SeVeR Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 Why? You can't tell me why what you said is relevent to your arguments so your response is that my post is stupid? I don't know why i'm even arguing with dumb!@#$%^&*es like you. If all you're going to reply with is "thats stupid" then you're a waste of time on this forum.
Wonderer Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 We can't teach you common sense and logic as your too ignorant to learn via this medium. sorry...
SeVeR Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 You're so full of it. I asked you a simple question which you couldn't respond to so you gave-up and called my post stupid. I'm sure that required alot of "common sense and logic". Did it finally click that you're interpreting irrelevent facts as reasons to support Israel? your too ignorant By the way its "you're" and not "your" you complete re!@#$%^&*. Get an education before calling another person's post stupid.
Wonderer Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 Sorry for my typo. That doesn't change the fact that you have proven to be incapable of understanding the simplicities of human behaviour.
SeVeR Posted July 26, 2006 Report Posted July 26, 2006 ...And that argument still isn't sticking unless you can explain how Hezbollah's "level of surprise" is somehow relevent to whats going on in Lebanon right now. I guess it could mean they weren't as prepared to defend against Israel? Please enlighten me if you can, as i'm at least trying to figure it out. The more you dodge the question the more i'll keep asking it. Telling me my opinion is stupid or claiming a lack of common sense and logic is baseless until you explain yourself. Keep on insulting me if you wish, i'll just keep asking you to answer the question you dodged by calling my post "stupid". Thats how children argue, they get stuck and go straight for an insult. Children somehow believe that insulting someone is an adequate counter-argument, but to the intellectual its a sign of capitulation. That doesn't change the fact that you have proven to be incapable of understanding the simplicities of human behaviour.We can't teach you common sense and logic as your too ignorant to learn via this medium Wow, thats the most stupid post yet. Since i asked you to answer the question these have been your responses. Are you going to keep dodging the argument to make these baseless sentences that offer nothing other than proof that my opinion is in disagreement to yours?
SVS Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 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 citizens Its not an act of war from Lebanon. Its a particular terrorist organisation who do not own or operate the airport or South Beirut. This just shows how misinformed you are. Hazbollah is a part of the legitimate government of Lebanon. By allowing them to take part in government, by not deploying the army allowing the southern border, and by not forcing them to disarm... Lebanon is just as responsible for their actions.
SeVeR Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 Actually i already knew that a Hezbollah official is in the Lebanese government. It didn't change my opinion in the slightest. Just because someone from that organisation is on the government it doesn't mean that Hezbollah takes orders from the government.The Hezbollah official doesn't even have to inform the government of what his organisation is doing. I very much doubt that the government knew what Hezbollah was planning to do. I think there's a bit of an illusion that the Lebanese government knows about what's going on outside of Beirut. I understand that governments in countries like the USA and the UK are expected to know everything about all areas of their country but thats impossible for a government like the one in Lebanon. They don't have the man-power to even get close. For a comparison look at the situation in Afghanistan and how Kabal is about all that the government there controls.
Wonderer Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 Actually i already knew that a Hezbollah official is in the Lebanese government. It didn't change my opinion in the slightest. Just because someone from that organisation is on the government it doesn't mean that Hezbollah takes orders from the government.The Hezbollah official doesn't even have to inform the government of what his organisation is doing. I very much doubt that the government knew what Hezbollah was planning to do. It is the responsility of the government to find these things out and monitor the populace to ensure the saftey of its people and that their laws are being followed. It is also the job of the governemt to secure and maintain their borders. The situation does not change who is responsible. If the minutemen organisation started attacking Mexican imigrants the US government would still be resopnsbile regardless of if they were involved in the planning.
