News Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[Anttech]

Wanting is a very strong term, and not the one I used, nor will.

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to and specifically in the context of trying to destroy Hezbollah is different than *wanting* to.

Are you trying to get an emotional reaction, Hurkyl?

 

[Anttech]

http://www.itv.com/news/world_783f5cda9528072c5e0da70ea805110e.html
The second in command to Osama bin Laden has warned that al-Qaeda will not stand idle while Israelis "burn the Muslim brothers in Gaza and Lebanon".

In a reference to the US and its allies the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, said that the bombs being dropped on Lebanon "are not purely Israeli but provided and financed by all the crusaders alliance countries."

In a taped message broadcast by the Arab satellite network al-Jazeera, Zawahiri said that al-Qaeda now saw "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

Zawahiri wore a grey robe and white turban. A picture of the burning World Trade Centre was on the wall behind him along with pictures of two other militants.

Blah Blah Blah. of course Al-Qaeda had to get in on the action. So I wonder where they stand on the Christians and Jews that are being bombed by Israel in Lebanon? I wonder what exactly they intend on doing? Considering they are Sunni's not Sh'ites.

 

[mbrmbrg]

Are you trying to get an emotional reaction, Hurkyl?

It seems to me like the last two pages have been pretty emotional all around, maybe the al queada angle won't get so emotional (unless, of course, some of our posters are al qeada members )

This was in yesterday's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/opinion/26haykel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"

what if everyone just imploded out of frustration?? in my dreams...

 

[Yonoz]

Just popped into post this: http://www.nysun.com/article/36860"

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.

"We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position ‘for tactical necessity — not being targeted,'" Mr. MacKenzie said he wrote.

In one such e-mail, obtained by The New York Sun, Hess-von Kruedener wrote about heavy IDF artillery and aerial bombardment "within 2 meters of our position." The Israeli shooting, he added, "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

The correspondence between the trooper and former commander amounted to "veiled speech in the military," Mr. MacKenzie, who once commanded the U.N. troops in Bosnia, told the CBC. "What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it."

 

[Hurkyl]

Wanting is a very strong term, and not the one I used, nor will.

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to and specifically in the context of trying to destroy Hezbollah is different than *wanting* to.

Are you trying to get an emotional reaction, Hurkyl?

No, I am not trying to get an emotional reaction.

Your last couple posts sounded like a thinly veiled accusation that Israelis have a desire to kill Lebanese civilians, and were jumping upon this opportunity to get away with it under the pretense of self defense.

However, it wasn't crystal clear, and I wanted you to come out and say it if that's what you meant.

But "want" was maybe too strong a word, since it still sounds like the you're saying the thing I thought you were saying.

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to​

This sounds very much like you're saying that, for the Israelis, the point of this war is to kill civilians.

 

[kyleb]

Just popped into post this: http://www.nysun.com/article/36860"

That is curious:

The statement said the Security Council "is deeply shocked an distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, 2006, which caused the death of four U.N. military observers."

Israel has apologized and called the incident a mistake. U.N. officials said they asked Israel a dozen times to stop bombing near the post in the hours before it was destroyed.
...

Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, called the statement "fair and balanced" and again criticized U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for saying the shelling appeared deliberate.

"During war, mistakes and tragedies happen,"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27419417.htm

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.

How so? The striking of the UN observers would have been accidental

 

[Anttech]

How so? The striking of the UN observers would have been accidental

With laser guided missiles, after 10 radio calls to the Israel command post explaining where they are. The UN post has been there for years, it has the Blue UN Flag outside, it is well documented. If it was an accident then, I wonder how many undocumented accidence have been happening in Beriut!

 

[Anttech]

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to

Is a nice snippet of what I actually said:

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to and specifically in the context of trying to destroy Hezbollah is different than *wanting* to.

Ever heard of the term 'collateral damage' which the US likes to go on about as if it is acceptable, as long as its not US citizens.

 

[Yonoz]

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.

