


If Hezbollah was operating out of California and not Beirut, would you support an Israeli invasion of America?
 
Top