Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

Diogenes

gandalf wrote:

This is the software they were talking about http://giyus.org/

Oh thats lovely they have a website. Lord, giyus starting flame wars since 2003.......

It's like a proactive SETI for fundamentalist Zionists. Incidently I feel people should add the label fundamentalist to a any Zionist supporting this pogram, there can be no one who can believe that by the massacres caused by Israeli that they furthering the cause of peace and stability for Israeli in the middle east.

Scofflaw

cik wrote:

Morlar wrote:

If you argue that we should take each israeli atrocity as it comes along on its own merits without context I would disagree with you on that one. There is a pattern and its clear as day.

as fine an admission of prejudice as your ever likely to come across

Ooh look. The sun came up today. It did it yesterday. And the day before, and before that...there is a pattern and its clear as day! Oops! How prejudiced I must be. Prejudiced in favour of the facts.

Scofflaw

88

hey, lookn thru this thread an thought id reply. Israel are the ones in the wrong, its plain to see. like for feck sakes, israel most be the only fecking country that can bombard a un position for a full day (that we know off) and end up hiting it with a missle, kiling four u.n observers.. and get away with it. america backs em up from the start. obviously as they supplie israel with weapons as does britton. whats in it for israel/america/britton is of course oil,power & of course getting rid of terroists.. its odd how the american patriot act doesnt actually define the word terrorist.. so that means anyone the goverments see as a threat can be labled a terrorist. what im sure youl c happening over the next short period will be more bull**** claims by israel and america about 'ohh the terrorists are bad.. they want to build nukes and take over the world.etc'

i could go on for hours, cause its all part of a bigger plan y'no. just wait until the whole midle east goes up in flames, america will be bogged down so badly out there theyr gona be hearin from alota old enemies knockn on their own doorstep. and for israel, well i do believe it's going to get a pounding. by the way hezzbola didnt start it, it's bin goin on since 1948. israel shouldnt even exist. 'theyr all ****.. the new world order'. :mad:

Hobbes

cik wrote:

Pointless? I think it is a major feature of the conflict, imagine for just one minute what the conflict would look like if Hezbollah didnt use this tactic.

If they didn't use the tactic then Isreal would have to think of some other excuse. Look the majority of targets hit didn't have Hezbollah in them. Oh and the Red Cross today reported that absolutly no Hezbollah rockets where fired from Qana. In fact the civilians know to run away from Hezbollah rocket launchers as well.

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

cik

Hobbes wrote:

If they didn't use the tactic then Isreal would have to think of some other excuse.

hmm...I think if they didnt use that tactic it would have been over by now with much fewer civilian causalties

Hobbes wrote:

Look the majority of targets hit didn't have Hezbollah in them.

Id say the majority of targets were hit without anyone getting hit but you can look at the stastics for yourself

Hobbes wrote:

Oh and the Red Cross today reported that absolutly no Hezbollah rockets where fired from Qana. In fact the civilians know to run away from Hezbollah rocket launchers as well.

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

A link would be nice

Sgt. Sensible

cik wrote:

Pointless? I think it is a major feature of the conflict, imagine for just one minute what the conflict would look like if Hezbollah didnt use this tactic... i shouldnt have to describe it for you... it should be obvious to you that it is very significant

The Israelis and their cheerleaders have yet to provide any proof that this tactic exists. In fact, I've read that one of the reasons Israeli intelligence on Hezbollah is so poor is because Hezbollah stay away from civilians for security reasons, to avoid being infiltrated and betrayed.

Incidentally, the most recent instruction from the megaphone software mothership was to instruct the drones to go on and on and on about hezbollah human shields.

This bloodbath reminds me of the Balkans in some ways. Didn't the Serbs (armed and supplied by Israel amongst others) claim that Srebrenica was a terrorist stronghold? Why yes they did.

And so it goes.

Hobbes

cik wrote:

hmm...I think if they didnt use that tactic it would have been over by now with much fewer civilian causalties

Really? How do you come to that conclusion.

Id say the majority of targets were hit without anyone getting hit but you can look at the stastics for yourself

I've already seen what was hit. Your making the premise so its up to you to back it up with facts. Please do so.

