Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Oh My God, you've discovered OIL in south Lebanon?!!!
Don't be ridiculous.
Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?
- Thread starter gc
- Start date
Oh My God, you've discovered OIL in south Lebanon?!!!
Don't be ridiculous.
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se
Hmmm, then the U.S. must be aiding terrorists because there is open documentation that shows the CIA backing them in the last 6 years.
But you already know you live in the Jewnited States of Hypocrisy
Toro said:
Hmmm, then the U.S. must be aiding terrorists because there is open documentation that shows the CIA backing them in the last 6 years.
But you already know you live in the Jewnited States of Hypocrisy
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se
Did you get that from The Protocols of Zion aeon?
Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Did you get that from The Protocols of Zion aeon?
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se
No, coined it myself :lol: Care to give us your opinion on the CIA backing Hezbollah?
Toro said:
No, coined it myself :lol: Care to give us your opinion on the CIA backing Hezbollah?
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se
Well, you're quite a witty fellow.
Don't have one.
Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Well, you're quite a witty fellow.
Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Don't have one.
Caleb-Dain Matton said:
Israel invaded Lebanon because they killed 7 IDF soldiers and captured 2 others. They did not invade Lebanon for oil. I am absoluely clueless where you got that idea.
Israel is only defending itself. What do you want Israel to do? Just ignore Hezbollah and let them blow their country to bits. Yeah, right. Israel is going to stand up for itself. Israel is not going to let a bunch of dirty shitbag terrorists destroy them. Their are going to stand up and defend themselves and destroy Hezbollah.
It's sad that 500 innocent Lebanese civilians had to die. But don't blame Israel. Blame Hezbollah. They started this.
JonB2004 said:
Don't worry about being clueless Jon.
Israel should embrace Hezbollah like the Americans did. Israel can add them to their payroll too! Those zany Americans! :wink:
JonB2004 said:
The Dutch government inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre reveled that while radical Islamists were attempting t6o blow up the World Trade Center, others from the CIA-formed networks were being flown by the US from Afghanistan to Bosnia, along with Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters and a substantial supply of arms.
The US has a bad habit of supporting bad guys, don't they?
#juan said:thomaska
I don't think you will find a much more dedicated chapter of the "I don't like Israel so much club" than the Hezbollah. I could see American logistics and Canadian, British, or French troops. I think we are a day late and a dollar short as they say. I can see Lebanon smashed to rat shit in another week, just like Iraq.( I cant believe Firefox's new spellchecker corrected my spelling of rat shit)
I could see Canadian troops actually. The Arabs think that we (US) and the British are way to close, so I don't think the British would work there either. As far as the French go..pfffttt...they don't want to be involved in anything that might get them in trouble. The French say they weren't surprised to find testosterone in Landis' blood...I'm surprised the French even knew what testosterone was...
I think it's both self-defense and revenge. Israel has never tolerated violations of its territory, there have always been thunderous reprisals in response to such things, so the current situation shouldn't really surprise anybody. This one seems a little different though. PM Harper's comment about a "measured" response is obvious nonsense; this isn't "measured" as that term is usually used in a context like this, this is way over the top. Israel's accustomed to thumping its annoying neighbours pretty quickly and thoroughly though, this one's going on a lot longer than usual.
However, Hezbollah violated Israeli territory and killed and captured some Israeli soldiers, and Israel isn't going to lie down for that. That much seems clear in all the murk around whatever the Hell all the facts really are. It's also pretty much common knowledge that Israel doesn't pay much attention to UN resolutions and advice from the international community when it feels threatened. Neither does anybody else (U.S. invasion of Iraq, for instance), so let's not tar Israel alone with that one. Hezbollah's goal is the destruction of Israel, and Hezbollah is operating out of southern Lebanon, hiding behind civilians and lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians. Never mind that they're inaccurate and not very effective, that's not the point.
What would you do in such circumstances? Standard military doctrine: interdict the infrastructure that allows Hezbollah to operate, and that's exactly what Israel's doing, destroying bridges, roads, airfields, power plants, launch sites... And because Hezbollah hides behind civilian cover, civilians are going to get killed. If those silly buggers would just accept the fact that Israel's there to stay, and stop attacking and threatening it and try to work things out some other way, this could be solved. Israel's enemies want too much; the complete destruction of the Israeli state. They're not going to get it, because they fundamentally don't get it: the 60-year Arab-Israeli war is over, and the Arabs lost. Time to deal with it and move on.
But really it's not just 60 years, it's nearer 5000 years, if there's any truth to the historical record in the Old Testament. Not likely to end any time soon. And the ultimate irony: Jews and Arabs are both Semites. They're killing members of their own tribe over trivial bits of territory and stupid religious differences. If I were Thor, I'd be firing lightning bolts at both of 'em and telling them to shut up and deal.
However, Hezbollah violated Israeli territory and killed and captured some Israeli soldiers, and Israel isn't going to lie down for that. That much seems clear in all the murk around whatever the Hell all the facts really are. It's also pretty much common knowledge that Israel doesn't pay much attention to UN resolutions and advice from the international community when it feels threatened. Neither does anybody else (U.S. invasion of Iraq, for instance), so let's not tar Israel alone with that one. Hezbollah's goal is the destruction of Israel, and Hezbollah is operating out of southern Lebanon, hiding behind civilians and lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians. Never mind that they're inaccurate and not very effective, that's not the point.