SVS Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 Actually i already knew that a Hezbollah official is in the Lebanese government. It didn't change my opinion in the slightest. Just because someone from that organisation is on the government it doesn't mean that Hezbollah takes orders from the government.The Hezbollah official doesn't even have to inform the government of what his organisation is doing. I very much doubt that the government knew what Hezbollah was planning to do. I think there's a bit of an illusion that the Lebanese government knows about what's going on outside of Beirut. I understand that governments in countries like the USA and the UK are expected to know everything about all areas of their country but thats impossible for a government like the one in Lebanon. They don't have the man-power to even get close. For a comparison look at the situation in Afghanistan and how Kabal is about all that the government there controls. So basicly your rationale is that since they don't "know" what Hezbollah is up to they are not held responsible for that groups actions within the countries borders? Dispite the fact they DO know that Hezbollah frequently attacks Israel. Dispite the fact they allow Hezbollah to take part in the government. Dispite the fact they refuse to deploy their armed forces along the southern border and disarm Hezbollah. Riggghhhhtttttt... ya, Lebanon is COMPLETELY innocent in all this. No offense, but I think at this point in time it is clear you lack any logical reasoning abilities and I must decline any further discussion with you. Actually i already knew that a Hezbollah official is in the Lebanese government. It didn't change my opinion in the slightest. Just because someone from that organisation is on the government it doesn't mean that Hezbollah takes orders from the government.The Hezbollah official doesn't even have to inform the government of what his organisation is doing. I very much doubt that the government knew what Hezbollah was planning to do. It is the responsility of the government to find these things out and monitor the populace to ensure the saftey of its people and that their laws are being followed. It is also the job of the governemt to secure and maintain their borders. The situation does not change who is responsible. If the minutemen organisation started attacking Mexican imigrants the US government would still be resopnsbile regardless of if they were involved in the planning. Exactly right Wonderer. This also happens to be why Israel has attacked Lebanon. To provide safety to the citizens of Israel and to defend the countries borders. Any other nation facing a similiar situation would of reacted in the same way which is why all the hypocritical whining occuring from some member nations of the EU is so asinine.
Wonderer Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 ...And that argument still isn't sticking unless you can explain how Hezbollah's "level of surprise" is somehow relevent to whats going on in Lebanon right now. I guess it could mean they weren't as prepared to defend against Israel? Please enlighten me if you can, as i'm at least trying to figure it out. The more you dodge the question the more i'll keep asking it. Telling me my opinion is stupid or claiming a lack of common sense and logic is baseless until you explain yourself. Keep on insulting me if you wish, i'll just keep asking you to answer the question you dodged by calling my post "stupid". Thats how children argue, they get stuck and go straight for an insult. Children somehow believe that insulting someone is an adequate counter-argument, but to the intellectual its a sign of capitulation. That doesn't change the fact that you have proven to be incapable of understanding the simplicities of human behaviour. We can't teach you common sense and logic as your too ignorant to learn via this mediumWow, thats the most stupid post yet. Since i asked you to answer the question these have been your responses. Are you going to keep dodging the argument to make these baseless sentences that offer nothing other than proof that my opinion is in disagreement to yours? I haven't bothered to re-explain it because you don't listen. You have a general disregard for responsibility and make excuses of why their actions should be tolerated. You also lack the moral and ethical foundation to comprehend what people have attempted to communicate with you. Perhaps you've been trained to think the way you do, I’ve been trained to be a technological analyst. So when I consider a situation I start by considering the root cause. If you neglect to address the root of the problem then you have already failed to address the issue. If you do however figure out the root cause of a problem you can then figure out how it got fubared and how to stop it as well as keep it from happening again. This is what you keep ignoring and making excuses about. The situation was caused by a long chain of events that goes beyond this conflict. It's not about who attacked who, it’s not about the kidnapping. It's about the thought process of the people involved and how they came to decide what is acceptable and what is not. You don't understand why their expectations were important because you don't see how it's relevant to the way they think. Until you are willing to analyze the situation to understand WHY it happens you'll never be able to accept the situation. But just to be a good sport I will make 1 final attempt to explain the importance of their surprise as it’s really quite simple. Hezbollah performs these acts because they believe it's OK to treat people as pawns. They don't look at other people as souls with an inherent right to live. They don't look at other people as being equal. Instead they look at people as their pawns. They believe they have not only have the moral and ethical