»nintendo64 Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 I don't understand why people are still arguing about Israel giving back the land to Palestine. This doesn't make any sense. In fact, what needs to change is for people to understand the jews never really had a place to call "home", and they found it in Israel. The arabs better start accepting this fact, just as much the rest of the world has. By the way, the problem mostly with lebanon (actually Hizbollah) vs israel it's because lebanon never took responsability of taking care their part of the borders, a piece of land the jews gave back, only to have rocket launchers placed on that land by the hizbollah, and rockets launched against them. Lebanon better start controlling its terrorist groups or someone else will (like the IDF). Yes, Lebanon is powerless against hizbollah... isn't a good enough reason to let them be.
SeVeR Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Worthless: I'll consider that post, with its complete lack of any counter-argument, to be a concession. Thanks for your time and enjoy your 3 months without people disecting your arguments to the point where all you can do is shout insults. nintendo: In fact, what needs to change is for people to understand the jews never really had a place to call "home", and they found it in Israel.You can't declare someone elses land your home, no matter how much they deserve to have a home. Yes, Lebanon is powerless against hizbollah... isn't a good enough reason to let them be. True but you can't just bomb civilian buildings, moving cars, and the airport without knowing for sure that there are terrorists at those locations. Israel is randomly selecting targets that show any sign of activity whether they're terrorist targets or not.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Ok I lied. I'll go back point by point for you, without hurlin insults, so that your little mind can comprehend a "counter-arguement" Israel is conducting "terrorist" attacks!!!! Are you watching the !@#$%^&*ing news?!?!? They join the Israeli "army" to legitimize their actions and then go out and kill Muslim civilians. TERRORISM you dumb !@#$%^&*. They can wear nice uniforms and call themselves an army but its still terrorism.So you're saying that every person in the Israeli Army joins it so that they can kill Muslim civilians. Have any proof to back that up? The Israeli army uses artillary and airstrikes (that kill civilians, yes, but is it possible not to when Hezbollah is firing their rockets from civilian houses, and storing its munitions in Religious centers?) Hezbollah fires rockets that are not accurate, are not firing on military installations, and infact have no reason to be fired other than kill civilians. The Israeli army doesn't fire its munitions from civilian centers, Hezbollah does. If you are fighting an enemy that hides in civilian centers, how do you get them without getting civilians? If Hezbollah was a military, you could fight them with minimal civilian casualties, they would fire rockets from military installations, they'd have military airfields, bases, etc etc etc. They have none of that. The difference in Terrorism and what Israel is doing is terrorism targets nothing but civilians, which is what Hezbollah is doing. If they were interested in fighting Israel they would be fighting Israel, not launching missles into civilian centers, missles that have no guidance systems, they simply blow !@#$%^&* up and thats it. Do you know understand what terrorism is? (The answer is no, you cannot distinguish a clear difference in what the two organization conduct warfare, this is either because you are stupid or purposefully ignorant. I lean toward A) Israel last pulled out of Lebanon in 2000. If you think that 6 years makes the Lebanese population stop hating Israel for what they did then you know less about this conflict than you admit. Your lack of logic must make you believe that all the Muslims in the middle east have no reason to fight whatsoever. Whether its 6 years or 60 years, people don't forget. So "!@#$%^&*" was no status quo, all that happened in Lebanon is Israel pulled out and the opposition regrouped. I never said a pull out 6 years ago would stop hatred of Israel, I'm glad reading comprehension is among your lengthly list of accomplishments. For 6 years there was relative peace between Lebanon and Israel, peace continues until something changes it. The peace was broke because of Hezbollah. If you cannot comprehend that there's no point in participating in this thread, because again you're either stupid or purposefully ignorant. I thought you didn't like rhetorical questions? There are already thousands of dead muslims, as for your "bull!@#$%^&*" figure of 20 million dead Jews i think you're dreaming. You seem to forget that the Jews already have what they want: another people's land. The Muslims want their land back and that requires attacking the Jews. You seem to want to equate hate to aggression and you're completely wrong to do so when the Jews only need to defend to keep what they have stolen. They still hate the muslims, they just don't need to do anything. Ok SeVer, If you really believe that the agression from Muslim Extremists are because they want land back, why did they not stop when they did get the land back in 2000? Why did they not stop when Israel gave the Gaza Strip back? (Because they want ALL the land back!!) Ok SeVer, so by your own admission its the Muslim Extremists causing the problem, not the Israeli's. Israel isn't grabbing more land, infact all they've been doing for the past 60 years is giving land back. Ok so a terrorist organisation "!@#$%^&*ed" with Israel. Does that mean you go out and kill hundreds of civilians? Israel isn't even targetting the people responsible, did you know they're bombing random cars that happen to be on the move? If you can justify all that by saying that "its not about moral relativism" then you can go "!@#$%^&*" yourself. You don't have the right to tell Israel what proper retaliation is. Again, got proof that they are randomly bombing cars? (Funny how many questions I'm using for the second time. I thought I had no counter-arguement in the last post?) Capturing 2 soldiers is not an act of war against Israel from Lebanon. The proper response is to gather intelliegence on Hezbollah and attempt a rescue and/or negotiate and/or destroy select terrorist strongholds. Bombing the crap out of civilians is what turned this into a !@#$%^&*-storm and the sooner you realise it the better. Would you say that next time some civilians go missing in Colombia we should bomb the crap out of the whole country? Israel made a mountain out of a mole-hill (or a !@#$%^&*-storm out of a violent fart...) Really? It's not an act of war? So you're saying the U.S could go over to North Korea and just steal people and start demanding things for their return, and we shouldn't expect North Korea to do anything? Were you born this smart or is it a result of years of study? Again, you've got no right to !@#$%^&*ess Israeli reaction, you should condemn the action that caused it. Like I said before, you've got nothing but "but but but Israel occupation!" and "Fox News watcher!" Don't bother responding.
