Barbarians wants to destroyed lebanon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
RE: Barbarians wants to d

No, I was pointing out how farcical these claims of no control are.

The bottom line is if attacks are occurring from your territory, you either roll your own military to stop it, or whoever is being attacked is likely going to do it for you.

If the FLQ had launched rockets at the USA, two things would have happened simultaneously. Every weapon we had would be converging on the source, while we were calling the USA to appraise them of what we were doing and assuring them we were going to kick butt mercilessly until it stopped and we would. If that wasn't enough we would probably coordinate with the USA to combine forces to root them out.

The actions of the Lebanese government was exaclty ZERO. They did nothing. Note I said actions. For words, they said please world stop the Evil Israelis from attacking us. But they did nothing.

The Israelis are perfectly justified.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to d

Freethinker said:
No, I was pointing out how farcical these claims of no control are.

The bottom line is if attacks are occurring from your territory, you either roll your own military to stop it, or whoever is being attacked is likely going to do it for you.

no no no. really. I get it. another civil war is probably just what the doctor ordered. lord knows how much peace and contentment it brought Israel last time around. bombing "them" back into the stone age is just the ticket to speed thing along. as an added attraction it could even drag the Syrian army back in and make the Golan Heights fair game. bonus for the xtian fundies. praise the lord.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
BitWhys said:
Mogz said:
They're actually deemed "unlawful combatants" ...

no shit.

k

tell Ashcroft

My sphere of influence are these forums. Ashcroft can be out to lunch all he wants. I was correcting you, who also deemd them "enemy combatants". You need to calm down.

no no no. really. I get it. another civil war is probably just what the doctor ordered. lord knows how much peace and contentment it brought Israel last time around. bombing "them" back into the stone age is just the ticket to speed thing along. as an added attraction it could even drag the Syrian army back in and make the Golan Heights fair game. bonus for the xtian fundies. praise the lord.

The Syrian Army can drag themselves in to it all they want. The bitter truth of the matter is that Israel is better trained and better equiped. An assault on the Golan by Syria would serve no purpose other than making it easier for hundreds of their soldiers to go visit allah. That all being said, i'm glad we just pulled out of the Golan.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
did I say anything about Syria attacking Israel?

does "Cedar Revolution" ring a bell?

with you probably not since not only did it undo a significant part of the civil war legacy but it was for the most part peaceful.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to destroyed lebanon

Mogz said:
My sphere of influence are these forums...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

in your dreams

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to destroyed lebanon

Mogz said:
..Ashcroft can be out to lunch all he wants. I was correcting you, who also deemd them "enemy combatants".

how about the entire DoD then?

William J. Haynes II said:
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict.

Mogz said:
You need to calm down.

speak for yourself. it would probably help if you stopped bullshitting.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
You have hit on an area that has bothered me for a number of years. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are quite different from the war's of the first half of this centrury. Back then, countries had the decency to declare war on one another, wear uniforms so they could be distinguished from civilians and kill each other with some honour (the absurdity of that statement is not lost on me). Today we fight terrorists or insurgents in these countries. They do not claim to be the armed forces of that particular nation, they wear civilian clothes and hide among civilians. There was some of this in WWI and WWII partisans, the underground resistance, and lots of it in Vietnam. However in today's wars one side is entirely made up of un-uniformed non-military combatants.

Since they are not the military arm of the government (in Afghanistan, Iraq and debatably in Lebanon) should they just be considered criminals? I would be willing to accept this if the countries had any sort of record of prosecuting them - but they don't. If they were declared criminals anyone supporting them would be an accessory to the crime (not sure if that legal concept exists in these counties) and should also be prosecuted.

So if these people are not soldiers, not being treated like criminals in their country, what are they? the term terrorist come to mind but isn't that a criminal?

I know if they win, the history books will call the freedom fighters, if they lose terrorists.

I'm finding this very confusing.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Colpy wrote:
From Wikipedia
According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran,



Evidently, someone has failed to do his homework because it is no secret that Hamas is an Arab-Sunni organization while Iran is a Aryan-Shiia nation. Hezbollah is Shiia and is supported by Iran.