A link would be nice

5 seconds in google.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34186
News report of Red Cross in Qana saying there were no missile attacks from thier during the strike by the IDF. Also even reports from civilians saying that they headed for that area mainly because there was no hezbollah there.

But lets not take thier word for it. How about the IDF?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

Reports that the IDF claimed that missile attacks took place from Qana and then a few days later reversed thier story.

gandalf

cik wrote:

Id say the majority of targets were hit without anyone getting hit but you can look at the stastics for yourself

A link would be nice......

cik

First for those that deny Hezbollah use human shields...here is some of the evidence
eyewitness
But for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah — a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.
“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
“Please,’’ he added, “write that in your newspaper.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28refugees.htm?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

photographes smuggled out
The photographs, from a Christian area of eastern Beirut called Wadi Chahrour, were smuggled out of Lebanon. One photograph depicts a fighter with an AK-47 rifle guarding "no-go" zones after an Israeli attack, and another with a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun in an apartment block, with sheets hanging out to dry on a balcony. Another shows the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block destroyed in an Israeli airstrike. An Australian was standing just down the street when the block 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 pictures are posted online at www.news.com.au/heraldsun.)
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060730-093558-9976r.htm
top UN bloke

A United Nations humanitarian chief has blasted Hezbollah for operating among Lebanese civilians.
"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," Jan Egeland, UN under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, was quoted as saying in a report on Washington Jewish Week online.
"I heard they were making statements that they were proud of losing fewer armed men than civilians. It's hard to see how they could be proud of such a situation."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/claims-civilians-used-as-shields/2006/07/28/1153816358542.html

Hobbes wrote:

I've already seen what was hit. Your making the premise so its up to you to back it up with facts. Please do so.

Israel have launched thousands of sorties, hit thousands of target and there are around 450 Lebenese dead - it is a cold statement of fact that while many people have been killed, there were more strikes that have not killed people than strikes that have killed people.
As with the above evidence I find pointing out the obvious very tiresome


You said there were no rocket attacks from Qana, I think your links say there were none that day, those are two different things. the IDF have shown rocket launches from Qana on video and have not changed their story to say that there have never been any launches from Qana as far as I can see.
Where you intentionally vague?

Hobbes

cik wrote:

First for those that deny Hezbollah use human shields

I haven't seen anyone deny in it about 10 pages or so, so I am not sure why you keep going on and on about human shields.

However as you said with no human shields there would be less civilian deaths. Can you prove that.

Israel have launched thousands of sorties, hit thousands of target and there are around 450 Lebenese dead - it is a cold statement of fact that while many people have been killed, there were more strikes that have not killed people than strikes that have killed people.

Wow thats nice to know. So your basically saying its ok that Isreal destroyed Lebanon infrastructure.

Because how I see it from your comments is that Isreal have hit a large number of targets so a lot of them would of not even had people in them. Even if we were to stretch it out to 1 person per target (because Israel have said they are only attacking Hezbollah) that wouldn't even remotely come close to the number of targets hit.

You said there were no rocket attacks from Qana, I think your links say there were none that day, those are two different things.

Correct and the IDF showed rocket launches from Qana first to justify hitting Qana and later reveresed the story when it was shown that there were no attacks on that day and no Hezbollah in the area.

Still waiting for my earlier requests for evidence btw.

cik

Hobbes wrote:

However as you said with no human shields there would be less civilian deaths. Can you prove that.

Its an opinion based on the fact that human shields definately incorporate civilians into the fighting that might not otherwise be involved, it cant be scientifically proven
it was in response to you saying that talking about the Hezbollah human shield was pointless!

Hobbes wrote:

Wow thats nice to know. So your basically saying its ok that Isreal destroyed Lebanon infrastructure.

No I am not, Im saying that you were being vague and obscure by saying
Look the majority of targets hit didn't have Hezbollah in them.
I pointed out that it seems to me that the majority of the targets didnt have anyone in them - how you can manipulate that into me saying that its ok to target anything is beyond me, it really is...
All I have ever tried to do here is establish facts or widely held context - I have never justified anything or said that anyone deserved to die or that anything deserved to be blown up - you seem completely unable to distinguish between debating facts or context and justifuing violence -
why are you unable to do that?
everytime someone here has been shown up to be stating something in error or something that is against what is widely held (some fuking insignificant point as you would say) you have fallen back to say I am trying to justify something when it is clear that I have never said that.