What is he wrong about? Mistakes and tragedies don't happen during war?

 

[Yonoz]

With laser guided missiles, after 10 radio calls to the Israel command post explaining where they are. The UN post has been there for years, it has the Blue UN Flag outside, it is well documented. If it was an accident then, I wonder how many undocumented accidence have been happening in Beriut!

We all wonder that. It still does not mean it was deliberate, it's clear from the e-mails that the Israeli fire, which was as close as "2 metres" to the post "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity". "Tactical necessity" apparently implies that the Hizbullah guerrilas were near enough to the UN post and apparently engaging in some activity that would necessitate Israeli fire, even in the eyes of those who were close enough to have been hit.

 

[Yonoz]

Ever heard of the term 'collateral damage' which the US likes to go on about as if it is acceptable, as long as its not US citizens.

So are you saying Israel should allow its own citizens to be killed simply because to remove the threat would cost Lebanese lives? Are our leaders to make a calculation of the projected deaths on either side? How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

 

[Anttech]

We all wonder that. It still does not mean it was deliberate, it's clear from the e-mails that the Israeli fire, which was as close as "2 metres" to the post "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity". "Tactical necessity" apparently implies that the Hizbullah guerrillas were near enough to the UN post and apparently engaging in some activity that would necessitate Israeli fire, even in the eyes of those who were close enough to have been hit.

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant. UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, and I truly hope this isn't made a precedence! They are the eyes and ears of the world, and allow us (the rest of the world) to ensure you are playing by the rules. Its truly doesn't look good, what you did there.

So are you saying Israel should allow its own citizens to be killed simply because to remove the threat would cost Lebanese lives? Are our leaders to make a calculation of the projected deaths on either side? How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

You arent removing the threat, yet you keep asserting that. Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few. Israel it seems, with all its experience at Counter terrorism doesn't have a clue about how to conduct its-self in this type of war.

The amount of deaths 12,000 rockets could cause is vast, yet you have had about 50 die. Your F16's probably have killed more in one raid.

 

[Yonoz]

You like to read what you want, don't you?
You are Arabs with a different religion that others, but you are Arabs neither the less.

If that's the way you view things, fine. Just make sure you apply the same standards to both sides. If you treat Hizbullah's terrorism as an axiom, you should do the same with Israel's response. If you think Israel is making a mistake because the fighting increases support for Hizbullah, be aware it's the same with Israeli public opinion.

You are using the fact that (disgusting as it is) hezbollah are using gurrilea warfair tactics against you, as the excuse behind the disproportional amount of Lebanese lifes that have been taken.

Disproportionate to what exactly? Israeli casualties? We are not motivated by retribution. We measure the proportion according to the risk to our civilians. How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

I was being Ironic! Its part of the problem you know, the lopsided generosity that has been shown to Israel as oppose to any other ME country. People arent stupid, they see this with there own eyes. Look at Palestine, its literally, inside Israel yet it is so poor.

Please, you don't think the west's been generous to other ME countries? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE - I'm sure Schrodinger's Dog can tell you about all his country's friends, including British Aerospace management's royal treatment of the Saudi Prince, how easy it is to break the law when you're a major exporter. You see, the American moguls haven't invented anything, they're just really good at it. It's only now that there are no European superpowers that you look down on these practices.

Allow me to reciprocate by questioning your world's morals. IMO the west's newfound ideals are simply a fresh disguise for your own agendas. No one really cares about the Palestinians, the only time they got your attention was when they hijacked planes. No one tried to appease the Arab world before the oil embargo - sh*t, the noble "Brits" and the oh-so-diplomatic French tried to take the Suez Canal by force only 50 years ago (it was the Americans that stopped it - how do you explain that?). Europe was suckling on Arab resources like it did with Africa before. This new love affair is nothing more than foreign policy, meant to ensure a successful future for your nations. You did not respect the Arabs until they forced you to, just as you do not respect the Tibetans and Kurds today. Are you really aware of what's happening at every corner of this globe? Or are you being spoonfed propaganda? Why is there no attention given to Chinese human organ trafficking? Russian crimes in Chechnya? You complain about the Palestinians being poor - how about an entire continent that Europe drained dry last century? It's different today though, right?
One form of colonialism replaces another. At least cowboy diplomacy is straight forward. Now that they're the only superpower you look down at the Americans, thinking yourselves to be so righteous - when in fact it's nothing more than a modern manifestation of that well-repressed but strongly primal sense of nationalism.