Bush said he wanted democracy in the Middle East and was willing to send it troops to insure it. Well, democracy is what he got when Palestinians voted for Hamas in their government and Lebanon has always subscribed to Hezbollah's influence.

So why isn't Bush supporting Lebanon and Palestinians from the criminal invasions carried on by Zionist Israel? His failure to defend democracy further illustrates his double standards and again invalidates his excuses for invading Iraq.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
RE: Barbarians wants to d

So if these people are not soldiers, not being treated like criminals in their country, what are they? the term terrorist come to mind but isn't that a criminal?


Bush's occupational troops are considered criminals by Iraqis and by the majority of the world's population.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to destroyed lebanon

BitWhys said:
Mogz said:
..Ashcroft can be out to lunch all he wants. I was correcting you, who also deemd them "enemy combatants".

how about the entire DoD then?

William J. Haynes II said:
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict.

Mogz said:
You need to calm down.

speak for yourself. it would probably help if you stopped bullshitting.

*sigh* Lets analyze the words:

Enemy:

1. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
2. A member or unit of such a force.

Combatant:

One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife.

That sounds like a soldier on the opposing side bitwhys. Any person you are squaring off against is both an enemy and a combatant, therefore a soldier, militant, terrorist, school-child with a weapon, they're all enemy combatants. When refering to a person not affording the rights in full of the Geneva Convention the term used is either Unlawful Combatant, or Unlawful Enemy Combatant, not enemy combatant. Call it bullshitting, I call it rational thinking. Some pencil pushers in the U.S. Government may call them enemy combatants, but those of us fully briefed in the Articles of War and/or the taking of such individuals as prisoners know otherwise. But you know what, you're no different than aeon. You find something on the internet and take it for gospel. Your ignorance isn't my concern. I know i'm right, that's good enough for me. I hope google brings you may years of happiness.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
You can call it whatever you want but it won't change the term the Americans used. I DID say Americans, didn't I?

I'd have bothered with the proper term but that would just invite the same retort based on the subsequent contrary. I gotta admit that trees in the forest routine of your's is a heck of a schtick.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3271505,00.html

Look who's been kidnapped!

Hundreds of Palestinian 'suspects' have been kidnapped from their homes and will never stand trial

Arik Diamant

It's the wee hours of the morning, still dark outside. A guerilla force comes out of nowhere to kidnap a soldier. After hours of careful movement, the force reaches its target, and the ambush is on! In seconds, the soldier finds himself looking down the barrel of a rifle.


A smash in the face with the butt of the gun and the soldier falls to the ground, bleeding. The kidnappers pick him up, quickly tie his hands and blindfold him, and disappear into the night.

This might be the end of the kidnapping, but the nightmare has just begun. The soldier's mother collapses, his father prays. His commanding officers promise to do everything they can to get him back, his comrades swear revenge. An entire nation is up-in-arms, writing in pain and worry.

Nobody knows how the soldier is: Is he hurt? Do his captors give him even a minimum of human decency, or are they torturing him to death by trampling his honor? The worst sort of suffering is not knowing. Will he come home? And if so, when? And in what condition? Can anyone remain apathetic in the light of such drama?



Israeli terror

This description, you'll be surprised to know, has nothing to do with the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. It is the story of an arrest I carried out as an IDF soldier, in the Nablus casbah, about 10 years ago. The "soldier" was a 17-year-old boy, and we kidnapped him because he knew "someone" who had done "something."

We brought him tied up, with a burlap sac over his head, to a Shin Bet interrogation center known as "Scream Hill" (at the time we thought it was funny). There, the prisoner was beaten, violently shaken and sleep deprived for weeks or months. Who knows.

No one wrote about it in the paper. European diplomats were not called to help him. After all, there was nothing out of the ordinary about the kidnapping of this Palestinian kid. Over the 40 years of occupation we have kidnapped thousands of people, exactly like Gilad Shalit was captured: Threatened by a gun, beaten mercilessly, with no judge or jury, or witnesses, and without providing the family with any information about the captive.

