"Stop the war now" - I'd rather die tommorow

[budullewraagh]

Conservatives supporting a "cut-and-run" strategy? Zounds!

[budullewraagh]

Looks like Israel is a bit smarter than the US.

 

Looks also like they finally followed my line of thinking, concerning gains v losses.

 

[link]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2309642[/link]

 

I'm not particularly fond of those leaflets, however- effectively it's Israel being terrorist when you think about it.

 

By the numbers: 4.5 weeks of fighting yield:

-789 dead in Lebanon, "mostly civilians"

-39 Israeli civilians killed

-115 Israeli soldiers dead

 

You know, that's a lot of civilian casualties. Maybe it's because of this policy:

[link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml[/link]

 

Yep, that sounds like state terrorism.

[mooeypoo]

You know, I've been watching you oversimplify a situation you don't quite understand for the duration of this thread, but this is certainly the record.

 

A Terrorist State? How did you reach that?

 

Israel is far from being perfect, but the battle to remain ethical in the face of a no-choice war is continuus. May I remind you, that when America invaded Afghanistan -- a land far far away from it, with no emmediate threat to the civilians of the American state -- they wiped out complete villages with artillery? Boom, no village. Israel tries to wipe out buildings. So, yes, war is sad, isn't it? It's not perfect, and it has collateral damage, and both sides have failures and successes.

 

But a terrorist state?

 

May I remind you - again - that in six years, Israel sat idly by while "occasional" (almost daily.. hardly 'occasional') bombardments were fired on Israeli cities in the north? Those cities are not in any "occupied territory", and they have done nothing bad to anyone. They are CIVILIAN cities, not military settlements.

 

Terrorist state.. ?

 

You are talking about a country that PONDERED whether to commence a battle with a group of terrorists that held the entire north section hostage with missiles. PONDERED IT. Thought about it for a WHILE (and Israeli citizens now criticise the fact it actually took too long to try and stop the missiles) before going to a battle to stop the missiles against its cities.

 

Would you expect America to sit idly by - or even spend a second 'thinking about it' - if New York was attacked by a SINGLE MISSILE from terrorists in Canada, and Canada doing nothing to stop those terrorists, calling them "Freedom Fighters"??

 

I doubt it.

 

America started a war far from its land -- two of those -- over much less emmediate threats than what Iseael is fighting at the moment.

 

Terrorist state..

 

You're going a bit far there, aren't you? Ignoring some quite RECENT history, arent you?

 

~moo

[budullewraagh]

A Terrorist State? How did you reach that?

I didn't. Please re-read my post.

 

Does the fact that the US blew up villages in Afghanistan justify Israel doing the same?

 

Speaking of oversimplification, you said:

Israel tries to wipe out buildings. So, yes, war is sad, isn't it? It's not perfect, and it has collateral damage, and both sides have failures and successes.

Well, no, actually. Firstly, they said that EVERYONE in southern Lebanon was a target. This includes my Uncle Mahmoud, a store owner who kind of dislikes the hold that Hezbollah has had on southern Lebanon in recent years. A few Israeli snipers shot at him but missed. He proceeded to find a grenade and lob it at a US-manufactured Israeli helicopter. The whole thing went up in flames. Now he's screaming "Jihad!" on the streets of Damascus. And to correct you, because EVERYTHING is a legitimate target (in Israel's eyes) there actually is no collateral damage to be found!

 

But a terrorist state?

Still didn't say it.

 

May I remind you - again - that in six years, Israel sat idly by while "occasional" (almost daily.. hardly 'occasional') bombardments were fired on Israeli cities in the north? Those cities are not in any "occupied territory", and they have done nothing bad to anyone. They are CIVILIAN cities, not military settlements.

Yep, Israel has been victim to lots of terrorist attacks- there's no doubt here. This still neither negates the fact that they can engage in terrorist activities themselves nor does it excuse any terrorist activities in which they may engage. Had they decided to discriminate between enemy combatant and civilian, I would have been less opposed to their efforts in Lebanon. Still opposed for other reasons, but less opposed overall. Instead they decided to disregard civilians and call everyone and everything a target.

