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

Lemming

cik wrote:

somehow I have upset you and you have lost your objectivity

No, I still have my objectivity. And you flatter yourself to think that you've "upset" me. If you ever do, and that's unlikely, believe me when I say that you'll know.

So, with said objectivity in mind ... allow me to refresh your memory with a comment/question that I, and others indirectly, have posed. Your lack of challenge is quite noticeable cik. Why is it that you seem to evade any such questions?

lemming wrote:

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.

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...

You do not need to say something directly to insinuate it or throw innuendo about. If you're politically aware, and given the fudge-tactics that you have been using I'd say that's a very strong likelihood, then you'd know that. Indeed I suspect that you've been playing to it.

I'd appreciate an apology

You'll be a long time in getting one.

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

Lies? What lies exactly? Do be so kind as to throw them out there for discussion ....

And it's not an insult if it's an accurate observation.

I'd also like clarification as to what exactly a hypocrate is!

You have the internet, do a google for a dictionary definition. Your command of the english language is sufficient, one would think, to be competent enough to achieve such a task.

gandalf

Here's a moderators comment. Either start to take part in the topic properly or please stop posting.

cik

Lemming wrote:

No, I still have my objectivity.

good

Lemming wrote:

You do not need to say something directly to insinuate it or throw innuendo about. If you're politically aware, and given the fudge-tactics that you have been using I'd say that's a very strong likelihood, then you'd know that. Indeed I suspect that you've been playing to it.

I find it strange that you find what is between the lines more important than what is actually written - maybe its because you feel it would be easier to challenge what you think is between the lines rather than what is written -
I personally dont go in for shadow boxing

Lemming wrote:

You have the internet, do a google for a dictionary definition. Your command of the english language is sufficient, one would think, to be competent enough to achieve such a task.

Is the same thing as a hypocrite?

Lemming wrote:

Lies? What lies exactly? Do be so kind as to throw them out there for discussion ....

And it's not an insult if it's an accurate observation.

then you should to back it up 100%, on the other hand if it is a false accusation it is a lie

cik

gandalf wrote:

Here's a moderators comment. Either start to take part in the topic properly or please stop posting.

I thought I engaged Akrasia reasonably, all the rest of these calls for me to justify things and accusations of hypocrasy dont belong in a debate as far as I can see.
I rather not have to respond to accusations and it would make the thread make relevent if I didnt so guess I shouldnt and wont anymore...sorry

Hobbes

cik wrote:

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

And use of military instead is always right?

Cant his arguement by challenged on its own merit?

How about you bring the thread on topic. Is there a reason you are refusing to answer the question "Is Israels response justified" which is pretty much what this thread is about. If you want to keep harping on about "Human Shields" how about making a new thread on it.

I'd also like clarification as to what exactly a hypocrate is![/quote

think he meant hypocrite. I'm sure you knew that already. Oh well at least it gets you free access to Spell Czechs forum.

edanto

cik wrote:

I thought I engaged Akrasia reasonably, all the rest of these calls for me to justify things and accusations of hypocrasy dont belong in a debate as far as I can see.
I rather not have to respond to accusations and it would make the thread make relevent if I didnt so guess I shouldnt and wont anymore...sorry

As Hobbes pointed out, for a quick guide as to what belongs in the debate, reference the thread title and the charter.

I wasn't asking you to justify the actions of Israel. I may ask you to do that if you post that you consider Isreal justified in this war, but I wanted to find out your opinion (I suspect we disagree) before debating the details with you.

It's great that you've decided to focus on the subject of the thread. Let's exchange opinions. I think Isreal is wrong and over-aggressive.

What do you think?

bonkey

cik wrote:

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?

Anmyone seeking to apply standards to only one side of the discussion - regardless of which side that is - is inherently arguing from a position of either bias or prejudice.

One may validly make a point in response to an already-one-sided claim, but there is simply no justification for said response not being applicable to both sides unless one believes that differing standards should apply in the first place.