SeVeR Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Do you know understand what terrorism is? (The answer is no, you cannot distinguish a clear difference in what the two organization conduct warfare, this is either because you are stupid or purposefully ignorant. I lean toward A)Terrorists are people who purposefully kill civilians and are fueled by political, racial, ethnic or religious hatred. You have not told me one single thing that can rule Israel out from this definition! Maybe you should open your eyes and realise that the only difference is Israel are powerful enough to do it from the comfort of an organized army. If one side "conducts warfare" with fighter planes and sophisticated weaponry that does not make them less of a terrorist organisation! Is that the only thing causing you to define the Islamists as terrorists! Do you see now why i think you're blind and stupid?!?! I'll go back point by point for you, without hurlin insults, so that your little mind can comprehend a "counter-arguement" Anyone who wants the definition of a hypocrite, look no further! So you're saying that every person in the Israeli Army joins it so that they can kill Muslim civilians.No. You do realise that the proportion of Israeli citizens in the Israeli army is much higher than the proportion of the people who live in the Islamic nations who are terrorists. All there need be is a small percentage of the Israeli army interested in killing civilians and you have an equal level of terrorism. From what we've seen over the last week i would say that most of the Israeli army has no problem killing random civilians. I suppose they justfiy it to themselves by saying that they probably were terrorists... but then again thats probably what the Muslims do too. The Israeli army uses artillary and airstrikes (that kill civilians, yes, but is it possible not to when Hezbollah is firing their rockets from civilian houses, and storing its munitions in Religious centers?) Bombing the airport, random cars, and random suburbs of Beirut is not at all selective. Would you kill 100 civilians to get to one terrorist? If you are fighting an enemy that hides in civilian centers, how do you get them without getting civilians?They're firing all the way from Beirut? The difference in Terrorism and what Israel is doing is terrorism targets nothing but civilians, which is what Hezbollah is doing. Wrong, they kidnapped two soldiers didn't they? I would say that the level of destruction to civilian populations on both sides is proportionally equal to the level of military deaths. Israel just blames the civilian casualties on something else. I never said a pull out 6 years ago would stop hatred of Israel, I'm glad reading comprehension is among your lengthly list of accomplishments.No, you said there was peace and i said that you're full of !@#$%^&* because an enemy will not attack you while they're rebuilding their strength. They're still enemies, just one side is incapable of striking back during the time you're calling peace. I can't believe i have to explain this to your dumb !@#$%^&*. Ok SeVer, If you really believe that the agression from Muslim Extremists are because they want land back, why did they not stop when they did get the land back in 2000? Why did they not stop when Israel gave the Gaza Strip back? (Because they want ALL the land back!!) You answered your own question. They want all their land back. However i would theorise that most of these "terrorists" are doing it out of sheer revenge now. You don't have the right to tell Israel what proper retaliation is. Again, got proof that they are randomly bombing cars? (Funny how many questions I'm using for the second time. I thought I had no counter-arguement in the last post?)Of course i have the right, and so does the rest of the world. As for evidence of Israeli bombing of random cars I initially found the info on the BBC but couldn't find it again so for now i have: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13912000/This shows how a convoy of vehicles was struck (she doens't look like a terrorist), and lower down it tells you how people are waving improvised white flags out of their cars to try and not get bombed. Really? It's not an act of war? No, its a kidnapping by a terrorist organisation. Its not an act of war from an entire country. Like I said before, you've got nothing but "but but but Israel occupation!" and "Fox News watcher!" Don't bother responding.Most people would say "read between the lines" but in this case i just want you to learn how to read. P.S.S time to leave the forum for another 3 months Ok I lied. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist after i made that last post. You're just too easy.