As I have said before, I would have expected better.

Hobbes wrote:

Correct and the IDF showed rocket launches from Qana first to justify hitting Qana and later reveresed the story when it was shown that there were no attacks on that day and no Hezbollah in the area.

So its just something else that you havent been accurate about - maybe you dont think thats important?

Hobbes wrote:

Still waiting for my earlier requests for evidence btw.

Are you talking about the IDF video of Qana?

Hobbes

cik wrote:

As I have said before, I would have expected better.

Here is how I expect better. Someone actually discussing if Israels actions on Lebanon where justified and not trying to keep bringing human shields over and over into the discussion like as if it changes anything.

The simple fact it doesn't.

So its just something else that you havent been accurate about - maybe you dont think thats important?

What exactly wasn't I accurate about?

Are you saying that if Hezbollah attack from a location a few days beforehand that IDF have full rights to bomb that location a few days later even when it is known that there are no missile attacks from that area at that time?

Especially a location where a large number of refugees where going to because there was no Hezbollah there.

And I notice you keep trying to bring human shields into the argument but you also totally blank on answering the real questions on the issue. That being is Israels response on Lebanon justified, and please no more "Human Shield" response its getting a bit tiring.

nuttz

cik wrote:

you seem completely unable to distinguish between debating facts or context and justifuing violence -
why are you unable to do that?

Innuendo

Where are you actually posting from cik and how did you find this forum?

cik

Hobbes wrote:

Here is how I expect better. Someone actually discussing if Israels actions on Lebanon where justified and not trying to keep bringing human shields over and over into the discussion like as if it changes anything.

The simple fact it doesn't.

ok, enjoy your, it is... it isnt... it is... it isnt... conversations,
I prefer to limited discussion to things that are largely and evidently true or false, like what the facts on the ground are...

Hobbes wrote:

What exactly wasn't I accurate about?

please...you said no rockets were launched from Qana...in fact you said...
Oh and the Red Cross today reported that absolutly no Hezbollah rockets where fired from Qana. In fact the civilians know to run away from Hezbollah rocket launchers as well.
the truth is rockets were launched from there, it may have happened on other days but its makes you statement false - you should try to be more accurate - that is if put a value on accuracy

Hobbes wrote:

Are you saying that if Hezbollah attack from a location a few days beforehand that IDF have full rights to bomb that location a few days later even when it is known that there are no missile attacks from that area at that time?

here we go again - I only said what you said was wrong, that is all - dont read deeper into it just accept that what you said was wrong

Morlar

cik wrote:

I prefer to limited discussion to things that are largely and evidently true or false, like what the facts on the ground are...

Do you honestly think that if a vehicle moves through a civilian district - pauses for 2 minutes to fire a salvo of rockets and then speeds off that the idf have some kind of moral justification for subsequently levelling that neighbourhood and killing countless innocent men women and children?

Unless the IAF are in the air overhead at that exact same time they are not launching a strike to take out the launchers they are doing it as a form of collective punishment.

PS in case you missed the question that has been directed at you (again) here it is for you once more :

Where are you actually posting from cik and how did you find this forum?

gandalf

Where cik is posting from is not relevant, if he/she wants to tell us fair enough if not leave them be and stop badgering them. We are all aware what cik opinions are on a limited scale but I am slightly disappointed that they are focusing on such a narrow portion of this conflict, its like you haven't been briefed on what to say with regards to the bigger picture.

I am interested in hearing cik's wider views on what is occurring between Israel and Lebanon and the Palestinians and whether this action will guarantee Israel's security in the long term or is it creating more hatred to be banked away until another bunch of "freedom fighters/terrorists" decide to cash it in?

cik

Morlar wrote:

Do you honestly think that if a vehicle moves through a civilian district - pauses for 2 minutes to fire a salvo of rockets and then speeds off that the idf have some kind of moral justification for subsequently levelling that neighbourhood and killing countless innocent men women and children?