 

[Yonoz]

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant.

I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.

UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, and I truly hope this isn't made a precedence!

Are Israeli civilians acceptable 'collateral damage'? Because it seems perfectly acceptable to you that Israel stop defending them.

They are the eyes and ears of the world, and allow us (the rest of the world) to ensure you are playing by the rules.

Well it's a shame you didn't ensure the Lebanese are.

Its truly doesn't look good, what you did there.

We're not here to put on a show for you. The UN observer himself wrote the fire was for "tactical necessity".

You arent removing the threat, yet you keep asserting that.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you had the schedule. Got a better way of removing that threat?

Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few.

I think I know better than you what is motivating us right now, and it's not a need for punishment.

Israel it seems, with all its experience at Counter terrorism doesn't have a clue about how to conduct its-self in this type of war.

Please enlighten us. I didn't know your country was faced with the exact same threats.

The amount of deaths 12,000 rockets could cause is vast, yet you have had about 50 die.

I'm sorry we have such a low death count, would you like more of us to die? Defence is quite useless when done retroactively.

Your F16's probably have killed more in one raid.

It's quite clear that you view us with prejudice. Try looking at facts, not assumptions.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

If that's the way you view things, fine. Just make sure you apply the same standards to both sides. If you treat Hizbullah's terrorism as an axiom, you should do the same with Israel's response. If you think Israel is making a mistake because the fighting increases support for Hizbullah, be aware it's the same with Israeli public opinion.

Disproportionate to what exactly? Israeli casualties? We are not motivated by retribution. We measure the proportion according to the risk to our civilians. How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

Please, you don't think the west's been generous to other ME countries? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE - I'm sure Schrodinger's Dog can tell you about all his country's friends, including British Aerospace management's royal treatment of the Saudi Prince, how easy it is to break the law when you're a major exporter. You see, the American moguls haven't invented anything, they're just really good at it. It's only now that there are no European superpowers that you look down on these practices.

Allow me to reciprocate by questioning your world's morals. IMO the west's newfound ideals are simply a fresh disguise for your own agendas. No one really cares about the Palestinians, the only time they got your attention was when they hijacked planes. No one tried to appease the Arab world before the oil embargo - sh*t, the noble "Brits" and the oh-so-diplomatic French tried to take the Suez Canal by force only 50 years ago (it was the Americans that stopped it - how do you explain that?). Europe was suckling on Arab resources like it did with Africa before. This new love affair is nothing more than foreign policy, meant to ensure a successful future for your nations. You did not respect the Arabs until they forced you to, just as you do not respect the Tibetans and Kurds today. Are you really aware of what's happening at every corner of this globe? Or are you being spoonfed propaganda? Why is there no attention given to Chinese human organ trafficking? Russian crimes in Chechnya? You complain about the Palestinians being poor - how about an entire continent that Europe drained dry last century? It's different today though, right?
One form of colonialism replaces another. At least cowboy diplomacy is straight forward. Now that they're the only superpower you look down at the Americans, thinking yourselves to be so righteous - when in fact it's nothing more than a modern manifestation of that well-repressed but strongly primal sense of nationalism.

Yes the worlds a mess, doesn't mean you have to contribute to it, or that your given cart blanche to, we're all at fault but that doesn't mean we can't put pressure on a race to stop what we percieve as evil. Morality is not a bank, you can't look at someone elses account in order to justify your own immorality, it doesn't work that way. This is not a childish situation of recirimination excused by the evils of others, he started it is not a valid argument, your argument is a straw man I'm afraid.