Wonderer Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Sever, if you want to make an arguement on the subject you really need to understand the word first. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Terrorist Terrorist adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities I don't see Israel making any attempts to use terror or fear as a tool to force their political agenda on the civilian population. They are responding to such an act in the harshest means possible while trying to limit casualties. At this point the only thing that needs to happen for them to stop is to have their people returned and the GOVERNMENT take over security of their border. I don't say this often as I feel its best to be accurate at all times, but your a dumb!@#$%^&*.
SeVeR Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 What are you talking about, your own definition backs me up: Terrorist adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)A terrorist is a person who employs terrorism. So lets look up terrorism to find our definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism Terrorism: The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear. I don't see Israel making any attempts to use terror or fear as a tool to force their political agenda on the civilian population. Are you !@#$%^&*ing kidding me? The only reason for this Israeli invasion is to say "Don't mess with us". They are scaring the crap out the civilian population of Lebanon to the point where they're afraid to leave their homes to get food! And its all to force their political agenda which is to reduce support for Hezbollah. They fit the definition perfectly. They are responding to such an act in the harshest means possible while trying to limit casualtiesWhat what what!?!?!?! Again, are you !@#$%^&*ing kidding? They have absolutely no regard for Lebanese civilians, they've already killed hundreds! I don't say this often as I feel its best to be accurate at all times, but your a dumb!@#$%^&*. From what you've said in your post, i need not even return the insult. You threw your own !@#$%^&* at the fan.
Wonderer Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Did you miss all the announcements made by Israel urging citizens to leave certain area's? Or all of the soldiers lines up at border enty points waiting? You think they are just sitting there for the !@#$%^&* of it? You think the terrorists, civilians, governement, and radio stations aere unaware of this? The US did a similar thing by dropping notes all over Japan for 3 days before we bombed them. While this doesn't change the result that civilians have died, in both cases the attackers have made multiple attempts to give fair warning and told them exactly which area's to get out of. It's not like we are talking about evacuating 30 million people 100+ miles. Your talking in the hundreds of thousands being evacuated 15-20 miles. I have no doubt in my mind that the terrorists are telling people to ignore them the same way Japan claimed we were just spreading propaganda. You are still a dumb!@#$%^&*.
SeVeR Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Did you miss all the announcements made by Israel urging citizens to leave certain area's?What do you think any country attempting to legitimize its actions to the international community is going to do? The whole world is watching Israel and Israel is desperate to remain the "good guy". They still killed all those civilians, they still bombed civilian infrastructure, they're still terrorists because they have no selective processes on who they kill! Just like suicide bombers who walk into a market-place or a military base, they just want to kill Jews and it looks like Israel is conversly indiscriminate. Or all of the soldiers lines up at border enty points waiting? You think they are just sitting there for the !@#$%^&* of it? So? They wait for the word "Kill" and then march in... so what? in both cases the attackers have made multiple attempts to give fair warning and told them exactly which area's to get out of.If they truely did this, then the terrorists would have been the first to relocate. Tell me why the planes have been bombing random cars? "Everyone pack and up and leave so we can bomb you", "If you stay we'll bomb you anyway"? You are still a dumb!@#$%^&*. How so? I had to tell you how to use the dictionary in the last post because all your definition had was a direction to look up another word that proved what i was saying! Am i a dumb!@#$%^&* for having an opinion opposite to yours? Well forgive me for existing outside your "realm of intelligence", but maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume that yours is the intelligent opinion.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 This will likely be my last post, you're being purposefully ignorant and using selective comprehension. Terrorists are people who purposefully kill civilians and are fueled by political, racial, ethnic or religious hatred. You have not told me one single thing that can rule Israel out from this definition! Maybe you should open your eyes and realise that the only difference is Israel are powerful enough to do it from the comfort of an organized army. If one side "conducts warfare" with fighter planes and sophisticated weaponry that does not make them less of a terrorist organisation! Is that the only thing causing you to define the Islamists as terrorists! Do you see now why i think you're blind and stupid?!?!Ok, I want you to read this really slow, I'll mark what I want you to respond to because you completely ignored it last time. The Israeli army uses artillary and airstrikes (that kill civilians, yes, but is it possible not to when Hezbollah is firing their rockets from civilian houses, and storing its munitions in Religious centers?) What I wanted you to realize from this sentence was Israel is not purposefully targeting civilians. Its impossible to target a military force that has its bases in civilian houses, weapons cache's in mosques, and not kill civilians also. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205093,00.html (OH NO A FOX NEWS LINK IT HAS TO BE MADE UP!!) Hezbollah fires rockets that are not accurate, are not firing on military installations, and infact have no reason to be fired other than kill civilians. Hezbollah fires Kaytusha rockets into civilian centers targeting NOTHING BUT CIVILANS. You see, here's the difference, terrorists attack for no other reason but terror with no regard for human life. IF ISRAEL conducted the same type of warfare that Hezbollah does, YOU would see tens of thousands of lives lost. Israel conducts precision bombings and artillary barages IN AREAS WHERE ROCKETS ARE BEING FIRED AT THEM, which happen to be IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THATS WHERE HEZBOLLAH FIRES THE !@#$%^&*ERS OFF. See, Hezbollah doesn't have a hope at actually defeating Israel in a fight, but what they can do is use the general populus as human shields, make Israel look like they are the bad guys. (Respond to this) Tell me, from where is Hezbollah firing Kaytusha rockets from, specifically, from populated civilian centers or from military installations. You do realize that its Hezbollah thats causing civilian casualties, right? They are firing rockets from civilian centers, they hide in them, the city is their base. Don't believe me, Believe the UN. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205352,00.html (OH NO ANOTHER FOX NEWS LINK!!!!!!!1) No. You do realise that the proportion of Israeli citizens in the Israeli army is much higher than the proportion of the people who live in the Islamic nations who are terrorists. All there need be is a small percentage of the Israeli army interested in killing civilians and you have an equal level of terrorism. From what we've seen over the last week i would say that most of the Israeli army has no problem killing random civilians. I suppose they justfiy it to themselves by saying that they probably were terrorists... but then again thats probably what the Muslims do too.Oh, so in other words you have no proof that there are terrorists in the Israeli army, you're just using the law of probabilities. Solid arguement you have there! Bombing the airport, random cars, and random suburbs of Beirut is not at all selective. Would you kill 100 civilians to get to one terrorist? If the airport is supplying the terrorists, god !@#$%^&* right. If the cars are suspected of carrying terrorists, god !@#$%^&* right. If the suburbs are where I'm recieving Kaytusha rocket fire from, god !@#$%^&* right. They're firing all the way from Beirut?Where else are they being fired from sparky? Show me Hezbollah's military installations. Show me a fort where the rockets are being fired. You wont find one, Beirut is their fort. No, you said there was peace and i said that you're full of !@#$%^&* because an enemy will not attack you while they're rebuilding their strength. They're still enemies, just one side is incapable of striking back during the time you're calling peace. I can't believe i have to explain this to your dumb !@#$%^&*. Oh, there wasn't peace, Hezbollah was just rearming. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY THIS !@#$%^&*ING STUPID!? You're calling me a dumb!@#$%^&*? There wasn't peace between world war 1 and world war 2, Germany was just rearming, is that it? Am I seriously having a conversation with you? What is your definition of peace? You answered your own question. They want all their land back. However i would theorise that most of these "terrorists" are doing it out of sheer revenge now.Oh, they want ALL their land back. Tell ya what, dumb!@#$%^&*, whatever land you're living on right now go find whoever natively lived there 100000 years ago and give them your house. Until you do that stfu. Most people would say "read between the lines" but in this case i just want you to learn how to read. LOLOLOL man that was a good one, back in the third !@#$%^&*ing grade. Depending on your responses I might respond back, but at this point its like talking with a 5 year old who, with finger stuck in ears, is repeating LALALALALLALALALALLALAALLALALA when its parents are trying to tell him Santa Clause isn't real.
Wonderer Posted July 24, 2006 Report Posted July 24, 2006 Your so intent on pointing blame that you consistantly ignore very simple facts. Instead you respond with hightened emotional responses lacking logical arguements. If the Lebansise governement was doing their job this would never have happened. In order to stop the attacks they only need to return the hostages and the government take responsibility for border security. While the entire thing is unfortunate, you need to accept these facts and quit making excuses. 1) Security is the responsibility of the government.2) Kidnaping is immoral and unethical and deserves nothing less than the full force available to combat it. There is no excuse or justification for it, ever. You might as well use rape as a method to extract information. They are both unforgivable acts. Now if you have a logic argument of why either of those facts is wrong plerase share it with us. But until you address the CAUSE of the issue your still making excuses to point blame.