I have no interest in saying something whether something is justified or not..that is why I have not made any such comments.
I do wonder if South Lebennon have their on version of the Corrib 5 anywhere, you know people who stand up (or lie down) and say 'that could be bloody dangerous dont be at it in my backyard' but thats just me wondering out loud

Sgt. Sensible

cik wrote:

I have no interest in saying something whether something is justified or not..that is why I have not made any such comments.

Well you seem to be attempting to justify Israel's levelling of Lebanon, the invasion of its territory and the needless deaths of hundreds of people.

Hobbes

please...you said no rockets were launched from Qana...in fact you said...
Oh and the Red Cross today reported that absolutly no Hezbollah rockets where fired from Qana. In fact the civilians know to run away from Hezbollah rocket launchers as well.
the truth is rockets were launched from there, it may have happened on other days but its makes you statement false - you should try to be more accurate - that is if put a value on accuracy

Oh right, so me forgetting to put "on the day", later pointing out that they were in fact pointing out on the day has somehow totally negated the entire incident and you can call me a liar because of this?

Get real.

here we go again - I only said what you said was wrong, that is all - dont read deeper into it just accept that what you said was wrong

The problem is that your refusing to answer the question is that is Israels response justified? Is that such a hard question to answer?

Akrasia

Anyway, firing a weapon from near an area where there might be civilians hiding doesn't constitute the use of 'Human shields' in the strictest sense of the word.
They fire rockets from the back of trucks and move on. it is a tactical necessity that they have some place to hide afterwards for when the drones track the heat signature of their weapons and call in airstrikes to that area. The rockets have to be fired from an open area, they need space in front for the rockets to gain altitude and space behind for the backblast to disperse, they can't do that in the immediate vicinity of any buildings. The IDF are bombing civilians in frustrated attempts to find Hezbollah as they run away. It's like randomly shooting into a crowded street after a bank robbery in case they might hit the thieves, and then calling the thieves cowards for running away and not standing still.


In fact, you can be absolutely certain that the IDF soldiers who are currently invading Lebanon are using whatever buildings they can find as cover from Hezbollah attack regardless of whether or not there are civilians hiding in them. If they were to follow the logic of 'Don't use human Shields' as demanded of Hezbollah then they would all be standing in open fields and in the middle of streets as far away from all the civilians as possible in case Hezbollah would blow up the building they are near and kill a civilian.

cik

Akrasia wrote:

....it is a tactical necessity that they have some place to hide afterwards for when the drones track the heat signature of their weapons and call in airstrikes to that area...

A United Nations humanitarian chief has blasted Hezbollah for operating among Lebanese civilians.
"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," Jan Egeland, UN under secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, was quoted as saying in a report on Washington Jewish Week online.
"I heard they were making statements that they were proud of losing fewer armed men than civilians. It's hard to see how they could be proud of such a situation."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...816358542.html

Akrasia wrote:

If they were to follow the logic of 'Don't use human Shields' as demanded of Hezbollah then they would all be standing in open fields and in the middle of streets as far away from all the civilians as possible in case Hezbollah would blow up the building they are near and kill a civilian.

Presumably the western public, affected civilian populations and the IDF! would overwhelmingly prefer if this where the case and incidently this is largely how this conflict began...by one armed force fighting another armed force in a depopulated area

Akrasia

cik wrote:

Presumably the western public, affected civilian populations and the IDF! would overwhelmingly prefer if this where the case and incidently this is largely how this conflict began...by one armed force fighting another armed force in a depopulated area

Of course Israel and America and the U.K. would prefer this because in that kind of warfare, Hezbollah would be wiped out in about 30 seconds. If the tables were turned, If Lebanon were a bigger army and Israel were defending their homes from invasion, do you think the Israeli people would like it if their army surrendered in that way? Of course they wouldn't. Hezbollah have massive support now. People holding the bodies of their dead children are shouting slogans in support of Hezbollah and they are asking why their Government is standing aside and allowing Israel to bomb them. You can blame Hezbollah for the deaths of civilians, but the bombs are dropped from Israeli Aircraft and the shells are fired from Israeli tanks and the families of the dead don't care for semantics and the rationalisation of the Israeli government

In the Irish war of Independence the IRA fought using geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'. In the American war of Independence the Americans fought the British using geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'. In WWII, the french resistance fought using Geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'