A refusal to broaden the scope of applicability suggests bias or prejudice.

all the rest of these calls for me to justify things ... dont belong in a debate as far as I can see.

If a thread meant to discuss the ongoing crisis in general (rather than one side or one specific aspect of it) is not the place, where is?


I would suggest that your insistence that this is not the correct forum on which to call on others to justify things is a straw-man.

Its amusing, then, to note that only a few pages back you made the following comment:

I made a point and instead of tackling that point directly you introduced a strawman - if I had of known you were going to that I wouldnt have bothered replying to you. That is why I was disappointed, I felt I wasted my time

Clearly* your intent is not to distract from valid discussion, but rather to focus in on it.

Thats presumably why you keep insisting we focus on non-existant claims that Hezbollah have never engaged in human shield activities and the like and why you believe it is in appropriate for you to be asked about the implications your arguments have for the other side in this conflict etc.
Its because you feel people should address the points made, rather than distract from them*

jc

*Sarcasm may be taken to be implicit here.

bonkey

cik wrote:

on the other hand if it is a false accusation it is a lie

No its not.

A lie is when someone knows at the time they make the accusation (or other statement) that what they are saying is false, and their intention is to knowingly pass falsehood as truth.

Thus, I can state with certainty that your above claim is in error, but I cannot claim that you're lying simply because its false.

This is, somewhat surprisingly, already clarified in the charter for this forum which you are expected to have read. THere's even a stickied thread where you can discuss the wording in th echarter if you disagree with it or aren't sure about what it means or how it applies.

So please...lets focus on this terribly-relevant issue some more. Clarification of it adds so much to the topic in question, rather than diverting people's efforts to tangential frippery.

cik

bonkey wrote:

Anmyone seeking to apply standards to only one side of the discussion - regardless of which side that is - is inherently arguing from a position of either bias or prejudice.

and I have never siad you shouldnt apply them to the other side

bonkey wrote:

One may validly make a point in response to an already-one-sided claim, but there is simply no justification for said response not being applicable to both sides unless one believes that differing standards should apply in the first place.

pretty self-evident

bonkey wrote:

I would suggest that your insistence that this is not the correct forum on which to call on others to justify things is a straw-man.

Quite a strange interpretation...

bonkey wrote:

Thats presumably why you keep insisting we focus on non-existant claims that Hezbollah have never engaged in human shield activities

FYI
The idea that Hizbullah use Lebanese civilians as human shields is not entirely convincing.

Hobbes
Hizbollah hide in with civillians? Sure, there have been reports of that. There have also been reports of Hizbollah purposely avoiding civilians due to being ratted out.....
Actually at the moment. No I am not convinced.

Edanto wrote:

Let's exchange opinions. I think Isreal is wrong and over-aggressive.

What do you think?

I really dont see the upside of this but here goes -
I think (the bits that are relevent)
-Israel has the right in law to defend itself
-Hezbollah's armaments have been outlawed by the UN and it should have been disarmed
-the Lebennon and to a lesser extent the UN have been complicite, probably out of weakness and fear, in the continued build up, operations and continued agressions before this conflict that Hezbollah have done
-violence is always a grave failure and violence against innocents cannot be understood in almost any circumstance
-Israel shouldnt stoop to Hezbollahs level but it has put itself in the position that it has done terrible things that it shouldnt be doing
-Hezbollahs tactics are being tolerated by some because they think Arabs are uncivilised and cant be expected to behave to our standards (rascism)

Anyway some of you who dont care about the tiny subtleties of a prosecution might appreciate this
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm

my handlers only gave me a quota of 50 posts... Im sure you understand

Heres another moderators comment...

I'm reading this thread now and if I see anything thats in breach of the charter from here on in,I'll be banning.