SeVeR Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Worthless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205352,00.html (OH NO ANOTHER FOX NEWS LINK!!!!!!!1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205093,00.html (OH NO A FOX NEWS LINK IT HAS TO BE MADE UP!!) Oh my God! I was actually about to apoligize for being presumptious in my opinion that you get all your news from Fox. I can't believe how right i was. You've just gone and proven everything that i personally thought of you and justified every attack i made on you. Fox is so full of propoganda that its a struggle to siphon of the facts without getting a descriptively bias chunk of conservative bull!@#$%^&* attached to it. I always believed you lapped it up like a good little tool. This will likely be my last postWhere have i heard that before? Two posts back? What I wanted you to realize from this sentence was Israel is not purposefully targeting civilians. Its impossible to target a military force that has its bases in civilian houses, weapons cache's in mosques, and not kill civilians also. Anyone can bomb a building and say there might have been a terrorist there ...Or they can bomb the whole of South Beirut and say "its a hot-bed of terrorist activity". None of that makes them in the slightest bit "selective" when it comes to who they kill. When Hezbollah fires rockets into Israel they can say "we're aiming for the Israeli checkpoints". You'd be a real idiot to believe that, but for some reason when Israel is the culprit you believe everything the US media tells you. Yet when the facts come out they don't support you in the slightest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5208912.stm >> At least 362 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and 37 Israelis - about half of them civilians - have been killed since the violence erupted 13 days ago. Oh wait, did you say that Israelies aren't targetting civilians and Hezbollah are? Wow, i wonder where you got that factually diluted republican garbage from. Hezbollah fires rockets that are not accurate, are not firing on military installations, and infact have no reason to be fired other than kill civilians. OH! WOW, really? Well Israel levels the whole of South Beirut with no regard for who is inside those buildings. There is absolutely no selection in who they kill at all! How are you so blind when you see the same thing coming from Hezbollah! Israel conducts precision bombings and artillary barages IN AREAS WHERE ROCKETS ARE BEING FIRED AT THEM, which happen to be IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THATS WHERE HEZBOLLAH FIRES THE !@#$%^&*ERS OFF.Ok, so again i'll ask: From Beirut? They're firing all the way from Beirut? Where else are they being fired from sparky? Show me Hezbollah's military installations. Show me a fort where the rockets are being fired. You wont find one, Beirut is their fort. Hey dumb!@#$%^&*, the range of Hezbollahs missiles is 70 km. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738632.html >>Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Friday that Hezbollah has rockets with a range of up to 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) or more, an admission that brings more major cities within their range, including possibly Hadera and Netanya. This would mean that Hezbollah has rockets that could reach within 20 to 30 kilometers of Tel Aviv Fired from Beirut their rockets would barely even reach the border.So for the love of God, get your facts right before insulting my intelligence. Tell me, from where is Hezbollah firing Kaytusha rockets from, specifically, from populated civilian centers or from military installations.They don't have any military installations. They're not firing rockets from Beirut though so you can throw your theory that all Israeli targets are hostile into the trash bin along with your Fox News subscription. Oh, so in other words you have no proof that there are terrorists in the Israeli army, you're just using the law of probabilities. No i'm using the fact that the Israeli army is showing no selection process in who they kill. If the airport is supplying the terrorists, god !@#$%^&* right. If the cars are suspected of carrying terrorists, god !@#$%^&* right. If the suburbs are where I'm recieving Kaytusha rocket fire from, god !@#$%^&* right.One, what happened to Iran supplying the terrorists? Two, is a suspicion all that you need to murder someone? Three, they can't !@#$%^&*ing fire from Beirut. Oh, there wasn't peace, Hezbollah was just rearming. Yes.There wasn't peace between world war 1 and world war 2, Germany was just rearming, is that it?Or how about we go in the opposite direction and say that Israel and the Palestinians have been at peace at certain times in their existence just becaus for a few months there might not have been an attack. A few months to six years is as six years is to twenty. Even then its debatable if Germany was ever at peace during that period of time, prior to world war 2 they conquered czechoslovakia and austria, was that peace? Was the election of Adolf Hitler a sign of a people at peace? If you pound and pound your opponent until they cannot recover for a number of years that does not remove their will to strike back. As far as i'm concerned all that achieves is a momentary one-sidedness where either compassion of complete annihilation can be shown. If as soon as the opponent can fight back, they do so then the war was never over and the lack of fighting was only a strategic decision not to be completely finished off. Tell ya what, dumb!@#$%^&*, whatever land you're living on right now go find whoever natively lived there 100000 years ago and give them your house. Until you do that stfu. No-one is contesting the land i live on. How can these simple premises p!@#$%^&* you by as you casually spout out these arguments worthy of a pre-teen? If you are a pre-teen i apoligise. like talking with a 5 year old who, with finger stuck in ears, is repeating LALALALALLALALALALLALAALLALALA when its parents are trying to tell him Santa Clause isn't real. You needed to be told that Santa isn't real? !@#$%^&*.....