If geurilla tactics were always wrong, then that is the same as saying 'whoever has the biggest and better equipped army is always right'

Lemming

cik wrote:

Presumably the western public, affected civilian populations and the IDF! would overwhelmingly prefer if this where the case and incidently this is largely how this conflict began...by one armed force fighting another armed force in a depopulated area

You sir ... are a hypocrate. The IDF uses the very same civilian populace and their buildings to provide cover for their infantry and tanks against Hezbollah. The very same IDF that placed it's munitions factories in predominantly muslim towns in northern Israel. The very same IDF that invaded Lebanon some 20 years ago and refused to move, thus creating the very beast that they now fight again. Are the IDF that keen to have a re-run of the previous invasion of Lebanon? Are they that keen to have another 20 years of murder and mayhem?

As Gandalf pointed out, I'd be interested to see what your views on the wider conflict are. I also find it interesting that you chose to not comment on observations that would speak out volumes against the claims of "massive damage" made by Israeli officials.

As an aside I suspect that cik's sole purpose here is to shill us into a narrow focus of idle politically semantic w*nk to try and defeat actual discussion. He/She/it/insert-term-of-choice has clearly stated their hypocrasy in claiming to not be interested in justifying x, y, or z and then doing exactly that whilst nit-picking other posters and calling them liars for simple errors in statement.

cik

it is interesting the leeway you grant to the weak seemingly just because they are weak

Akrasia wrote:

If the tables were turned, If Lebanon were a bigger army and Israel were defending their homes from invasion, do you think the Israeli people would like it if their army surrendered in that way? Of course they wouldn't.

I would say if that were the case that they should be very careful about picking their battles!

Akrasia wrote:

In the Irish war of Independence the IRA fought using geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'. In the American war of Independence the Americans fought the British using geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'. In WWII, the french resistance fought using Geurilla tactics and 'Human Shields'

Presumably you are saying that violence death and destruction was totally justified and to some degree the weaker parties involved didnt choose the fight in all the above cases?
wouldnt you prefer if their aims could have been achieved by peaceful means or failing that even by means of legitimate warfare?
Many believe would disagree strongly if you said that Hezbollah had no choice but to fight

Akrasia wrote:

If geurilla tactics were always wrong, then that is the same as saying 'whoever has the biggest and better equipped army is always right'

it certainly is not the same thing, you could say choosing to kill innocent civilians is always wrong so geurilla tactics are always wrong

cik

somehow I have upset you and you have lost your objectivity

Lemming wrote:

You sir ... are a hypocrate.

why? i have not even said that Israel have not used Human shields, I have simply challenged those that said Hezbollah not do use human shields...
I'd appreciate an apology and I'd like a moderators comment as I dont think insults and lies should be tolerated
I'd also like clarification as to what exactly a hypocrate is!

bonkey

cik wrote:

I'd like a moderators comment as I dont think insults and lies should be tolerated

You should probably read the charter.

Insults are not tolerated. Neither are accusations of others lying.

edanto

it certainly is not the same thing, you could say choosing to kill innocent civilians is always wrong so geurilla tactics are always wrong

Choosing to kill innocent civillians is always wrong..... so the Israeli offensive has been completely wrong.

Can you justify the Israeli actions? Is Israel right in this war?

-note- please avoid distracting nit-picking.

cik

edanto wrote:

Choosing to kill innocent civillians is always wrong..... so the Israeli offensive has been completely wrong.

Can you justify the Israeli actions? Is Israel right in this war?

-note- please avoid distracting nit-picking.

are you seriously saying that if I am to merely question the very loose and haphazard justification put forward here by Akrasia for Hezbollah violence that I must justify Israeli violence?
Cant his arguement by challenged on its own merit?

Dirk Gently

cik wrote:

you could say choosing to kill innocent civilians is always wrong so geurilla tactics are always wrong

you could say choosing to kill innocent civilians is always wrong so geurilla / current Israeli tactics are always wrong

...is that what you meant to say, or was Lemming correct. You sir are doing a very good job of managing to get other posters bogged down in semantics.

edanto

I'm not asking you about Akrasia's justification.

I thought the question I asked was rather direct. Should I type it out again?