You should try looking up the Lavon affair since you mentioned the Suez crisis, an example of attempted assisination of civillians by Mossad in order to stall a peace process, your right of course, Israelis dont't target civillians deliberately,they leave it up to Zionist terrorists such as Irgun or intelligence, although I've seen precious little sign of intelligence in this war

The English arms trade and greed for cash to fuel wars is a shamefull embarrasesement to the UK and one I will not excuse, it frankly disgusts me, You can Kaching in on death by supplying war zones with cash, that's morally repugnant whether it be US, UK or Russian arms the dissidents are wielding. MP's ahave lost jobs over illicit arms deals, frankly they should lose jobs over the legal ones in most cases as well.

 

[Anttech]

Ok Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE this is absolutely it seems what you want. The world expects more from your 'supposed' civilised country, but you don't and can't produce. So I will put you in the same respect category as Hezbollah. Are you happy now? Or would you prefer we criticize you, because we expect you to have a higher standard, with respect to human rights, than a terrorist organisation?

I am amazed at this statement:

I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.

So you deliberately targeted the post which you knew had UN OBSERVERS inside? Perhaps answer the question this time, rather than trying to divert to something else. Do you believe that the UN Observers are acceptable collateral damage?

edit:

Would you care to explain how you target a moving 'swam' with laser guided missiles? hmmmm Usually Laser guided missiles are used to 'take out' stationary objects.

 

[Yonoz]

Ok Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE this is absolutely it seems what you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect" is an attitude of acknowledging the feelings and interests of another party in a relationship, and of treating as consequential for the self the helping or harming of the other. Though most commonly referring to interpersonal relationships, it can be used between animals, groups and institutions including countries. Respect does not necessarily imply deference, but a respectful attitude rules out unconsidered selfish behaviour. The concept of respect predates, and does not rely on, the existence of the concept of rights.

Respect is sometimes loosely used as a synonym for politeness or manners, though these are behaviours, whereas respect is an attitude. Intercultural differences in behaviours, self-perception and outward appearance may result in the unintentional appearance of disrespect.

Many movements have at different times claimed respect as the core element, including raver-culture, Islam and the United States Marine Corps.

You respect Hizbullah. You excuse their behaviour as a rule of nature. You expect Israel to continually be attacked only to be neutered by the world when it tries to defend itself:

The world expects more from your 'supposed' civilised country, but you don't and can't produce. So I will put you in the same respect category as Hezbollah. Are you happy now? Or would you prefer we criticize you, because we expect you to have a higher standard, with respect to human rights, than a terrorist organisation?

Oh but we do have a higher standard. We sanctify life, while they sanctify death. When we attack, we do so to prevent harm - when they attack, they mean to inflict it. We drop leaflets and send out radio broadcasts and recorded phone messages. They send out threats. Having read the definition for respect, I hope you realize this doesn't mean we're any more respected than they are. Quite the opposite. Just like the UN is disrespected by almost everyone.

I am amazed at this statement:

I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.

So you deliberately targeted the post which you knew had UN OBSERVERS inside?

I don't see how that can be misinterpreted like that. Read the sentence - slowly this time, you missed a few words in the middle there. The IDF targeted the **Hizbullah guerillas** that swarmed the post.

Perhaps answer the question this time, rather than trying to divert to something else. Do you believe that the UN Observers are acceptable collateral damage?