 

Terrorist state.. ?

Still haven't said it.

 

You are talking about a country that PONDERED whether to commence a battle with a group of terrorists that held the entire north section hostage with missiles. PONDERED IT. Thought about it for a WHILE (and Israeli citizens now criticise the fact it actually took too long to try and stop the missiles) before going to a battle to stop the missiles against its cities.

 

One afternoon not very long ago my Uncle Mahmoud also pondered whether he should become a terrorist. The Imam representing Islamic Jihad helped him decide. Thinking for some time about whether you should engage in terrorist activities doesn't mean that the actions you choose to pursue are suddenly not terrorist in nature. No, terrorism isn't random fanaticism happening on a whim- most all attacks are planned out long in advance.

 

I'm sure Israel also pondered whether they should attack Hezbollah militants, Lebanese civilians or both. Incidentally they chose both, though they apparently proved to be far more adept in killing civilians than Hezbollah militants.

 

Would you expect America to sit idly by - or even spend a second 'thinking about it' - if New York was attacked by a SINGLE MISSILE from terrorists in Canada, and Canada doing nothing to stop those terrorists, calling them "Freedom Fighters"??

 

No, but I also wouldn't expect America to (because of the attack by a few crazed extremist) declare that my brother Jean-Luc is a legitimate target, especially considering how much he resents those crazy people who attacked New York.

 

By the way, I actually think the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about Hezbollah. Really, they have no military. They do appreciate Hezbollah's power and ability to defend their borders, and may and may not oppose Hezbollah's actions against Israel. Well, just because of the effects that Israel has had on Lebanon, the Lebanese government is probably against Hezbollah AND Israel at this point.

 

America started a war far from its land -- two of those -- over much less emmediate threats than what Iseael is fighting at the moment.

Yeah, but have I stated my opinions concerning those wars? Does the fact that they happened legitimize Israel's terrorist actions? Nope. Also, I'd like to add that I said that targeting civilians is a terrorist act, not invading a country in self-defense.

 

Terrorist state..

Still haven't said it.

[Bettina]

I didn't. Please re-read my post.

 

Not directly, but you did make the implication. I re-read most of your posts in this thread, and to be honest, it makes me wonder whose side your really on.

 

Bee

[Pangloss]

Reading between the lines of people's words is not what I consider to be elevated debate.

[5614]

I agree Pangloss. But there is a difference between "reading between the lines" and "seeing what people are getting/hinting at".

 

So for example if I talked extensively about terrorist group Hezbollah and the pathetic Lebanese government who have failed to stop those terrorists and how good it is that the Israeli army is dealing with the terrorist situation you would see that I'm getting/hinting at the fact that I'm pro-Israeli. No where did I even mention that I'm pro anything.

 

In fact in most of these threads no one says "I'm pro-____". It just becomes apparent.

 

By the numbers: 4.5 weeks of fighting yield:

-789 dead in Lebanon' date=' "mostly civilians"

-39 Israeli civilians killed

-115 Israeli soldiers dead

 

You know, that's a lot of civilian casualties. Maybe it's because of this policy:

[link']http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml[/link]

 

Yep, that sounds like state terrorism.

The link's title is "You're all targets, Israel tells Lebanese in South". He follows that article by saying "that sounds like state terrorism".

 

He is saying that what Israel is doing sounds like state terrorism. How is that any different from calling Israel a terrorist state?

 

I haven't read most of this thread, and not all of budullewraagh posts. But if by doing so mooeypoo and Bettina conclude that budullewraagh is calling Israel a terrorist state, and he does seem it from, for example, the above quote, then I think it's a fair conclusion.

 

Maybe it's not an "elevated debate", but in all debates what someone says is dissected and analysed carefully. This is what mooeypoo/Bettina have done. It's not rocket science to go from "sounds like state terrorism" to "is state terrorism" (ie. Israel is a terrorist state) especailly when, over several posts, you can see that, whilst he won't say it directly, that is how he feels.

[budullewraagh]

Not directly, but you did make the implication. I re-read most of your posts in this thread, and to be honest, it makes me wonder whose side your really on.