When the Palestinians do this, we call it "terror." When we do it, we work overtime to whitewash the atrocity.

Suspects?

Some people will say: The IDF doesn't "just" kidnap. These people are "suspects." There is no more perverse lie than this. In all the years I served, I reached one simple conclusion: What makes a "suspect"? Who, exactly suspects him, and of what?

Who has the right to sentence a 17-year-old to kidnapping, torture and possible death? A 26-year-old Shin Bet interrogator? A 46-year-old one? Do these people have any higher education, apart from the ability to interrogate? What are his considerations? I all these "suspects" are so guilty, why not bring them to trial?

Anyone who believes that despite the lack of transparency, the IDF and Shin Bet to their best to minimize violations of human rights is naïve, if not brainwashed. One need only read the testimonies of soldiers who have carried out administrative detentions to be convinced of the depth of the immorality of our actions in the territories.

To this very day, there are hundreds of prisoners rotting in Shin Bet prisons and dungeons, people who have never been –and never will be – tried. And Israelis are silently resolved to this phenomenon.

Israeli responsibility

The day Gilad Shalit was kidnapped I rode in a taxi. The driver told me we must go into Gaza, start shooting people one-by-one, until someone breaks and returns the hostage. It isn't clear that such an operation would bring Gilad back alive.

Instead of getting dragged into terrorist responses, as Palestinian society has done, we should release some of the soldiers and civilians we have kidnapped. This is appropriate, right, and could bring about an air of reconciliation in the territories.

Hell, if this is what will bring Gilad home safe-and-sound, we have a responsibility to him to do it.



Arik Diamant is an IDF reservist and the head of the Courage to Refuse organization.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
gopher said:
Colpy wrote:
From Wikipedia
According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran,



Evidently, someone has failed to do his homework because it is no secret that Hamas is an Arab-Sunni organization while Iran is a Aryan-Shiia nation. Hezbollah is Shiia and is supported by Iran.

Bush said he wanted democracy in the Middle East and was willing to send it troops to insure it. Well, democracy is what he got when Palestinians voted for Hamas in their government and Lebanon has always subscribed to Hezbollah's influence.

So why isn't Bush supporting Lebanon and Palestinians from the criminal invasions carried on by Zionist Israel? His failure to defend democracy further illustrates his double standards and again invalidates his excuses for invading Iraq.

Don't be ridiculous.

Israel has no outstanding territorial dispute with Hezbollah, she withdrew all troops in 2000, back behind a border drawn by the international community. The border has been reasonably peaceful for years.

Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed eight and kidnapped two.

Death to Hezbollah.

The Israelis abandoned Gaza, forcing Jewish settlers out with them.

They no longer occupied Gaza. Gaza instantly became a launch site for 1000 missiles fired into Israel by Hamas and others.

Hamas then invaded Israel, killing soldiers and kidnapping one.

Death to Hamas.

I do not understand how people raised with every benefit of western civilization, rule of law, democracy, and liberty can turn their backs on a nation that is a part of that culture, in favour of a bunch of half-baked suicidal lunatics who hate liberty, and would happily murder every westerner they could get their hands on........it is the epitome of self-loathing stupidity.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
RE: Barbarians wants to d

Read the Diamant article (the writer is Israeli) and you will see that the truth is the exact opposite of your inane beliefs. Just as he said, Israel has thousands of innocents imprisoned just as in Abu Ghraib and nothing has been done about it. It is monumental stupidity to apply a double standard in these circumstances.
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to d

Mogz said:
I'd just like to chuck in my 18 cents on this issue. While aeon wants to live in his dream World, the rest of us fully realize that Lebanon blatantly attacked Israel. Ther is no quota on damage done, or soldiers kidnapped that define when something is an attack. One bullet fired by one Nation towards another is an act of agression. Crossing a border and abducting two soldiers IS an act of War. Palestine, Lebanon, any Nation that thinks it smart to poke Israel with a stick is the master of its own misfortune. As i've said all along, I feel no sympathy for Nations who incur the wrath of a bigger, stronger, and not to mention BETER Nation. If they'd just left Israel alone none of this would have happened. In the mean time I say bomb away Israel, you're entitled to it.