SeVeR Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Wonderor: Your so intent on pointing blame that you consistantly ignore very simple facts. Instead you respond with hightened emotional responses lacking logical arguements.What simple facts? What emotional reponses? What lack of logic?If the Lebansise governement was doing their job this would never have happened. Don't you mean "was capable of doing their job"? None of this justifies what Israel is doing. I would commend them if they took out the rocket positions, militarised the border and called for UN defense forces. But they're going far beyond that and targetting entire population centres, civilian infrastructure and random civilian vehicles. 1) Security is the responsibility of the government.True. Lebanon should have controlled Hezbollah better. I commend any action that Israel has taken to eliminate Hezbollah targets and rocket positions. You're completely missing what i'm arguing about. 2) Kidnaping is immoral and unethical and deserves nothing less than the full force available to combat it. Well lets invade South America then! There are plenty of people who have been kidnapped there. How about we blow up the rest of Iraq since there are plenty of people going missing there too.... how about we kill 300 civilians and maybe we'll get our soldiers back if we didn't already kill them ourselves? How exactly does blowing up the enemy get your soldiers back when you could easily be killing them in the process? How about we invade nations which happen to have hostage takers within their borders all over the World and destroy some civilian populations?!? There are people being kidnapped every day. Not only that but there are Israeli soldiers being killed every week, how exactly does this particular kidnapping change things? And why the use of force that will solve absolutely nothing? Now if you have a logic argument of why either of those facts is wrong plerase share it with us. I've agreed that those are facts and told you exactly why there is no reason to counter it with the deaths of hundreds of civilians in a fruitless campaign where target selection is thrown out the window.
Wonderer Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 I believe that the Lebanese government's inability to control its own border is justification for Israel to respond to the attacks. It's not like the Lebanese government is trying to help recover the people or stop the rockets. If Lebanon was to stop the rockets and activly force the terrorists to return the prisoners then i would say Israel should stand down. But as they have still failed to take any action to secure their country they have nothing to !@#$%^&* about.
Wonderer Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Let me put this another way. If your kid kicks an animal and you don't immediatly stop him, then i'll step in and stop him myself. If you don't like it thats too bad because i do have an inherant right and RESPONSIBILITY to protect that animal. Nothing you do or say is going to change that. If you don't like my method then you should deal with it yourself. Here is a great article. “All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,†said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.†There has been strong verbal support for such a force in public, but also private concerns that soldiers would be seen as allied to Israel and would have to fight Hezbollah guerrillas who do not want foreigners, let alone the Lebanese Army, coming between themselves and the Israelis. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/mi...agewanted=print As you can see Israel is happy to step back if somone else want to secure the border. Hardly the act of a terrorist. But for everyones words no government wants to commit. So alas, no one but Israel is willing to step up right now even though they ALL AGREE THAT FORCE IS WARANTEED!!
Dr.Worthless Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 You convinced me SeVer, Fox news is evil and so is Israel. You win. I'll now get information from the unbiased BBC. *edit* I forgot conservatives, and the USA. Add those to the evil list. Care to show me around moveon.org? Hey dumb!@#$%^&*, the range of Hezbollahs missiles is 70 km. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738632.html >>Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Friday that Hezbollah has rockets with a range of up to 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) or more, an admission that brings more major cities within their range, including possibly Hadera and Netanya. This would mean that Hezbollah has rockets that could reach within 20 to 30 kilometers of Tel Aviv Fired from Beirut their rockets would barely even reach the border.So for the love of God, get your facts right before insulting my intelligence. I didn't mean to imply that they were firing rockets from Beirut, that was my fault. Beirut is clearly where alot of intelligence/weapons are being held and then being shipped south. Way to completely dodge all the direct questions in the post, and the main point of the paragraph you quoted though. CNN.com lists on monday the 17'th A volley of Hezbollah rockets falls on at least nine towns between Rosh Hanikra and Kiryat Shmona, including Safed. Hezbollah also concentrates rocket salvos on Haifa. Israeli warplanes bomb an army barracks in Abde and targets in southern Lebanon. IDF also strike a truck carrying missiles in Beirut, along with other targets in the city. I guess they got lucky while attacking all those civilian vehicles...
AstroProdigy Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Haha I love " " By the way I'm not a Republican and I rairly consult FOX yet I still agree with Worthless . This isn't a partisan issue in the U.S. Most people can see the difference between a rational and democratic country and a terrorist organization.By the way, Hezballa denies that it's having any casualties hoping that the international community will stupidly think that Israel is blindly attacking civilians. I guess some people did fall for it...
Dr.Worthless Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Oh my God! I was actually about to apoligize for being presumptious in my opinion that you get all your news from Fox. I can't believe how right i was. You've just gone and proven everything that i personally thought of you and justified every attack i made on you. Fox is so full of propoganda that its a struggle to siphon of the facts without getting a descriptively bias chunk of conservative bull!@#$%^&* attached to it. I always believed you lapped it up like a good little tool. OMG HOW RIGHT YOU WERE I LINKED TWO FOX NEWS LINKS THAT WERE NEWS STORIES AND OMG THE ONLY SOURCE I GET MY NEWS FROM IS FOX NEWS LOLWOWOWHAHAHAHAHA Are you 12?