right to steal people's lives as a political tool, they believe they are obligated to do it. The reason the US supports Israel on this particular attack is because we agree with the intention of not allowing terrorism to drive the government's responses. The US has adopted a simple policy that means we do not EVER EVER EVER negotiate with terrorists. We won't trade prisoners, give money, nothing. We will do our best to talk them down, but if that fails the ONLY acceptable action is force. Hezbollah EXPECTED that Israel would agree to a prisoner trade using Germany to negotiate it. They were surprised now because Israel said no and decided to attack them and treat the Hezbollah as criminals. But the fact is that kidnapping makes them criminals and deserves to be treated as such. Negotiating does nothing but gives them power and enables them to treat human being as cattle. They use fear and kidnapping and human trafficking as a way to strong-arm others into agreeing with their political views. THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND DESERVE TO BE TREATED LIKE IT. The other thing you don't understand is that the Lebanese government is responsible for the acts of its people. There is no exception to this. When Osama Bin Laden attacks the US and the Taliban refused to do anything about it we attacked them. In this case the Hezbollah attacked Israel and the Lebanese government has done nothing about it, so Israel decided to attack. I !@#$%^&*ure you that if the Lebanese government stood against them and did everything they could to restore order and get the citizens released that Israel would never have attacked. People are not cattle, pawns, or anyone’s toy to use and abuse how they see fit. I am not Christian, atheist, Muslim or Hindu. I am agnostic. I believe in god and that he loves everyone. I believe that we all share the same god in one name or another. I also believe that god would never excuse, forgive, or justify treating people the way the Hezbollah treat them. And for this reason it is no longer the time to turn the other cheek. It is time to defend the right for everyone to live without fear. If I was younger and not married I would join the military to help that cause directly. While I believe Bush is a complete jack!@#$%^&* and has attacked Iraq based on lies and deceit, I still believe the Iraqi people will be better for it. We are all equal in god’s eyes and should treat each other with that same regard and respect. And if talk and education can't secure everyone’s right to live then force is required. If this does not help you to understand the moral, ethical, and logical reasons of why Israel is doing what they are and why the Lebanese government is ultimately responsible for allowing the Hezbollah to continue then this discussion is over.
Wonderer Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 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." Hezbollah is using everyone they can as a shield from attack. They use citizens and now there is proof they used the UN post. So now how do you feel? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a9-7f94d5fc6d50Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006 The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.
SeVeR Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 Wonderer: It is the responsility of the government to find these things out and monitor the populace to ensure the saftey of its people and that their laws are being followed. It is also the job of the governemt to secure and maintain their borders. The situation does not change who is responsible. If the minutemen organisation started attacking Mexican imigrants the US government would still be resopnsbile regardless of if they were involved in the planning.All very true if the government is CAPABLE of these actions. If not then they cannot and should not be held to account, Hezbollah alone are responsible. SVS: Dispite the fact they DO know that Hezbollah frequently attacks Israel. Dispite the fact they allow Hezbollah to take part in the government. Dispite the fact they refuse to deploy their armed forces along the southern border and disarm Hezbollah. Riggghhhhtttttt... ya, Lebanon is COMPLETELY innocent in all this. Its "despite". They allow Hezbollah to take part in the government because Hezbollah were elected to that position by the people of Lebanon. Its similar to Hamas' election win except Hezbollah only won about 10% of the seats. Is this the price Lebanon pays for democracy? It certainly shouldn't be since Hezbollah is not in control of Lebanon and Hezbollah do not make policy decisions. Is the Lebanese army powerful enough to disarm Hezbollah? I don't think so, which is why i agree that Israel should be attacking Hezbollah, however Israel is attacking random targets: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm and levelling whole sections of Beirut. Israel is also attacking Christian dominated areas in the North of Lebanon for no apparent reason. I think you're misinterpreting what i'm saying. I agree with Israels decision to counter Hezbollah's attack! OK!?! (so you can stop all this "no logic, no ethics, no common sense" bullcrap you keep spouting). I do however have a problem with Israel's indiscriminate killing. Wonderer (again): haven't bothered to re-explain it because you don't listen. You have a general disregard for responsibility and make excuses of why their actions should be tolerated. You also lack the moral and ethical foundation to comprehend what people have attempted to communicate with you.What is with these baseless comments that proof nothing other than that you disagree with me. You just decribed me as not able to listen, disregarding responsibility, making excuses, and lacking morality and ethics. I'll describe you as blindly pro-Israel, offensive in an immature child-like manner, making excuses based on irrelevent facts, and lacking a definition of what morality really is. So what do either of our lines of insults prove? Absolutely nothing, so lets have a real debate please if you don't mind. Enough of the intellectually sound ways of saying "you're a stupid idiot and i disagree with you." Perhaps you've been trained to think the way you do, I’ve been trained to be a technological analyst. So when I consider a situation I start by considering the root cause. I'm an astrophysicist and its crucial in every part of my job that i consider each causal factor and calculate the error attributed with each result or !