 

Bee

 

Whose side am I really on? I'm absolutely apalled by the actions of Hezbollah, the IDF, and the United States. I think I'll side with India on this one.

 

When I said that it appeared that Israel was participating in acts that could be considered to be "state terrorism" I was saying that certain actions taken by the IDF were terrorist in nature. Making a cake doesn't make one a baker. Participating in the Boston Marathon doesn't make one a racist. See what I mean?

 

However, this is mostly irrelevant. What is clear is that I have made claims that the IDF is guilty of state terrorism. By all means, be taken aback. Be shocked. Think of me as a terrible person if you so desire. Then, once you recover, prove me wrong.

[Pangloss]

I dislike the need for people to post politically-correct addendums and stipulations in order to have their words taken and responded to exactly as they were posted.

 

Maybe we should talk to Verisign about getting some PC digital certificates stamped up for us.

[Aardvark]

Like they'd ever be able to annex Lebanon.

 

His point, as far as i understand it, isn't that Israel could annex Lebannon, but that Lebannon and Israel could unify.

 

As this would give the new state an Arab majority it would be a smart move by the Arabs, it would in effect result in the elimination of Israel and the end of Zionism.

 

Which is probably why the Israelis would never do such a thing.

[Saryctos]

His point' date=' as far as i understand it, isn't that Israel could annex Lebannon, but that Lebannon and Israel could unify.

 

As this would give the new state an Arab majority it would be a smart move by the Arabs, it would in effect result in the elimination of Israel and the end of Zionism.

 

Which is probably why the Israelis would never do such a thing.[/quote']

 

Oh no, I meant Isreal take lebanon by force, then install an interem arab gov't that is basically under the watch of Isreal to watch for hezbollah* sympathetics. The trade off for being under direct Isreali control? not having to worry about being invaded anymore, unless some hezbollah people start something(example, guerilla resistence), but I feel as though people would be deturred from siding with them if they have a job in the building they bomb, or their children go to school near a target. The main objective is to deturr* terrorism by making their targets the same as themselves. Once everyone is part of Isreal why bother bombing them? they provide gov't aid and jobs for your friends and family, the terrorism would decrease out of a lapse in the sense of lazyness. Why do it if noone really cares anymore? This is a throwback to the days of Imperialism, and I'm not much for that kind of stuff =/. Unfortunately when the enemy is in another country, whose gov't isn't strong enough to curtale their actions, it's basically having a weak excuse for a political shield.

 

That is not to say that an Isreali invation would go perfectly as plan with almost 0 casualties. Just saying that after a sucessful invasion, assuming the post war politics was handled correctly, and the lebanese people were givin' some sort of assurence that they wouldn't be treated poorly, most people would probably just want to get on with a normal life. Planning for a smooth transition of power with minimal changes to infrastructure would be top priority in an endevour such as this.

 

I haven't given a great deal of thought into how one would go about doing this, but I'm not really sure it's worth the effort, since I really don't have a say in what happens over there anyways.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, here we go:

 

Does the fact that the US blew up villages in Afghanistan justify Israel doing the same?

Of course not, but forgetting it - and therefore judging Israel's actions during a WAR -- which is never peaceful and loving and nice and happy -- is also something one shouldn't do. Don't you agree? It seems to me you are judging Israel by a different scale than you are the rest of the countries.

 

Well, no, actually. Firstly, they said that EVERYONE in southern Lebanon was a target.

Yes, and I said you are wrong, and it is quite evident from Israel's way of fighting.

 

Let me get something straight: Israel has made mistakes, much like many other countries. Israel is far from being perfect. But claiming it is a country that purposefully murders innocent civilians -- while at the same breath claiming hizbullah is not -- is quite a far fetched statement, and quite infuriating.

 

As someone who actually served in a military, let me tell you this: If Israel concidered the entirety of southern lebanon a target, then it wouldn't have sent ground troops into a hazardous location; it would've sent planes (It has a very good airforce, I doubt anyone would disagree), with lots and lots of bombs, plow the area, wipe it out, and then just put tanks in the area to make sure everyone's dead.