For those that dont know, the charter is a must read .

uberpixie

cik wrote:

Anyway some of you who dont care about the tiny subtleties of a prosecution might appreciate this
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm

my handlers only gave me a quota of 50 posts... Im sure you understand

To be fair I don't think Israel have a monopoly on persecution in the middle east.
(or any other group for that matter)

Nice to see you finally give a straight answer.
(It really shouldn't have taken 50 post though)

bonkey

cik wrote:

The idea that Hizbullah use Lebanese civilians as human shields is not entirely convincing.

Hobbes
Hizbollah hide in with civillians? Sure, there have been reports of that. There have also been reports of Hizbollah purposely avoiding civilians due to being ratted out.....
Actually at the moment. No I am not convinced.

So if I understand you correctly....

Saying there have been conflicting reports and thus a conclusion in one particular direction is not entirely convincing should be interpreted as meaning that the alternate conclusion is what is supported.

So if I say that I'm not convinced that you are expressing an objective opinion here, what you will interpret this to mean is that I'm positive that you're not objective....

Thats an interesting way to abuse the english language, especially for someone who was correcting someone on what the application of logic to their reasoning should result in.

pretty self-evident

So we may take it that your responses to Edanto may be taken to apply equally to Israel and Lebanon where applicable?

That, for example, when you say Israel has the right to defend itself, what you mean is any nation has the right to defend itself? And that any example you give of what defending your nation entails (up to and including invading foreign nations to secure the release of prisoners you believe should not be held there) applies equally to all nations and not just Israel?

Or that when you say that Hezbollah's tactics are tolerated by some on grounds of racism, that it is equally valid to suggest that Israel's tactics are tolerated by some on similarly racist grounds?

<edit>
Or when you make comments to the effect that Hezbollah should be forced into compliance with UN resolutions, you believe the same about Israel
</edit>

Quite a strange interpretation...

Now you're just encouraging me to attack your straw-man. I'd rather we get back on topic.

Hobbes

I'm not going to comment on the human shield stuff as I am sick going around in circles.

cik wrote:

-Israel has the right in law to defend itself

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. The actual question is though is the response justified.

-Hezbollah's armaments have been outlawed by the UN and it should have been disarmed
-the Lebennon and to a lesser extent the UN have been complicite, probably out of weakness and fear, in the continued build up, operations and continued agressions before this conflict that Hezbollah have done

Can you back them up with facts?

-Hezbollahs tactics are being tolerated by some because they think Arabs are uncivilised and cant be expected to behave to our standards (rascism)

I believe your wrong here. A lot of people here (including myself) do not agree with Hezbollahs actions at all. Disagreeing with Israels response doesn't automatically mean you agree with Hezbollah.

They are being tolerated because Israels actions are an invasion and either purposely targetting or just ignoring civilians.

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, if you have just killed someones whole family and friends you can bet they will come gunning for you. So this kind of cycle of violence doesn't help at all and is going to be counterproductive for generations to come.

Ignoring the whole kidnapping/killing Lebonese/Israeli people that sparked this off, the second Israel went after the countries infrastructure and killing civilians rather then directly attacking Hezbollah is when they were no longer justified in what they were doing.

Akrasia

cik wrote:

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

Hezbollah don't kill the innocent civilians in Lebanon, Israel kill those people. Hezbollah are responsible for the civilians they have killed in Israel (all 18 of them, including 8 rail workers who the IDF would consider as legitimate casualties of war if they were working in a Lebanese railway)

Akrasia

by the way, For those who think I am justifying actions by Hezbollah, that may be true, but only because I believe in the principle of universality. If you are going to hold others to a standard, you must abide by those standards yourself.

At the very beginning, palestinians captured an Israeli soldier and this was an outrage, but that outrage is lessened significantly by the fact that there are 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody and the reason the palestinians captured that one soldier, was because they wanted to speed up release of the prisoners already held by israel.