Setting aside for a moment the whole concept of 'proportianate response', look at a more basic question: just because Israel is 'justified' in their response, does that mean their response was a wise course of action? Did it contribute to the long-term security of Israel? Does it increase the chance of getting the soldiers back unharmed? The answer is clearly NO!

Did Israel have to respond to these kidnappings at all? What if they had announced publically that they would not negotiate, nor would they retaliate militarily in any way? That would earn them a lot of goodwill, and put pressure on Hezbollah to release the prisoners.

I don't know what the best course of action is, but I know what it ain't.
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
Colpy said:
Don't be ridiculous.

Israel has no outstanding territorial dispute with Hezbollah, she withdrew all troops in 2000, back behind a border drawn by the international community. The border has been reasonably peaceful for years.

Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed eight and kidnapped two.

Death to Hezbollah.

The Israelis abandoned Gaza, forcing Jewish settlers out with them.

They no longer occupied Gaza. Gaza instantly became a launch site for 1000 missiles fired into Israel by Hamas and others.

Hamas then invaded Israel, killing soldiers and kidnapping one.

Death to Hamas.

I do not understand how people raised with every benefit of western civilization, rule of law, democracy, and liberty can turn their backs on a nation that is a part of that culture, in favour of a bunch of half-baked suicidal lunatics who hate liberty, and would happily murder every westerner they could get their hands on........it is the epitome of self-loathing stupidity.

hezbollah invaded israel? I must have missed something in here, but how hezbollah were able to invade israel?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14042.htm

"The Insane Brutality of the State of Israel"

Atrocities in the Promised Land

By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON former CIA analyst

07/17/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- Words fail; ordinary terms are inadequate to describe the horrors Israel daily perpetrates, and has perpetrated for years, against the Palestinians. The tragedy of Gaza has been described a hundred times over, as have the tragedies of 1948, of Qibya, of Sabra and Shatila, of Jenin -- 60 years of atrocity perpetrated in the name of Judaism. But the horror generally falls on deaf ears in most of Israel, in the U.S. political arena, in the mainstream U.S. media. Those who are horrified -- and there are many -- cannot penetrate the shield of impassivity that protects the political and media elite in Israel, even more so in the U.S., and increasingly now in Canada and Europe, from seeing, from caring.

But it needs to be said now, loudly: those who devise and carry out Israeli policies have made Israel into a monster, and it has come time for all of us -- all Israelis, all Jews who allow Israel to speak for them, all Americans who do nothing to end U.S. support for Israel and its murderous policies -- to recognize that we stain ourselves morally by continuing to sit by while Israel carries out its atrocities against the Palestinians.

A nation that mandates the primacy of one ethnicity or religion over all others will eventually become psychologically dysfunctional. Narcissistically obsessed with its own image, it must strive to maintain its racial superiority at all costs and will inevitably come to view any resistance to this imagined superiority as an existential threat. Indeed, any other people automatically becomes an existential threat simply by virtue of its own existence. As it seeks to protect itself against phantom threats, the racist state becomes increasingly paranoid, its society closed and insular, intellectually limited. Setbacks enrage it; humiliations madden it. The state lashes out in a crazed effort, lacking any sense of proportion, to reassure itself of its strength.

The pattern played out in Nazi Germany as it sought to maintain a mythical Aryan superiority. It is playing out now in Israel. “This society no longer recognizes any boundaries, geographical or moral,” wrote Israeli intellectual and anti-Zionist activist Michel Warschawski in his 2004 book Towards an Open Tomb: The Crisis of Israeli Society. Israel knows no limits and is lashing out as it finds that its attempt to beat the Palestinians into submission and swallow Palestine whole is being thwarted by a resilient, dignified Palestinian people who refuse to submit quietly and give up resisting Israel’s arrogance.

We in the United States have become inured to tragedy inflicted by Israel, and we easily fall for the spin that automatically, by some trick of the imagination, converts

Israeli atrocities to examples of how Israel is victimized. But a military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a residential apartment building in the middle of the night and kills 14 sleeping civilians, as happened in Gaza four years ago, is not a military that operates by civilized rules.