@#$%^&*umption. I deal with probabilities every day, it is impossible for me to have been "trained" to think anything is absolutely certain to be true, it goes against everything i stand for and everything i work towards. I !@#$%^&*ure you i am a student of philosophy, religion, science and most importantly history, so everything i consider probable to do with this conflict has come from a large range of prior knowledge. If you neglect to address the root of the problem then you have already failed to address the issue. If you do however figure out the root cause of a problem you can then figure out how it got fubared and how to stop it as well as keep it from happening again. This is what you keep ignoring and making excuses about.You're telling me i've ignored it, i'm telling you that i merely disagree with you on what those causes are. You know as well as i do that this conflict did not start with Hezbollah kidnapping a couple of soldiers. It goes way back. You also know as well as i do that in response to Hezbollah's actions, Israel cannot use any level of force they want. Would you still be in their corner if they dropped a nuke on Beirut? Everything is relative, especially the level of force used to retaliate against an attack. If you just want to go an justify any response to Hezbollahs !@#$%^&*ualt then go ahead and remain as blind to me as you were when i read your first reply here. The situation was caused by a long chain of events that goes beyond this conflict. It's not about who attacked who, it’s not about the kidnapping. Oh good so you understand part of what i've just said. It's about the thought process of the people involved and how they came to decide what is acceptable and what is not. You don't understand why their expectations were important because you don't see how it's relevant to the way they think. Until you are willing to analyze the situation to understand WHY it happens you'll never be able to accept the situation.It happened because the Hezbollah militants hate Israel, thats all you need to know. THey probably hate Israel because they had family members killed at some point or they were taught that way by their parents. Their expectations however are completely irrelevent. They expected a less hostile counter-attack, so what? I really do not get why you think this is important. Hezbollah EXPECTED that Israel would agree to a prisoner trade using Germany to negotiate it. They were surprised now because Israel said no and decided to attack them and treat the Hezbollah as criminals. But the fact is that kidnapping makes them criminals and deserves to be treated as such. Negotiating does nothing but gives them power and enables them to treat human being as cattle. They use fear and kidnapping and human trafficking as a way to strong-arm others into agreeing with their political views. THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND DESERVE TO BE TREATED LIKE IT. Yes i agree! And if they were surprised that they were treated as such, then why the !@#$%^&* should anyone care!?!?! I'm really at a loss as to why you think this is important. Yes they are criminals and deserve punishment, is that all you have to say, i would have thought that would be bloody obvious! Why the !@#$%^&* is this relevent because it does not change one thing about this conflict!?!? If Hezbollah were not surprised by the retaliation then would anything be any different now? No! ...I was surprised by Israel's reponse too, am i now good to go get blown up? One could say that Israel in their killing of civilians is criminal too. If you bomb half of Beirut and say you were targetting terrorists then you're a liar and a killer! I am agnostic. I believe in god and that he loves everyone.You are not an agnostic if you believe that. People are not cattle, pawns, or anyone’s toy to use and abuse how they see fit. Armies always are, including Israel's and the US's. However you stuck in use&abuse and i don't believe anyone would willingly be in an army that did that. This Islamists want to be in Hezbollah more than anything and are used in the same way any army uses its front-line fighters. I also believe that god would never excuse, forgive, or justify treating people the way the Hezbollah treat them. How do Hezbollah treat people differently to the way Israel is treating people right now. Are you talking about soldiers or victims? You seem to have a very concrete opinion of what good and evil are. Anyway i'm glad you were able to reply without being arrogant and offensive for once.
Wonderer Posted July 27, 2006 Report Posted July 27, 2006 1) So responsibility is based on capability in your opinion?2) Israel is not killing indiscriminately. If you have a source to show they have no care of who they kill feel free to show it. I already posted a portion of a interview where Israel admits they are limiting their attacks to try and limit loss of life. There is also the fact that they today decided not to expand the offensive. As to my beliefs, i i do beleive in a high power regardless of the name other chose to use. I'm sure there is more to the existance of life. I may not be the textbook idea of agnostic, but its about as close as it gets to any deffinition.