It depends on the threat. In some cases - yes. First, they are soldiers. Unlike civilians, they have chosen this profession and volunteered for their service. So obviously if a civilian can be an acceptable collateral damage, so can UN observers. Just like I would accept that if I participate in a battle, the enemy will try to kill me. It's not that the enemy soldier's driven by malice, he's a soldier just like I'd be and we'd be in a clear battle, and I would accept the fact that he would try to kill me. I do not accept that civilians are targetted for the purpose of killing them alone. I do not accept that guerillas hide among civilians and UN posts.
Second, Israel is not directly obligated to the peacekeepers. It is, however, directly and solely obligated to its citizens. The UN is obligated to its observers, and Israel is obligated to the UN, but not at the price of its own citizens. If I had to chose between a UN observer and an Israeli civilian, I would definitely accept such collateral damage. I know you'll be quick to judge me now, just think it over and ask yourself if any other country would not fire at those attacking its civilians, even if they're doing so from a UN post.
Now perhaps you can answer my question - what would you call the Israelis that will die from Hizbullah rockets if Israel agreed to a ceasefire? Is that not collateral damage? Are you not expecting Israel to accept it?

 

[Yonoz]

A funny caricature in the newspaper today. The officer's saying "That can't be. Only we have anxiety victims". Just thought you should see there's still a "left" here.

 

[Yonoz]

"[MEDIA=youtube[/URL]

 

[Anttech]

You respect Hizbullah. You excuse their behaviour as a rule of nature. You expect Israel to continually be attacked only to be neutered by the world when it tries to defend itself:

k Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE

Once again, you are attempting to project what you like onto me, and (purposefully?) are trying to twist what I say. if this continues I will not continue debating you!

Oh but we do have a higher standard. We sanctify life, while they sanctify death. When we attack, we do so to prevent harm - when they attack, they mean to inflict it. We drop leaflets and send out radio broadcasts and recorded phone messages. They send out threats. Having read the definition for respect, I hope you realize this doesn't mean we're any more respected than they are. Quite the opposite. Just like the UN is disrespected by almost everyone.

Oxymoron: And you are TRYING to harm Hezbollah, and the infrastructure of Lebanon.

In military science, an attack is the aggressive attempt to conquer enemy territory, installations, personnel, or equipment or to deny the enemy the use of territory, installations, personnel, or equipment, for example by destroying the equipment. A defending force may defend themselves, surrender, or launch a counter-attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack

The UN is respected, and is acknowledge by all leaders of the free world as a vehicle for allowing countries to voice grievances, and for government to multilaterally decide and act on problems. I'll admit it isn't perfect, But it is better than No UN.

Now perhaps you can answer my question - what would you call the Israelis that will die from Hizbullah rockets if Israel agreed to a ceasefire? Is that not collateral damage? Are you not expecting Israel to accept it?

Victims of a terrorist attack, no but I am expecting I will say this the last time more thought, and more respect for lebaonese life (and UN life). I am expecting you to behave like a civilised country, not like a raging bull.

I don't see how that can be misinterpreted like that. Read the sentence - slowly this time, you missed a few words in the middle there. The IDF targeted the **Hizbullah guerillas** that swarmed the post.

Man, this is trying. You accept that Israel knew there were UN observers inside the post that was *supposedly* swarmed by Hezbollah, yet you still fired on them. This action brings the people who did this down to the same level as the hezbullah terrorists, who fire indescrimently on Israeli targets, not caring for the consequences.

It depends on the threat. In some cases - yes. First, they are soldiers. Unlike civilians, they have chosen this profession and volunteered for their service.

Well using your logic, you choose to move to Israel, you have the choice to leave. (That was an example, I don't actually believe this, I said this to show what your statements look like) The UN PEACEKEEPERS were there UNARMED, they function similar to the press.

 

[Anttech]

Originally Posted by Anttech
Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few.
I think I know better than you what is motivating us right now, and it's not a need for punishment.

I never mentioned motivation I said it factually, you know like what you are actually doing.

750,000 people now displaced
425 people killed

 

[Yonoz]

Oxymoron

Please explain.

Victims of a terrorist attack, no but I am expecting I will say this the last time more thought, and more respect for lebaonese life (and UN life). I am expecting you to behave like a civilised country, not like a raging bull.

And what would a civilized country do?

Man, this is trying.

Yes it is, do you want to drop it?