A military establishment that drops a 500-pound bomb on a house in the middle of the night and kills a man and his wife and seven of their children, as happened in Gaza four days ago, is not the military of a moral country.

A society that can brush off as unimportant an army officer’s brutal murder of a 13-year-old girl on the claim that she threatened soldiers at a military post -- one of nearly 700 Palestinian children murdered by Israelis since the intifada began -- is not a society with a conscience.

A government that imprisons a 15-year-old girl -- one of several hundred children in Israeli detention -- for the crime of pushing and running away from a male soldier trying to do a body search as she entered a mosque is not a government with any moral bearings. (This story, not the kind that ever appears in the U.S. media, was reported in the London Sunday Times. The girl was shot three times as she ran away and was convicted to 18 months in prison after she came out of a coma.)

Critics of Israel note increasingly that Israel is self-destructing, nearing a catastrophe of its own making. Israeli journalist Gideon Levy talks of a society in “moral collapse.”

Michel Warschawski writes of an “Israeli madness” and “insane brutality,” a “putrefaction” of civilized society, that have set Israel on a suicidal course. He foresees the end of the Zionist enterprise; Israel is a “gang of hoodlums,” he says, a state “that makes a mockery of legality and of civil morality. A state run in contempt of justice loses the strength to survive.”

As Warschawski notes bitterly, Israel no longer knows any moral boundaries -- if it ever did. Those who continue to support Israel, who make excuses for it as it descends into corruption, have lost their moral compass.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: Barbarians wants to d

MMMike said:
Mogz said:
I'd just like to chuck in my 18 cents on this issue. While aeon wants to live in his dream World, the rest of us fully realize that Lebanon blatantly attacked Israel. Ther is no quota on damage done, or soldiers kidnapped that define when something is an attack. One bullet fired by one Nation towards another is an act of agression. Crossing a border and abducting two soldiers IS an act of War. Palestine, Lebanon, any Nation that thinks it smart to poke Israel with a stick is the master of its own misfortune. As i've said all along, I feel no sympathy for Nations who incur the wrath of a bigger, stronger, and not to mention BETER Nation. If they'd just left Israel alone none of this would have happened. In the mean time I say bomb away Israel, you're entitled to it.

Setting aside for a moment the whole concept of 'proportianate response', look at a more basic question: just because Israel is 'justified' in their response, does that mean their response was a wise course of action? Did it contribute to the long-term security of Israel? Does it increase the chance of getting the soldiers back unharmed? The answer is clearly NO!

Did Israel have to respond to these kidnappings at all? What if they had announced publically that they would not negotiate, nor would they retaliate militarily in any way? That would earn them a lot of goodwill, and put pressure on Hezbollah to release the prisoners.

I don't know what the best course of action is, but I know what it ain't.

Perhaps next time Israel can send hezbollah a nasty letter?
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Logic 7 said:
Colpy said:
Don't be ridiculous.

Israel has no outstanding territorial dispute with Hezbollah, she withdrew all troops in 2000, back behind a border drawn by the international community. The border has been reasonably peaceful for years.

Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed eight and kidnapped two.

Death to Hezbollah.

The Israelis abandoned Gaza, forcing Jewish settlers out with them.

They no longer occupied Gaza. Gaza instantly became a launch site for 1000 missiles fired into Israel by Hamas and others.

Hamas then invaded Israel, killing soldiers and kidnapping one.

Death to Hamas.

I do not understand how people raised with every benefit of western civilization, rule of law, democracy, and liberty can turn their backs on a nation that is a part of that culture, in favour of a bunch of half-baked suicidal lunatics who hate liberty, and would happily murder every westerner they could get their hands on........it is the epitome of self-loathing stupidity.

hezbollah invaded israel? I must have missed something in here, but how hezbollah were able to invade israel?

Hezbollah crossed the Blue Line into Israel proper, killed Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others. This is a hostile ivasion. Lots of books out there to read. Please do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.