 

It doesn't. In fact, Israel is going AGAINST it's soldier's safety in that aspect: It is sending groups of soldiers to specific villages, specific locations, to fight against militias. If you know anything about military, then you know that this is muuuuch more dangerous to the lives of the soldiers, and yet Israel does that. Why? Because it doesn't WANT to kill innocent civilians.

 

The problem is when you have your third of the country in shelters, their lives RUINED (They are 24 hours a day in a shelter, perhaps having a "break" of a few minimal hours), their lifestyle completely shattered, the economy trashed - all because of a group of terrorists bombarding the cities. You - as the military - know you need to stop it. You want to only stop the ones who bombard you, so you go there specifically (with trained soldiers and not a flock of warplanes), you send pamphlets warning against the attack (and give out your plans), you speak to the world (and the United Nations in an attempt to find political solution), and you try to only destroy specific locations.

 

You do aaaaaaalll that.... and your enemy brings civilians into your attacking buildings ON PURPOSE. They hide amongst families and kids KNOWING that you are going to try and stop them. They are CAUSING YOU to kill their own civilians.

 

Tell me, my friend, and I don't mean to patronize, I mean to SERIOUSLY ask, because this is something that I've been pondering myself, for a lonnnnnng long time, with no answer: WHAT should Israel do? What? Just offer an alternative. A working one. PLEASE. I beg you. A third of Israel's population BEGS you. The lebanese children that are used as human shield cry for your help. PLEASE. Tell me. Give me a solution for a better way to end this.

 

But before you do, look up some history. Don't go too far. Go only 50 years into the Arabic history and the Muslim/Jewish fights. See what Israel has tried to do in the past (give out land, get out of potentially harmful places in the name of giving out to peace, agreeing to speak to known terrorists who murdered thousands in the name of anti-israel fundamentalist islam just to get a hope of peace) -- all failed. Some even escalated the situation.

 

So after your research, please. PLEASE. And I am serious: Please give us another solution. What SHOULD we do to stop our people from being killed -- innocent civilians -- in their own homes, in the busses, in schools, in malls -- WHAT SHOULD WE DO. PLEASE.

 

Come up with a good solution that will actually work, and I will bow and kiss your feet.

 

I would suggest, however, that you don't ask Israel to just dissapear. That is one thing that will not happen.

 

Now, about your uncle:

This includes my Uncle Mahmoud, a store owner who kind of dislikes the hold that Hezbollah has had on southern Lebanon in recent years. A few Israeli snipers shot at him but missed. He proceeded to find a grenade and lob it at a US-manufactured Israeli helicopter.

Well. I am very sorry to hear about your uncle's misfortune. I am serious. I am truely sorry.

 

I can sadly also give you stories that belong to the other side. That is what happens in war. Is that a good thing? OF COURSE NOT. But it happens to both sides, and with all due respect, if your uncle disliked the hizbullah's presence in southern lebanon, knowing hizbullah shot missiles on israeli territory DAILY for the past six years and did NOTHING to stop this, then he should've gotten AWAY from the attacked territories the second it happened. He should've been the first to support Hizbullah's disarmament, since it would've braught to his OWN better future.

 

I am not the only Israeli to be sencerely sorry for the loss of lives in BOTH sides. Both the Lebanese and the Israeli. But I repeat my question to you -- and do try not to avoid it this time, seeing how you avoid answering to all others who asked you this throughout the thread -- WHAT is the solution? Israel's shutting up and letting third of its population to stay hostage?

 

Israel didn't start this battle, Hizbullah did. For the past six years it's been targetting CIVILIAN CITIES in nothern israel. Not "targetting military outposts--oops, we hit a civilian city". Nooo. Targetting SPECIFIC CIVILIAN CITIES. Huge difference there, don't you agree?

Israel got into this battle after the soldiers were kidnapped and at the SAME DAY hizbullah started firing huge amounts of rockets into the cities in the north.

 

What. What do you want Israel to do? Please answer me.

 

 

Oh, and you hinted pretty strongly that Israel is a terrorist state. Right here:

 

You know, that's a lot of civilian casualties. Maybe it's because of this policy:

[link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml[/link]

 

Yep, that sounds like state terrorism.