Then the accusations of Human Shields, Israeli outraged accusations against hezbollah that they hide behind civilians, a bad thing, but they have no right to complain, because the IDF have a history of using Human shields in a much more sinister way as reported here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html
But in a more general way, the IDF, like every other army, will use all the available cover in order to protect it's soldiers and to gain a tactical advantage against their enemy.
If Hezbollah had been herding civilians into a building and using them as hostages nobody would ever support that, but that is not what they are doing, they are fighting within their home country (most of the lebanese hezbollah fighters are lebanese natives) against an external threat.
If Lebanon had the capability to attack the Israeli troops massed at the border, they wouldn't be massed at the border, they would be dug in somewhere more secure, and possibly close to civilians (unless they were evacuated first)

Sgt. Sensible

cik wrote:

-Hezbollah's armaments have been outlawed by the UN and it should have been disarmed
-the Lebennon and to a lesser extent the UN have been complicite, probably out of weakness and fear, in the continued build up, operations and continued agressions before this conflict that Hezbollah have done

Why should Hezbollah comply with the UN resolution calling on them to disarm when Israel ignores 60 or so resolutions, murders UN staff and generally treats the UN with contempt.

It is a pity that the UN is not strong enough or independent enough to enforce its authority but that's obviously exactly what certain parties prefer.

Rock Climber

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Why should Hezbollah comply with the UN resolution calling on them to disarm when Israel ignores 60 or so resolutions, murders UN staff and generally treats the UN with contempt.

I was truly hoping that we had gone beyond the point of saying " Oh the other side dont conform so we shouldnt either" If we started to apply that rule, the world would be in an even bigger state of turmoil.

Of course Hezbollah or any non conventional army should conform to the recognised rules of engagement.Of course they should listen to the UN,they are after all represented in the lebanese government.
Two wrongs dont make a right.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote:

I was truly hoping that we had gone beyond the point of saying " Oh the other side dont conform so we shouldnt either" If we started to apply that rule, the world would be in an even bigger state of turmoil.

Of course Hezbollah or any non conventional army should conform to the recognised rules of engagement.Of course they should listen to the UN,they are after all represented in the lebanese government.
Two wrongs dont make a right.

I don't think it's too much to ask for the 'injured party' to not be guilty of the same crimes he accuses someone else of committing.

If Israel want the right to complain about 3 captured soldiers they should at least be prepared to release some of their own prisoners. If Israel want us to take their side against the murderers of Israeli civilians, they should stop murdering the civilians of other countries.

Akrasia

and you absolutely should not complain about your own murdered citizens while you are doing everything in your power to avoid meaningful peace negotiations.
(this is aimed at the Israeli Government and Military, and not the civilians of either country)

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote:

I don't think it's too much to ask for the 'injured party' to not be guilty of the same crimes he accuses someone else of committing.

If Israel want the right to complain about 3 captured soldiers they should at least be prepared to release some of their own prisoners. If Israel want us to take their side against the murderers of Israeli civilians, they should stop murdering the civilians of other countries.

I wasnt commenting on Israel there specefically.

What is this urge to react to something said with regard to one sides obligations with a retort referring to the other sides record.
As I said two wrongs dont make a right.
Problem solving needs people to recognise this.

I'm with you all the way in recognising though that Israel will probably not recognise that in a hurry.
They carry their aggressive defensive nature on their sleeves.

Something tells me this wouldnt be happening under Clintons reign.

Sgt. Sensible

Rock Climber wrote:

I was truly hoping that we had gone beyond the point of saying " Oh the other side dont conform so we shouldnt either" If we started to apply that rule, the world would be in an even bigger state of turmoil.

Oh so let's ignore one of the most outstanding problems in the middle east shall we. Grand so. As long as Israel flaunts UN resolutions, it has absolutely no moral authority to demand that resolutions should be enforced against its enemies. It is a question of justice really.

