Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Shove off, France. L

go to Algeria and say that. Complete tosh, how has the UK not changed?, any idea what the UK has done since the days of the Empire?, like forming the Commonwealth of nations?, or creating it's own country-wide national health system for all (before Canada), it certainly didnt wallow in self pity like France STILL does, I would check your facts before you go on about the UK, the UK has changed dramatically ACTUALLY, much more so than France.

France would be in exactly the same position as the UK given the chance, now all they do is spout their socialist values and whine about how French is a Dying language....if that's the country you look up to, and your speaking english, then you sir are a traitor and a fool.

And actually France is probably the country that has changed the LEAST since it's colonial days, I have many Algerian friends who would beg to differ with you there.

 

[Graeme]

My question is why should the buffer zone be on the Lebanon side of the border. If Israel want a buffer zone, put it on their side of the border.

Or at least half and half. The land covered by the zone won't be worth much for any normal activity.

it will be worth more than it is now, as it will be less likely to be bombed if there is a U.N. Occupation.



I can't believe you guys can't figure this out for yourself, BUT the buffer zone is 100% in Lebanon because if it was say 50% than it would still be easy for hezbollah to send rockets from lebanon outside of the bufferzone, in to a "buffer zoned" israel and still hit israel's cities and towns.

 

[Mogz]

Use your logic, 2 soldiers were kidnapped, result? israel decided to invade , comits war crimes,supported by USA,CANADA, UK, claiming, israel has the ritght to defend themselves, WHEN FRANCE HAS OPPOSED THE ATTACK,so usa, canada, uk and israel should provides troops, simple deduction, so next time, they will think about what they support.

Ok first off logic, there were no war crimes. Yes innocents were killed, but that's warfare. Secondly, the US, Canada, and Britain do not condon the death of innocents, we do however feel that Israel has a right to defend itself, which it does. As for providing troops, sure, Canada the US and Britain could provide troops, but the real sticking point for me logic is that you claim that ISRAEL SHOULD PROVIDE TROOPS TO POLICE A BUFFER ZONE AS A RESULT OF A WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH. Why the hell would you have one of the two waring parties enforcing a buffer zone? That would be like having Greek Soldiers on the Buffer Zone in Cyprus, or Timorese soldiers on the Buffer Zone in East Timor. It makes no sense.

My question is why should the buffer zone be on the Lebanon side of the border. If Israel want a buffer zone, put it on their side of the border.

You're exactly right, it should be on BOTH sides of the border, as has been done in the past between the Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus.

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

Use your logic, 2 soldiers were kidnapped, result? israel decided to invade , comits war crimes,supported by USA,CANADA, UK, claiming, israel has the ritght to defend themselves, WHEN FRANCE HAS OPPOSED THE ATTACK,so usa, canada, uk and israel should provides troops, simple deduction, so next time, they will think about what they support.

Ok first off logic, there were no war crimes. Yes innocents were killed, but that's warfare. Secondly, the US, Canada, and Britain do not condon the death of innocents, we do however feel that Israel has a right to defend itself, which it does. As for providing troops, sure, Canada the US and Britain could provide troops, but the real sticking point for me logic is that you claim that ISRAEL SHOULD PROVIDE TROOPS TO POLICE A BUFFER ZONE AS A RESULT OF A WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH. Why the hell would you have one of the two waring parties enforcing a buffer zone? That would be like having Greek Soldiers on the Buffer Zone in Cyprus, or Timorese soldiers on the Buffer Zone in East Timor. It makes no sense.

.

Yes there was war crimes.

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

The human rights group says attacks on homes, bridges, roads and water and fuel plants were an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in the recent war.

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

Israel said it did not deliberately target Lebanon's civilian population.

In a report released on Wednesday, Amnesty International bases its accusations on an examination of Israeli attacks and comments made by Israeli officials during the 34-day conflict with the militant group Hezbollah.

'Massive destruction'

"The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible," said Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm

who you think you are to think otherwise? you only fool yourself by saying this, keep it up, i love that.

 

[Mogz]

No there weren't war crimes logic.