 

Here. You did.

 

~moo

[budullewraagh]

If you engage in an aggressive war, you are responsible for the casualties you cause. To say that the "fog of war" has set in and that "civilian casualties are inevitable" is just skirting the issue: you are responsible for killing civilians because you attacked foreign soil. Also, it should be noted that I never made any judgment of the actions of any other country so you can't compare my judgment of Israel with any other judgments I may and may not have mentally made but not expressed to you.

 

Quote:

Well, no, actually. Firstly, they said that EVERYONE in southern Lebanon was a target.

Yes, and I said you are wrong, and it is quite evident from Israel's way of fighting.

 

I am wrong? No, ISRAEL said it. Are they wrong? Do they misinterpret their own words? Sorry man- I wasn't interpreting their actions- I was telling you what THEY said; that everyone in southern Lebanon was a target.

 

I also never said that Hezbollah didn't attack civilians! I said that I am appalled by the policies of Hezbollah, Israel and the United States concerning the issue at hand. Hezbollah says they target civilians, and we all believe it. Israel says they target everyone and you don't? I don't understand!

 

Israel isn't going all out to decimate Lebanon: this would be too hard to cover up in the Western world and the political fallout would result in its isolation and eventually its destruction. No, instead they send soldiers to shoot at anything after 3 weeks of continuous aerial assaults. Yes- for most of this war Israel has little to no ground operations. Also, please don't try to condescend me because you have military experience. Through my studies and through my father, a decorated veteran of the US Navy who served at Okinowa, I have learned a great deal about war.

 

If they don't want to kill innocent civilians then why do they ask for cluster bombs when they allegedly "know" that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians? Or are they just lying whenever they say that civilian deaths are the result of Hezbollah militants using civilians as "human shields?" They can't have it both ways. Also, why does Israel maintain that everyone in southern Lebanon is a target? Why don't they say something like "everyone in southern Lebanon who appears dangerous is a target"?

 

Anyway, if Israel really wanted to have any success why would they say "Psst! Yo, Lebanese civilians in houses X,Y and Z. GET OUT- We're blowing up your houses in 3 hours, 24 minutes and 38 seconds. Try not to warn Hezbollah, 'cuz that'd be bad." No, I believe that Hezbollah militants would find out when they picked up the same leaflets. Then, being able to both read and move, they'd leave, totally undermining Israel's efforts to kill them. Damn, these guys are smart!

 

What should Israel do? Well, let's assess the options:

Attacking Lebanon is one step forward and two steps back...hmm...

 

Well, to have better results, they could just not do anything. That way at least they wouldn't be back a step.

 

Also, they could, you know, reach out to the citizens of Lebanon and get them to turn on Hezbollah by saying "do you REALLY want these people supporting you? They may just bring about your destruction," and encouraging government action against Hezbollah.

 

He should've been the first to support Hizbullah's disarmament, since it would've braught to his OWN better future.

 

Yeah well my Uncle is really poor and has deep roots in Southern Lebanon. Besides, why should he move? He's his own man and can't be pushed around!

 

Israel didn't start this battle, Hizbullah did.

 

Any member of any military should know that it doesn't matter who casts the first stone: he who casts the first stone says he acts in defense. Those who respond say they act in defense, etc etc.

 

And I CONTINUE to maintain that the IDF is guilty of state terrorism. Prove me wrong.

[Bettina]

budullewraagh

 

I feel sorry for you. You hate war.... and so do I.... but you have no way of justifying self defense. Do you feel the same about the U.S. in WWII ? Do you feel that war was worth winning?

 

Bee

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd like to see a bit more referencing and a bit less "my second cousin is a rear admiral, so I'm right."

[Tetrahedrite]

I tend to agree with budullewraagh's general arguement.

 

I am 99.99% sure that if Israel had intelligence that suggested a Hezbollah militant was hiding in a building full of Jewish civilians, it would not even consider attacking it, but it is completely willing to do the same against Lebanese civilians. This conflict keeps bringing me back to the feeling that some people believe that the lives of civilians in one country are worth less than those in another.