You accept that Israel knew there were UN observers inside the post that was *supposedly* swarmed by Hezbollah, yet you still fired on them. This action brings the people who did this down to the same level as the hezbullah terrorists, who fire indescrimently on Israeli targets, not caring for the consequences.

No, because the fire was meant to kill the Hizbullah guerillas, and was not meant to kill the UN personnel. Hizbullah launches rockets with the full intent of killing innocent people.

Well using your logic, you choose to move to Israel, you have the choice to leave. (That was an example, I don't actually believe this, I said this to show what your statements look like) The UN PEACEKEEPERS were there UNARMED, they function similar to the press.

Well I would take the killing of an Israeli inside Israel with a little less disgust than I would the killing of an Israeli who fled Israel. It's the lesser of two evils - the killing of the UN volunteer and soldier by profession or the killing of the innocent civilian.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Please explain.

Oxymoron is a contradiction in terms such as a deafening silence or military intelligence and friendly fire.

 

[Anttech]

The killing of an observer, or the press, can be construed in many different ways. When the dust settles I hope we will find out why this act actually happened. If the killing of the UN observers was so that nobody could see what was going to happen, ie to kill the witnesses, then it is indeed very bad. I respect all life, I don't respect Israeli life more than I do Chinese or Canadian or Palisten.

No, because the fire was meant to kill the Hizbullah guerillas, and was not meant to kill the UN personnel. Hizbullah launches rocket with the full intent of killing innocent people.

But it did kill the UN observers. Are the Israeli army that stupid, that they think if you bomb a Hezbollah terrorist that is standing 2 meters away from a UN post, that the people in the UN post won't harmed? I don't think so. So it was intentional, anyway i hope this goes to the human rights courts.

Yes it is, do you want to drop it?

Ok let's drop that, and wait for the International Courts deal with your soldiers.

 

[Yonoz]

I never mentioned motivation I said it factually, you know like what you are actually doing.

750,000 people now displaced
425 people killed

Did Israel also "punish" its own civilians? You know: the ones who died or were injured, the ones who are in shelters for over two weeks, the ones who fled the north? It's a national crisis, caring for the displaced families. Hotels in the south are filled to an unprecedented state. The Jewish agency has organised summer camps for the children all over the country, while their parents are in the shelter in the north. We are also "punished" here, and we have no joy in watching the Lebanese suffer. But Hizbullah must not be allowed to threaten Israel like that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah yeah yeah,what you did isn't an eye for an eye, it's an eye for an arm and a leg. That's where the issue lies, not should Israel have the right to defend itself, should it have the right to beat someone and all the innocent bystanders who viewed the event into a bloody pulp and leave them in intensive care when that person merely slapped them. It's not hard to comprehend why this is a series of humanitarian laws infringements. Or why the only people defending this are those carrying out the attacks or those on that side, and the US atm, although God knows why, it's pretty apaulling, in my and just about everyone I knows opinion. Not that anecdotal evidence means jack, so basically try looking at the world news, there's condemnation all over the shop. Need to repeat what people have already said a dozen times on the off chance you'll understand at least to some tiny extent what the ussue with your campaign is. 2 for 378, 189 innocent lives for 1 non innocent life. That should be nice and clear now. Anyway I suggested we drop it ages ago, it's not like Yonoz understands the moral issues at hand or if he does he's having a hard time dealing with it rationally, which is understandable, it's like being involved in a fight and then trying to rationalise how many people you stomped afterwards to the police, your the injured party not them.

 

[Anttech]

yes,

I will second that. You don't have to believe me. But Every single person I have spoke to (including my ex-girlfriend who is a Jew) has condemn the attacks on Lebanon as brutal and totally over the top.

You are not the only country in the world who lives under terrorism, and nor will you be the last. However you do not have the right to smash Lebanon to the ground in reaction to 20 or so citizens, who have been killed! The IRA killed many more than this in the UK, yet (crazy as it may sound) the UK government didnt drop bombs all over Dublin, because we knew that the IRA was not the Irish government, nor the Irish people.