SeVeR Posted July 28, 2006 Report Posted July 28, 2006 1) So responsibility is based on capability in your opinion?Yes, if you are not capable of something then it never was your responsibility to do it. Like if you're a doctor and you don't know how to perform heart byp!@#$%^&* surgery then it shouldn't be your responsibility to perform that surgery. If you're the only doctor there and you're forced to "try" the surgery then if something goes wrong you shouldn't be sued for getting it wrong. Lebanon only has one government and that government is incapable of the task of disarming Hezbollah. You don't go to war with them based on that because there is absolutely nothing the Lebanese could have done without descending into a civil war. 2) Israel is not killing indiscriminately. If you have a source to show they have no care of who they kill feel free to show it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5570554http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm If you are certain that a higher power (a God of some sort) exists then you are not an agnostic, just pump the word into dictionary.com. You are a deist or a theist or something like that.
Wonderer Posted July 28, 2006 Report Posted July 28, 2006 1) So responsibility is based on capability in your opinion? Yes, if you are not capable of something then it never was your responsibility to do it. Like if you're a doctor and you don't know how to perform heart byp!@#$%^&* surgery then it shouldn't be your responsibility to perform that surgery. If you're the only doctor there and you're forced to "try" the surgery then if something goes wrong you shouldn't be sued for getting it wrong. Lebanon only has one government and that government is incapable of the task of disarming Hezbollah. You don't go to war with them based on that because there is absolutely nothing the Lebanese could have done without descending into a civil war. 2) Israel is not killing indiscriminately. If you have a source to show they have no care of who they kill feel free to show it.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5570554http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm 1) They asked to be in power, they asked for their seats in power, they were swong in and accepted all of the responsibil!@#$%^&*ies of government. Just because they are proven to be completly failures doesn't mean they aren't responsible for how their country is governed. If the individuals are incapable of doing their jobs they should have resigned and asked someone else to do it. It was, is, and always will be their fault for failing to do what they are there to do. 2) It's calling bombing and yes, things do get blown up. If the rockets are near apartment buildings, or office buildings, then they will also be damaged. The Hezbollah place their artillary and rockets, it's not like Israel is saying go stand by that school so we can kill 500 helpless children. If Hezbollah doesn't want the fight to take place in a area populated by civilians then they need to move their artillary and people OUT OF THE !@#$%^&*ING CITY!!.
»Ducky Posted July 28, 2006 Report Posted July 28, 2006 No one is going to force a doctor into trying something with a risk that he knows nothing about. Analogy failure
SeVeR Posted July 28, 2006 Report Posted July 28, 2006 Wonderor: 1) They asked to be in power, they asked for their seats in power, they were swong in and accepted all of the responsibil!@#$%^&*ies of government. Just because they are proven to be completly failures doesn't mean they aren't responsible for how their country is governed. If the individuals are incapable of doing their jobs they should have resigned and asked someone else to do it. It was, is, and always will be their fault for failing to do what they are there to do.Only true if failure was not inevitable. Do you think that after 2000 the government had a good chance of dominating Hezbollah and controlling the entire country within six years? Hezbollah is probably richer and better armed than the government is! I believe failure was inevitable, so forget the doctor trying to perform surgery he isn't qualified to do and think of the Afghanistani situation where the government holds almost no sway outside of Kabal. 2) It's calling bombing and yes, things do get blown up. If the rockets are near apartment buildings, or office buildings, then they will also be damaged. The Hezbollah place their artillary and rockets, it's not like Israel is saying go stand by that school so we can kill 500 helpless children. If Hezbollah doesn't want the fight to take place in a area populated by civilians then they need to move their artillary and people OUT OF THE !@#$%^&*ING CITY!!. Well its a matter of opinion then, and whether you think its right to destroy a whole building to get at one militant. One extreme would be to nuke the whole of Lebanon, the other would be to send in ground forces to kill the militants without reducing whole city blocks to rubble. Israel has chosen something in between. I personally do not think they have chosen the right option, you must think they have, so i guess we'll agree to disagree. Ducky: I never said that the doctor would be forced to do anything. If the doctor is all that there is then he is most qualified to do the surgery but shouldn't be held accountable if something goes wrong. This analogy fits the Lebanese governments situation. The Lebanese government is all that there is, but that doesn't make them qualified to do the job. The way i see it the Lebanese government prevented a civil war by not attacking Hezbollah, many more would have died in that conflict.
SVS Posted July 28, 2006 Report Posted July 28, 2006 One extreme would be to nuke the whole of Lebanon, HMM
»Ducky Posted July 29, 2006 Report Posted July 29, 2006 If you're the only doctor there and you're forced to "try" the surgeryEveryone has free will in most situations. A government who has the ability to step away completely because they cannot handle taking responsibility for actions should do so. That's with any situation you do not want to take responsibility for before it's too late. Being raped, held down, tied up-- Those are effects of force."Because he told me to", Isn't.