 

I maybe an idealist, but I do not believe a building full of civilians is a legitimate target, under any circumstances, for either side of the conflict. I also strongly agree with budullewraagh's sentiments in that one group committing attrocities does not justify attrocities being committed in retalliation, under any circumstances. One step forward, two steps back, thats all it is.

[mooeypoo]

If you engage in an aggressive war, you are responsible for the casualties you cause.

By that logic, I would say it is Hizbullah's responsibility.

 

I doubt looking for responsibility-bearers is anything benefitial right now, though.

 

I asked you a question about what ELSE can be a solution.. until you answer it, I would have to tell you that I believe Israel is doing it's BEST under a crappy ass situation.

 

Prove otherwise (by giving another solution) or stop saying "you can do better" without actually saying HOW.

 

I am wrong? No, ISRAEL said it.

I never heard of it. Show me where. Exact quote.

 

I said that I am appalled by the policies of Hezbollah, Israel and the United States concerning the issue at hand.

And the alternative is....?

 

Hezbollah says they target civilians, and we all believe it. Israel says they target everyone and you don't? I don't understand!

Show me where exactly ISRAEL said this. Don't give me someone ELSE saying israel said that. Show me a quote of Israel stating anyone - including civilians - in southern lebanon are a target. Provide your sources please.

 

Also, please don't try to condescend me because you have military experience.

I wasn't trying to condecende, I was trying to show you what I know from my experience. We were talking about military actions, and I have experience with that.

 

My purpose wasn't for us to bicker over who has the bestest war efforts. My purpose was to show my opinion based on my own experience. We are debating something that I was once part of. Telling me it is condecending to give my experience is quite silly.

 

Surely, when a physicist has experience and knowlegde about a specific theory, you don't call them condecending if they tell you they try to explain what they know of it.

 

If they don't want to kill innocent civilians then why do they ask for cluster bombs when they allegedly "know" that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians?

They don't always, this is why they sent GROUND TROOPS. Those ground troops went into locations that Israel KNEW were filled of enemy forces, and that will be a great threat to the soldiers lives. They did that because they wanted to at least ATTEMPT to avoid collateral damage. ATTEMPT, in a war, is better than nothing. And it's surely better than purposefully put civilians in harms way.

 

Or are they just lying whenever they say that civilian deaths are the result of Hezbollah militants using civilians as "human shields?"

Stop evading our questions.

 

You are so smart throwing out where Israel is wrong,where America is wrong, where everyone's so damn wrong.

 

I asked you what YOU HAVE TO SUGGEST as an alternative.

 

No one argues that this is a shitty situation. People die. People get hurt. People get killed. Lives are ruined, houses are burnt. Yes. It's war.

No one likes this situation, not the lebanese and not the israelis. NO ONE.

 

But THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A WAR. There is collateral damage, and the "trick" (if you can even lower it to that meaning) is to try and avoid as much of it as possible. It is not always possible, read a bit about wars in general.

 

The question here is what ELSE can Israel DO. WHAT ELSE. there's no doubt War is BAD. No one argues. All you do so far is repeat the notion of "war is bad". Well, yes. Thankyou. War is horrible. I know. I agree.

 

But concidering the OTHER ALTERNATIVE -- the one where the entirety of Israel is at the mercy of bombs, terrorist attacks, busses blowing up and malls being burnt by Shahids -- this is the BEST we can DO under the circumstances.

 

You want to keep on saying "it's bad it's bad" go right ahead, but as long as you don't suggest any other MEANINGFUL resolution (and I told you to study history for that, I'll touch your suggestions in a moment), then your claims of "war being bad" is doing nothing other than existing.

 

You're not changing anything by claiming war is bad. We all know war is bad. We all dont want war. WHAT, then, is the other alternative.

 

Well, to have better results, they could just not do anything. That way at least they wouldn't be back a step.

 

Also, they could, you know, reach out to the citizens of Lebanon and get them to turn on Hezbollah by saying "do you REALLY want these people supporting you? They may just bring about your destruction," and encouraging government action against Hezbollah.