SeVeR Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 Wonderor: I believe that the Lebanese government's inability to control its own border is justification for Israel to respond to the attacks. It's not like the Lebanese government is trying to help recover the people or stop the rockets. If Lebanon was to stop the rockets and activly force the terrorists to return the prisoners then i would say Israel should stand down. But as they have still failed to take any action to secure their country they have nothing to !@#$%^&* about.Wonderor, i completely agree with you, Israel should have responded. But they should have been discriminate in who they targetted and they weren't. They levelled whole regions of Beirut without specifically targetting terrorists. They are just as bad as the terrorists who are indiscriminate in who they kill. The reason for Israel to attack was the kidnappings and the reason for the kidnappings was probably directly related to Israels use of force against Lebanon and the Palestinians in recent decades. You can't just say that it started with Hezbollah and even if you are doing that you can't agree that the indiscriminate killing is the right response to make. Worthless: Care to show me around moveon.org? I have no idea what that site is, so i can't help you. Beirut is clearly where alot of intelligence/weapons are being held and then being shipped south. Way to completely dodge all the direct questions in the post, and the main point of the paragraph you quoted though.I didn't intend to dodge anything in your post, i thought i was as thorough as possible. If weapons are being held in Beirut then you still don't blow up whole civilian buildings and entire neighborhoods in the hope of getting at them. IDF also strike a truck carrying missiles in Beirut, along with other targets in the city. I guess they got lucky while attacking all those civilian vehicles... I guess they did get lucky, but i don't see how anyone can condone destroying civilian vehicles in the hope of getting one truck full of missiles. Great they succeeded in getting one, but how many civilians had to die? You convinced me SeVer, Fox news is evil and so is Israel. You win. I'll now get information from the unbiased BBC. *edit* I forgot conservatives, and the USA. Add those to the evil list. Well you haven't responded to most of my post and left many of the arguments unanswered, so i guess so. I know you're being sarcastic, i don't think all conservatives are evil, i just think that some conservative opinion that i object to gets into Fox News. As for the USA, i'm living here now, i don't think the country as a whole is evil, just the foreign policy of the government. The BBC is also not without bias, although its harder to find examples of it and they adhere to very strict principles in that area.
Wonderer Posted July 25, 2006 Report Posted July 25, 2006 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/25/D8J37I5O1.html Hezbollah Says Israeli Response a SurpriseBy SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI!@#$%^&*ociated Press WriterBEIRUT, Lebanon A senior Hezbollah official said Tuesday the guerrilla group did not expect Israel to react so strongly to its capture of two Israeli soldiers. Mahmoud Komati, deputy chief of Hezbollah's political arm, also told The !@#$%^&*ociated Press in an interview that his group will not lay down arms. "The truth is _ let me say this clearly _ we didn't even expect (this) response.... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said Komati. He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel to the July 12 cross-border raid, in which three Israelis were killed. In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon to seize Hezbollah officials or briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds. He said the Shiite group had anticipated there would be negotiations on exchanging the Israeli soldiers for three Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails, with Germany acting as a mediator as it did before. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/25/D8J3579G0.html Israel Would Prefer NATO-Led CoalitionBy SLOBODAN LEKIC!@#$%^&*ociated Press Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium As world leaders scramble to secure a cease-fire in Lebanon, a crucial question arises: Who will ensure the peace? Israel has suggested it prefers a NATO-led coalition _ not the traditional U.N. peacekeeping force that has tried but failed to bring peace to Lebanon the last three decades. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205378,00.html While admitting that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is working at a "slow pace," the official insisted the plan was constructed out of concern for human life. "We could do it much faster if we would be willing to inflict high civilian casualties," the official said. "The decision was made to move in a methodical, slow way." Your welcome to draw your own conclusions but here are some highlights... 1) Hezbollah admits they kidnapped them figuring it'd be business as usual. So kidnapping is nothing more than a common tool to try and force the release of others. 2) Israel wants NATO to take over the operation of securing the border as the UN has been failed to do it for 30 years. 3) Israel is taking it very slow and easy and making their attacks with the intention of LIMITING casualties. Put them together and its fair to say that after 30 years of failed attempts they are no longer willing to allow kidnapping and minor strikes to be used a common political tool by their enemies and have decided to deal with it in a firm and direct manner while trying to limit the number of people killed intentionaly as well as unintentionaly.
candygirl Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 From the ctv news I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two UN military observers, with two more feared dead," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, after rushing out of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. "This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post at Khiyam occurred despite personal !@#$%^&*urances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."