Rock Climber

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Oh so let's ignore one of the most outstanding problems in the middle east shall we. Grand so. As long as Israel flaunts UN resolutions, it has absolutely no moral authority to demand that resolutions should be enforced against its enemies. It is a question of justice really.

.Avoid point much.

So you think two wrongs make a right? I dont see any justice in that at all I'm afraid.

gandalf

I think the point people are trying to make is because the previous UN resolutions have been ignored then Israel has a responsibility for diluting the authority and respect for the organisation and they should not be surprised that Hezbollah have ignored the resolution that asks them to disarm.

No one is saying that Hezbollah are right, we know they are in the absolute wrong, all they are doing is following the example of the Israelis which is to ignore UN resolutions when you don't like their content.

Sgt. Sensible

gandalf wrote:

I think the point people are trying to make is because the previous UN resolutions have been ignored then Israel has a responsibility for diluting the authority and respect for the organisation and they should not be surprised that Hezbollah have ignored the resolution that asks them to disarm.

No one is saying that Hezbollah are right, we know they are in the absolute wrong, all they are doing is following the example of the Israelis which is to ignore UN resolutions when you don't like their content.

Yes exactly. When Israel and the US ignore the UN but expect Hezbollah to comply with a resolution, feelings of resentment and injustice are just reinforced throughout the arab world, which in turn feeds militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

bonkey

gandalf wrote:

I think the point people are trying to make is because the previous UN resolutions have been ignored then Israel has a responsibility for diluting the authority and respect for the organisation and they should not be surprised that Hezbollah have ignored the resolution that asks them to disarm.

Not quite the point I'm making.

I'm saying that anyone claiming to be objective should not lament that the UN doesn't have the teeth to enforce resolutions that one side is flouting. They should lament that the UN doesn't have the teeth to enforce all resolutions flouted by either side, they should lament nothing, or they should openly admit partisanship and bias/prejudice before shedding crocodile tears that only one side in the fight doesn't get what they deserve for something that both sides are guilty of.

Sgt. Sensible

One area where the UN fails is in intelligence. It needs its own intelligence service. This was one of the things that rendered it so useless in the Balkans. States were up to all sorts of skullduggery, (the west arming and and supporting the muslims (with help from Iran, Hezbollah and Afghan mujahadeen as it happens) and Israel, Russia and Greece arming and supporting the Serbs) and the UN was completely outmanouvered.

Gordon

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

and Israel, Russia and Greece arming and supporting the Serbs

This is probably off-topic but have you got a link to proof of Greece arming the Serbs? I'm asking as I live in Greece and I find it crazy to think that they are arming anyone as they seem to have no arms whatsoever! Sure, their military consists of forced conscription for all men, doing a roughly one year sentence, and all they do is drink coffee and play backgammon afaik! I'm not saying it's not possible, just surprising.

Sgt. Sensible

Hmm, I think it'll be years before we find out what circumstances the soldiers were captured under.

The Associated Press reported Hezbollah's original claim, that Israeli troops had crossed into Lebanon and were ambushed. The story about the tank, which was destroyed by a mine, being sent to look for the captured troops sounds fishy. There seems to be zero effort from the media to get Hezbollah to comment on this. Both sides can't be right.

Associated Press
Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers
By JOSEPH PANOSSIAN , 07.12.2006, 05:41 AM


The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.

The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli military would not confirm the report.

Sgt. Sensible

Gordon wrote:

This is probably off-topic but have you got a link to proof of Greece arming the Serbs? I'm asking as I live in Greece and I find it crazy to think that they are arming anyone as they seem to have no arms whatsoever! Sure, their military consists of forced conscription for all men, doing a roughly one year sentence, and all they do is drink coffee and play backgammon afaik! I'm not saying it's not possible, just surprising.

It was in the Dutch enquiry into the Srebrenica massacre 3 or 4 years ago. I've no link sorry, as I read about it in the paper but I'll have a look at some stage.

Gordon

Cool, no prob, just curious. Thanks.