We tried doing nothing for SIX YEARS, and we tried reaching out to the lebanese people both by politics and by other means; it didn't work. Hizbullah only gained more power, more guns, more ways to attack Israeli cities.

 

BTW, many other countries in the world tried to convince the lebanese government to get rid of the hizbullah once and for all. Should I remind you how the South-Lebanese army had to FLEE for their lives after Israel left because the Hizbullah entered the territory? Lebanon either has no official power over Hizbullah, or no desire to get rid of them. I'm not talking about the general population, I'm talking about government. It's proven, they ALLOWED this to happen, despite world's requests AND warnings.

 

This option was TRIED, AND FAILED. Next option, please.

 

Yeah well my Uncle is really poor and has deep roots in Southern Lebanon. Besides, why should he move? He's his own man and can't be pushed around!

He shouldn't. Unfortunately, Hizbullah took over that region. He can stay and be used by them (because they DO want to use him), or leave and come back after the war.

 

Israeli Citizen in the north are having the same problem; stay or leave. Leave or stay. Well, some stay, some leave, but those who stay KNOW what they stay WITH. They know that there is a war.

And in southern lebanon, the war gets into people's houses, as Hizbullah wishes.

 

In a perfect world, he should've stayed, have his country full of commerce and wealth, and never leave and always be happy. This is not a perfect world. And war is never perfect either.

 

Any member of any military should know that it doesn't matter who casts the first stone: he who casts the first stone says he acts in defense. Those who respond say they act in defense, etc etc.

 

Friend.

 

Six years we had missiles on Israeli cities up north, and we sat idly by, responding only from within our borders, knowing it will not stop them.

 

One day the Hizbullah kidnaps two soldiers, killing others, WITHIN our own borders, with no previous action by Israel.

 

The same day, Hizbullah fires HUNDREDS of missiles on northern Israeli cities, injuring many, killing two civilians.

 

The bombing never stopped. It took Israel almost 24 hours to FINALLY decide to get its butt in there. Israel doesn't WANT to be in Lebanon, we made that mistake once, we're not too thrilled to do it again.

 

But we have a THIRD of our POPULATION in SHELTERS.

 

Think about that sentence for a tiny bit.

 

Now think of it some more.

 

And a tid bit more.

 

And you tell me, without games, without evading my question, and with reading through history and seeing what we already tried, what failed and what almost caused a bigger war: WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS.

 

And I CONTINUE to maintain that the IDF is guilty of state terrorism. Prove me wrong.

Actually, you need to prove US wrong.

Throughout my entire posts you can see me proving you wrong. Making mistakes? Perhaps, but what country doesn't. Between THAT and terrorism there's a huge line, friend. Watch your words carefully, back them up with FACTS and not story telling. I understand your uncle is angry, my family up north is furious aswell. But when we speak from our STOMACH we get things escalated.

 

I tried to show you that things are not that simple. I tried to get an answer of what you think is the other solution. All you do, is throw wild claims we all agree with the core-of -- "war's bad! boo on war!" -- and use that to state Israel is doing harm.

 

No war has ever been nice.

 

Some wars were not from necessity. I claim this one IS. Now YOU prove me wrong. Show me another solution. Show me how my country could've AVOIDED going into Lebanon and trying to destroy those rocket launchers.

 

 

~moo

[budullewraagh]

Cap'n, I agree. I apologize for furthering irrelevant discussion.

 

Tetrahedrite, I'm glad that I'm not the only one who isn't convinced that Israel is in every way righteous. It's good to hear your support!

 

Bettina, do you actually think Israel had no malice in mind? Were they only acting out of righteousness to kill those who attacked their civilians?

 

Then why did they make the bold statement that everyone in southern Lebanon was a target?