SVS Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 The simple fact is this. Hezbollah violated Israeli sovereignty by crossing the UN blue line (entering Israeli land) and attacking Israeli defense forces. To make it worse, Hezbollah then kidnapped Israeli citizens and hauled them back into Lebanon. This is no simple action. That is what is called an act of war. Israel responded to this act of war by fully committing its defense forces to prevent further aggression against its citizens (Which is one of the primary responsibilities of government). Unfortunately because of the special cir!@#$%^&*stances in the region it is impossible for Israel to make targeted strikes against Hezbollah without copious amounts of civilian causalities. It is not Israel’s fault that its enemy choices to use Lebanon citizens as human shields. Why should Israel have to sit there and allow rockets to rain down upon its cities, sit there and watch their borders be invaded and their citizens kidnapped, solely because their enemy shields itself with civilians. This is not terrorism. This is war. Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanon government. Lebanon was ordered by the UN Security Council to deploy its army into the southern border area and completely disarm Hezbollah, that was years ago, they are still armed and the Lebanon army is not deployed. By not disarming Hezbollah, by allowing them to take part of the government, and by not preventing them from committing acts of war against their neighboring nation the government of Lebanon is just as guilty of Hezbollah’s crimes as the Hezbollah organization itself. For those of you living in the United States… Imagine if Mexican paramilitary forces crossed our border, attacked one of our army bases, and then dragged some of our citizens back into Mexico. How do you think the United States would view that action? Do you know historically what violating a nation’s sovereignty is? Do you comprehend that a government’s foremost responsibility is to protect its citizens? To protect its sovereignty? For those of you living in Europe, imagine the same thing. A paramilitary force with ties to a neighboring countries government invades your nation, kills and kidnaps your citizens, how would your nation react? I doubt your nation would react with diplomacy. I doubt any nation would react… with diplomacy. To hold Israel to different standards then we hold the rest of the world is asinine. I feel horrible when I read of the civilians being killed in Lebanon… the infrastructure that has been lost… knowing how long it took Lebanon to create that infrastructure it pains me to see what has happened. However, that does not mean Israel’s actions are wrong. In a perfect world, armed forces would still dress in uniform (to distinguish themselves from civilians), they would not shield themselves under civilians and the Geneva Conventions would be honored. This however is not the case now and presumably it will not be the case ever again. This is just the beginning of a much larger conflict, anyone who believes anything can be gained by knelling down and capitulating when your sovereignty is threatened is being unrealistic and at worst... foolish.
SeVeR Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 Just to put what i'm saying into perspective, the Israeli attack on the UN outpost was the top story on most news networks, however Fox only had a story about Israels decision to militarise the border with videos of the following: 1. Hezbollah rockets hitting Haifa2. Israeli soldiers die In fact the top story was a deflection away from the whole conflict and was about Iraq. Wonderor: Its completely irrelevent what Hezbollah expected to happen. I don't see why their surprise is connected with anything at all to do with this conflict. I was surprised about what Israel did too, as was much of the world, so whats your point? SVS: That is what is called an act of war. Israel responded to this act of war by fully committing its defense forces to prevent further aggression against its citizensIts not an act of war from Lebanon. Its a particular terrorist organisation who do not own or operate the airport or South Beirut. is not Israel’s fault that its enemy choices to use Lebanon citizens as human shields. You seem to think that Israel is actually confirming terrorist locations and selectively bombing them. Its obvious that this is not the case. Why should Israel have to sit there and allow rockets to rain down upon its cities, sit there and watch their borders be invaded and their citizens kidnapped, solely because their enemy shields itself with civilians.I agree they shouldn't have to. They should militarise the border, ask NATO to control south Lebanon, take out the rocket positions and attempt to negotiate with Hezbollah. They have gone far beyond that. This is just the beginning of a much larger conflict, anyone who believes anything can be gained by knelling down and capitulating when your sovereignty is threatened is being unrealistic and at worst... foolish. Anyone who believes the Israeli armed forces are an organized defensive force under the total command of their generals is a fool. When hate is in control, orders get unheard or disobeyed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
Wonderer Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 Wonderor: Its completely irrelevent what Hezbollah expected to happen. I don't see why their surprise is connected with anything at all to do with this conflict. I was surprised about what Israel did too, as was much of the world, so whats your point? I fail to see how Hezbollah's expectations could possibly be irrelevant. Their expectations dictate their actions which caused this entire mess.
SeVeR Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 So what? Hezbollah expected Israel not to invade half of Lebanon and bomb the airport, and they thought they could get away with their actions. I don't see how this is relevent or how it supports your argument. In fact it supports my argument more because it proves that Israel used a disproportionate amount of force to counter Hezbollah's actions. Other than that i have no idea what you're getting at.
Recommended Posts