What would you do in such circumstances? Standard military doctrine: interdict the infrastructure that allows Hezbollah to operate, and that's exactly what Israel's doing, destroying bridges, roads, airfields, power plants, launch sites... And because Hezbollah hides behind civilian cover, civilians are going to get killed. If those silly buggers would just accept the fact that Israel's there to stay, and stop attacking and threatening it and try to work things out some other way, this could be solved. Israel's enemies want too much; the complete destruction of the Israeli state. They're not going to get it, because they fundamentally don't get it: the 60-year Arab-Israeli war is over, and the Arabs lost. Time to deal with it and move on.
But really it's not just 60 years, it's nearer 5000 years, if there's any truth to the historical record in the Old Testament. Not likely to end any time soon. And the ultimate irony: Jews and Arabs are both Semites. They're killing members of their own tribe over trivial bits of territory and stupid religious differences. If I were Thor, I'd be firing lightning bolts at both of 'em and telling them to shut up and deal.
RE: Israel's Response: Se
A few things:
Neither the United States nor the Swiss peacekeep. No, that's not accurate. It's not that they don't, they just never DO. The United States doesn't believe in it and the Swiss are isolationists.
I don't like doing this but I feel I have to as I cannot stand the dissemination of blatant disinformation. You don't know anything about the IDF. They are NOT the 4th largest military in the World. In fact they're not even in the top ten. The fourth largest military on the planet is India with 1,145,000 souls. In contrast the IDF numbers no more than 168,000 active troops with a total strength (full mobilization of reserves) of no more than 576,000. The bulk of the IDF is actually reserve troops that are NEVER called up short of being invaded. Care to offer a retort?
Military expenditure does not denote size and/or ranking. The IDF is NOT even in the top ten, as I pointed out above. Caleb-Dain Matton was bullshitting for argumentative posturing.
A few things:
Neither the United States nor the Swiss peacekeep. No, that's not accurate. It's not that they don't, they just never DO. The United States doesn't believe in it and the Swiss are isolationists.
I don't like doing this but I feel I have to as I cannot stand the dissemination of blatant disinformation. You don't know anything about the IDF. They are NOT the 4th largest military in the World. In fact they're not even in the top ten. The fourth largest military on the planet is India with 1,145,000 souls. In contrast the IDF numbers no more than 168,000 active troops with a total strength (full mobilization of reserves) of no more than 576,000. The bulk of the IDF is actually reserve troops that are NEVER called up short of being invaded. Care to offer a retort?
Military expenditure does not denote size and/or ranking. The IDF is NOT even in the top ten, as I pointed out above. Caleb-Dain Matton was bullshitting for argumentative posturing.
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Se
I couldn't find the statistics for size earlier, so I went with the next best thing I could find which was expenditure. I would have thought that the amount of money spent is somewhat proportional to the strength of the army, as more money would mean better equipment, wouldn't it? Here is the list of countries by the size of their armed forces from wikipedia:
Link
Israel is 26th on the list. Either way, they are not 4th as I pointed out earlier.
Note:
Mogz said:
I couldn't find the statistics for size earlier, so I went with the next best thing I could find which was expenditure. I would have thought that the amount of money spent is somewhat proportional to the strength of the army, as more money would mean better equipment, wouldn't it? Here is the list of countries by the size of their armed forces from wikipedia:
Link
Israel is 26th on the list. Either way, they are not 4th as I pointed out earlier.
Note:
I belive there are lots of facts that CNN or famous new agencies doesn't show. I will give you one example. Check this link below:
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/index2.php
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/index2.php
That says it very well. Thank You Steven harper for your pricipled stance against human dignity. Now go read your phucking bible Steve.
Israel's actions are neither self-defense or revenge --- it is blatant aggression.
As has been established on this forum before, it is Israel, not Hezbollah, who started the violence by repeatedly violating the border according to UN monitors:
August 01, 2006
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
When Saddam crossed the border into Kuwait, the world responded aggressively. Israel has repeatedly crossed the border into Lebanon and the world has remained silent. Therefore, its actions are aggression, not revenge or self-defense.
As has been established on this forum before, it is Israel, not Hezbollah, who started the violence by repeatedly violating the border according to UN monitors:
August 01, 2006
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.
These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.
• Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications.
When Saddam crossed the border into Kuwait, the world responded aggressively. Israel has repeatedly crossed the border into Lebanon and the world has remained silent. Therefore, its actions are aggression, not revenge or self-defense.
Gopher.......
The above article is simply nonsensical.........the author so anti-Israel it is ridiculous (despite his name)
You have to realize that this incursion into Lebanon is costing Israel BIG TIME. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. It damages the Israeli economy, as reservists have to be pulled from their work. And that doesn't even consider the cost in Israeli lives.
So, WHY does Israel do this?
There is nothing in south Lebanon Israel wants. NOTHING>
The ONLY explanation for this is self-defense.
The above article is simply nonsensical.........the author so anti-Israel it is ridiculous (despite his name)
You have to realize that this incursion into Lebanon is costing Israel BIG TIME. Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. It damages the Israeli economy, as reservists have to be pulled from their work. And that doesn't even consider the cost in Israeli lives.
So, WHY does Israel do this?
There is nothing in south Lebanon Israel wants. NOTHING>
The ONLY explanation for this is self-defense.
Re: RE: Israel's Response: Self-defense or Revenge?
Welcome to Jewnited States of Canada
para-dice said:
Welcome to Jewnited States of Canada