 

Why did they ask for the rushed shipment of cluster bombs when they themselves said that Hezbollah militants use human shields? Or are they just lying about the whole "human shields" thing just to try to justify the deaths of innocents. Personally I'm going for the latter because support for Hezbollah would not be increasing amongst the Lebanese population if Hezbollah were using civilians as shields. For more concerning the Lebanese perception of Hezbollah, please see:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34254

 

And why do I have to keep asking these questions. Once again, I maintain that the IDF is guilty of terrorism. I extend an open challenge to those who would like to try to prove me wrong.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why did they ask for the rushed shipment of cluster bombs when they themselves said that Hezbollah militants use human shields? Or are they just lying about the whole "human shields" thing just to try to justify the deaths of innocents. Personally I'm going for the latter because support for Hezbollah would not be increasing amongst the Lebanese population if Hezbollah were using civilians as shields.

Perhaps they intend to use cluster bombs to blow up things other than a bunch of terrorists standing in a crowd - you know, thinks like buildings, rocket launchers, and the like.

[mooeypoo]

You know what I wish?

 

I wish the world had a smart smartest smarter bomb. One that goes only, and directly to where you point it. One that not only never misses, it never causes any damage to any of the surroundings. Only to it's specific target.

 

Damn.

 

Too bad our world isn't perfect.

 

If it sounded like I'm cynical, I am not. I really do wish that. And I really think that all the bad in such wars against militia, specifically one that involves citizens, comes from this.

 

It could've been the perfect solution.

 

~moo

[Bettina]

....I also strongly agree with budullewraagh's sentiments in that one group committing attrocities does not justify attrocities being committed in retalliation, under any circumstances. One step forward, two steps back, thats all it is.

 

Really, then what should Israel do when their schoolbuses and commuter busses full of CIVILIANS gets blown up by hezballah and hamas. Mind you....they target women and children first. So, you can join budullewraagh, who calls Israel a terrorist state, without telling us what should Israel do.

 

I'm not out to prove either of you wrong because you both have a case closed mindset. The real terrorists love both of you I think..... Sad.

 

Bee

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You know what I wish?

 

I wish the world had a smart smartest smarter bomb. One that goes only' date=' and directly to where you point it. One that not only never misses, it never causes any damage to any of the surroundings. Only to it's specific target.[/quote']

Or a mind-reading terrorist-seeking missile.

[Bettina]

You know what I wish?

 

I wish the world had a smart smartest smarter bomb. One that goes only' date=' and directly to where you point it. One that not only never misses, it never causes any damage to any of the surroundings. Only to it's specific target.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

One thing for sure. The terrorists would not use them. They want a "smart bus bomb" or a "smart market bomb" or a " smart mall or school bomb" but never a "bud bomb"...

 

Bee

[Pangloss]

I don't think Israel is righteous. I just don't think they should be losing any sleep over civilian casualties due to Hezbollah launching rockets from Granny Latifah's kitchen porch. That would have happened whether Israel had invaded or not, or whether Israel went "over the top" in responding or not. Any defensive reaction would have produced civilian casualties. Any.

 

You say they shouldn't have reacted; that they should have tried peace/diplomacy. How's that working out so far? UN "Peacekeeping" forces have been BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Southern Lebanon for 28 years!

[mooeypoo]

You say they shouldn't have reacted; that they should have tried peace/diplomacy. How's that working out so far? UN "Peacekeeping" forces have been BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Southern Lebanon for 28 years!

 

Moreover, these things were attempted before.

 

Israel TRIED (and still is trying, despite the fact it utterly FAILED each and every time) to have a talk. To have peace agreements, or settlements, or anything of this sort.

 

They failed. And yet we don't give up, we try still.. but we can't just sit idly by while our civilians are being bombarded and killed.

 

I just wish there was another way to stop this. I don't believe much in the U.N (Pangloss nailed most of the reason why), but I sencerely hope they will achieve peace in the region.

 

But peace means that no terrorist groups sitting inside a country's civilian house attempts to hurt Israeli civilians aswell.

 

Speaking of which, may I remind people that the great poor bombarded lebanon did NOTHING to stop Hizbullah. They didn't even send their own military.. they didn't even agree to TRY. They don't even agree to a force that is allowed to maintain Hizbullah's disarmament. I'd say this makes the situation a bit more complicated, since it transfer it from completely "Non-State-Militia" fights, into a "Country-supported" terrorist group.

 

 

~moo