SeVeR Posted July 31, 2006 Report Posted July 31, 2006 SVS: One extreme would be to nuke the whole of Lebanon, HMMYour point? Are you suggesting this should be done? My point, if you did not grasp it, is that you have two extremes in this situation where you can destroy a whole country with no regard for civilians or you can send in forces who will take them out selectively. Then there are lots of ways in between, one of which Israel has chosen. I think they've gone too far into the realms of indiscriminate killing since they've destroyed whole sections of Beirut. Rockets cannot be fired from Beirut over the border and so the only reason Israel would have is that "the word is" Hezbollah has alot of support in that area. That isn't good enough reason to bomb such a large area. Ducky: If you're the only doctor there and you're forced to "try" the surgery Everyone has free will in most situations. I think you misunderstood me. The doctor wouldn't be forced to do anything but being the most qualified person in the hospital would make him the most likely candidate to save the life. So the situation is what is forced on him because there is no other way to save the life. Of course he can decline. A government who has the ability to step away completely because they cannot handle taking responsibility for actions should do so. That's with any situation you do not want to take responsibility for before it's too late. The thing about inevitable failure is its likely that no other government from Lebanon could have done a better job. Maybe Lebanon should have asked for a peace-keeping force before all this happened but to their knowledge the UN peacekeepers who were already there should have been doing that.
Wonderer Posted July 31, 2006 Report Posted July 31, 2006 http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,...5007220,00.html THIS is the picture that ASSS Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia. The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons. Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon. The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend. They emerged as: US President George Bush called for an international force to be sent to Lebanon. ISRAEL called up another 30,000 reserve troops. THE UN's humanitarian chief Jan Egeland called for a three-day truce to evacuate civilians and transport food and water into cut-off areas. US SECRETARY of State Condoleezza Rice returned to the Middle East to push a UN resolution aimed at ending the 18-day war, and: A PALESTINIAN militant group said it had kidnapped, killed and burned an Israeli settler in the West Bank. The images include one of a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun metres from an apartment block with sheets hanging out on a balcony to dry. Others show a militant with AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. "Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said. "Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated. "It was carnage. Two innocent people died in that incident, but it was so lucky it was not more." The release of the images comes as Hezbollah faces criticism for allegedly using innocent civilians as "human shields". Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as "cowards" for operating among civilians. "When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," he said.
SVS Posted August 1, 2006 Report Posted August 1, 2006 SVS: One extreme would be to nuke the whole of Lebanon, HMM Your point? Are you suggesting this should be done? My point, if you did not grasp it, is that you have two extremes in this situation where you can destroy a whole country with no regard for civilians or you can send in forces who will take them out selectively. Then there are lots of ways in between, one of which Israel has chosen. I think they've gone too far into the realms of indiscriminate killing since they've destroyed whole sections of Beirut. Rockets cannot be fired from Beirut over the border and so the only reason Israel would have is that "the word is" Hezbollah has alot of support in that area. That isn't good enough reason to bomb such a large area. No, I was only pointing out how irrational you are. Good day.
»Ducky Posted August 1, 2006 Report Posted August 1, 2006 The thing about inevitable failure is its likely that no other government from Lebanon could have done a better job. A leader, despite there being no other rational choice of leadership still has to take responsibility for his choices and actions.You can not determine whether or not another governmental office could have done better.It's a matter of logic at this point. It's a choice to be in that position and do those things. Bad choice, bad consequence.
SeVeR Posted August 1, 2006 Report Posted August 1, 2006 No, I was only pointing out how irrational you are. Good day.Its not irrational to point out that the extreme of indiscriminate killing would be to drop a nuke on Lebanon. I'm not actually suggesting that should be done. What the !@#$%^&* is your problem anyway? Point out where what i've said is irrational or shut the !@#$%^&* up. You can jump on the bandwagon that other posters have set up for you but if you can't back it up then you're a bigger re!@#$%^&* than they are. A leader, despite there being no other rational choice of leadership still has to take responsibility for his choices and actions.You can not determine whether or not another governmental office could have done better. Then i commend the Lebanese government for NOT fighting Hezbollah. The resultant civil war would have been far more deadly to civilians. Its a matter of logic...
Recommended Posts