 

[Yonoz]

I will second that. You don't have to believe me. But Every single person I have spoke to (including my ex-girlfriend who is a Jew) has condemn the attacks on Lebanon as brutal and totally over the top.

Even common misperceptions are still, nonetheless, misperceptions. The http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/677332/posts" lives on.

You are not the only country in the world who lives under terrorism, and nor will you be the last. However you do not have the right to smash Lebanon to the ground in reaction to 20 or so citizens, who have been killed!

You're using those distorting superlatives again. Lebanon is not being "smashed to the ground". We have every right to defend ourselves from an ongoing attack.

The IRA killed many more than this in the UK, yet (crazy as it may sound) the UK government didnt drop bombs all over Dublin, because we knew that the IRA was not the Irish government, nor the Irish people.

That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder.

 

[Anttech]

That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder.

Nah, they were just planting bombs in the London Underground, Outside Downing Street, in most major cities. They were ambushing UK Soliders in N.Ireland the list is long. As I said before 3000 people died in the troubles.

The reason the UK didnt fly f16 into Dublin, is because they understand the art of counter-terrorism. Hearts and Minds, create a political Avenue, allow for greivances to be heard, and acted on.

 

[Yonoz]

Nah, they were just planting bombs in the London Underground, Outside Downing Street, in most major cities. They were ambushing UK Soliders in N.Ireland the list is long. As I said before 3000 people died in the troubles.

You fail to see the point. There weren't any rockets launched from Ireland, so there's no reason to drop bombs there, is there? Do you think we're just dropping bombs wherever we feel like?

The reason the UK didnt fly f16 into Dublin, is because they understand the art of counter-terrorism. Hearts and Minds, create a political Avenue, allow for greivances to be heard, and acted on.

Why would the want to fly an F16 there in the first place?

 

[Yonoz]

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

 

[Anttech]

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

Yes it is part of the UK, what is your point? The IRA were attacking the UK Soldiers in N.I.

The point is the British intelligence knew where they were, they were killing British civilians yet we didnt go in with bombs blowing up where we thought they lived. The delivery system of death is totally Irrelevant.

Do you believe that Israel life's are more important that British lifes?

 

[Yonoz]

Yes it is part of the UK, what is your point? The IRA were attacking the UK Soldiers in N.I.

That's funny because I figured if you're comparing the two conflicts then Britain must have pulled out of Northern Ireland.

The point is the British intelligence knew where they were, they were killing British civilians yet we didnt go in with bombs blowing up where we thought they lived. The delivery system of death is totally Irrelevant.

Irrelevant? What is Israel attacking in Lebanon, trucks carrying plumbing supplies?

Do you believe that Israel life's are more important that British lifes?

I wonder what do you think the British government would do if it pulled out of Northern Ireland, the Irish government allowed the IRA to arm itself to the teeth with over 12000 rockets and then one day just started firing them at Manchester and Liverpool, creating desertion and days reminiscent of the battle of Britain.
Lucky for them, they had freedom for their security forces since they were on UK soil and the IRA never had ground-ground rockets, let alone 12000. Those are the really big differences.

 

[Curious6]

Anttech, it's not hard to see your analogy to the IRA and the UK is flawed.

 

[Gokul43201]

Anttech, it's not hard to see your analogy to the IRA and the UK is flawed.

Curious6, it is good practice to support an assertion like that with an argument. What you've just done is a hit and run.

 

[Curious6]

Gokul43201, it's not a 'hit and run'. I was limiting myself to giving my opinion about the IRA/UK analogy being debated - for me, it's quite clear from the discussion between Anntech and Yonoz that the comparison is not an accurate one.

 

[kyleb]

Yonoz simply overlooked where Anntech was drawing his comparison; the IRA did arm itself to the teeth because the British government had their forces on Irish soil, much the same as a the Muslim extremist minority does against Israel today.

 

[daveb]

This has turned into an "I'm right" - "No, I'm right" argument. Yonoz will never believe that Israel is overreacting and Anttech will never believe that Israel is just defending itself. Can we move on please?

 

[kyleb]

Yes, we should talk about Israel's continuing control and expansion over the past four decades onto land beyond the Green Line. How would like to have been born into the other side of that?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

That's because the majority of it's population are Loyalists(pro UK government) If they want devolution they have but to vote for it, but with little support for it in the country it is unlikely in my lifetime to become a reality. To the IRA's credit though they still maintain a hope of union with Ireland by purely political means. When the last IRA member shot a loylaist in 2005 they offered to have him shot as recompense, that's a bold statement of solidarity behind a peace cause, the familly of the victim refused though, and rightly so, shows real human decency in an ability to forgive and forget on both sides. Just FYI, the reason why the UK maintains control is a democratic one.

That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder.

The anlogoy is apt because the IRA bombed many civillian centres in the UK, the 600 dead civillians you see are mostly perpetrated against England on English soil.One of the worst of which was the Manchester bombing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm

1996: Huge explosion rocks central Manchester
A massive bomb has devastated a busy shopping area in central Manchester.

Two hundred people were injured in the attack, mostly by flying glass, and seven are said to be in a serious condition. Police believe the IRA planted the device.

The bomb exploded at about 1120 BST on Corporation Street outside the Arndale shopping centre.

It is the seventh attack by the Irish Republican group since it broke its ceasefire in February and is the second largest on the British mainland.

A local television station received a telephone warning at 1000 BST - just as the city centre was filling up with Saturday shoppers.

The caller used a recognised IRA codeword.

One hour and 20 minutes after the warning, police were still clearing hundreds of people from a huge area of central Manchester.

Army bomb disposal experts were using a remote-controlled device to examine a suspect van parked outside Marks & Spencer when it blew up in an uncontrolled explosion.

This is not an atypical situation of 30 years of terrorists explosions around the UK.

 

[Bystander]

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant.

"Tactical necessities" are the only "relevant" factors in warfare.

UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, (snip)

You referee a hockey game you're going to get hit with the puck. You take a "nitwitness news team" to the front, you're going to get hurt. You man a UN outpost in the middle of a war zone, you abandon it when the shooting starts, because the psychopaths are going to be using you for cover if you don't, and that's going to draw the other side's fire.

 

[kyleb]

So either or the report of the emails is right in suggesting it was a tactical necessity, or the Israeli ambassador is right in saying it was a mistake.

 

[Bystander]

So either or the report of the emails is right in suggesting it was a tactical necessity, or the Israeli ambassador is right in saying it was a mistake.

What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of thing that happens when some raving maniac starts a war. B*tch out the raving maniac for being so incredibly stupid in the first place, b*tch out the nincompoops who gave the raving maniac sanctuary, b*tch out the people who bankroll the raving maniac, but don't go griping to the people trying to clean up the mess.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yonoz simply overlooked where Anntech was drawing his comparison; the IRA did arm itself to the teeth because the British government had their forces on Irish soil, much the same as a the Muslim extremist minority does against Israel today.

You mean the Israeli forces that weren't on Lebanese soil for six years?

 

[kyleb]

I mean where Israel has been controlling and expanding beyond the Green Line for nearly forty years.

 

[kyleb]

What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.

Either Israeli did deliberately targeted the location, or they made a mistake. It is one or the other.

 

[Bystander]

Either Israeli did deliberately targeted the location, or they made a mistake. It is one or the other.

There is NO "excluded middle." This is exactly how Arabs and M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms have lost every war they started in the 20th century, and will lose every war they start in the 21st --- no logic skills.

 

[Yonoz]

I mean where Israel has been controlling and expanding beyond the Green Line for nearly forty years.

I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.

 

[MeJennifer]

There is NO "excluded middle." This is exactly how Arabs and M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms have lost every war they started in the 20th century, and will lose every war they start in the 21st --- no logic skills.

That is just racism, plain and simple.