First off, Amnest International is a lobbyist group, their opinion amounts to nothing. The International War Crimes Tribunal (at The Hague) is the international body that deems when and if war crimes take place. Not Amnesty International. If you knew anything about war crimes and/or the Rules of Armed Conflict, you'd know that attacking roads and bridges are most certainly NOT against the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949 (the very basis for deeming war crimes. Furthermore this gets me:

Amnesty International bases its accusations on an examination of Israeli attacks

Amnesty International is a lobbyist group that knows NOTHING about military operations, especially those in an urban environment. How are they in a position to judge the attacks? They deem Israels claim of collateral damage as "simply not credible". To that (and you logic) I pose this question; "what makes them the experts on collateral damage? Are they aware of the scope of collateral damage caused in past conflicts such as; World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and The Former Yugoslavia? Are they aware that much of Europe was flattened during the Allies in later 1944 whilst combating the Germans? If we're going to scream "war crimes" every time a civilian is killed or a bridge destroyed, we may perhaps want to look back at every conflict of the 20th Century, and then be forced to label each and every one of them a war crime. In reality logic, warfare, especially in an urban environment, leads to VAST amounts of collateral damage. The sad truth is that Amnesty Internationl, you, and the vast majority of society like to use the catch words of the 21st Century; war crimes, without fully understand what makes a war crime so. Destroying a bridge, blowing up a military target in a residential neighbourhood, those are not war crimes logic, they're a circumstance of warfare.

 

[Mogz]

P.S. You never did address my point on Israel providing a peacekeeping force? Did you perhaps have no retort?

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

No there weren't war crimes logic.

First off, Amnest International is a lobbyist group, their opinion amounts to nothing. The International War Crimes Tribunal (at The Hague) is the international body that deems when and if war crimes take place. Not Amnesty International. If you knew anything about war crimes and/or the Rules of Armed Conflict, you'd know that attacking roads and bridges are most certainly NOT against the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949 (the very basis for deeming war crimes. Furthermore this gets me:

Amnesty International bases its accusations on an examination of Israeli attacks

Amnesty International is a lobbyist group that knows NOTHING about military operations, especially those in an urban environment. How are they in a position to judge the attacks? They deem Israels claim of collateral damage as "simply not credible". To that (and you logic) I pose this question; "what makes them the experts on collateral damage? Are they aware of the scope of collateral damage caused in past conflicts such as; World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and The Former Yugoslavia? Are they aware that much of Europe was flattened during the Allies in later 1944 whilst combating the Germans? If we're going to scream "war crimes" every time a civilian is killed or a bridge destroyed, we may perhaps want to look back at every conflict of the 20th Century, and then be forced to label each and every one of them a war crime. In reality logic, warfare, especially in an urban environment, leads to VAST amounts of collateral damage. The sad truth is that Amnesty Internationl, you, and the vast majority of society like to use the catch words of the 21st Century; war crimes, without fully understand what makes a war crime so. Destroying a bridge, blowing up a military target in a residential neighbourhood, those are not war crimes logic, they're a circumstance of warfare.

International de la hague, can't do nothing against israel, since israel, along with china and usa, doesnt recognize the international court de la hague.

Destroying bridge, or blowing up military target,isnt a war crime, nice cheer picking my biased friend, however destroying water infrastructures, targeting supermarkets, water pumping stations and water treatment plants, is a war crime,

According to Israeli officials, targetting electrical plant, is a military target,when An indiscriminate or disproportionate attack is also in fact a war crime.


Lobyist group?? You only make yourself look like a fool


""Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization with the stated purpose of campaigning for internationally recognized human rights. "AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards."[1] In particular, Amnesty International campaigns to free all prisoners of conscience; to ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other treatment of prisoners held by international law to be cruel or inhumane; to end political killings and forced disappearances; and to oppose all human rights abuses, whether committed by governments or by other groups. In addition, it has recently expanded its campaigns to include "economic, social and cultural rights". [2]

Amnesty International has a long history of pursuing neutrality within the context of its campaigning for the protection of human rights. The organization officially describes itself as "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights."[3]

Amnesty International is among the most widely respected human rights organizations in the world. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for its campaign against torture. [3]
Contents""




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International

 

[Mogz]

RE: Shove off, France. L

Oh logic, you really aren't good at debating are you?

International de la hague, can't do nothing against israel, since israel, along with china and usa, doesnt recognize the international court de la hague.

Destroying bridge, or blowing up military target,isnt a war crime, nice cheer picking my biased friend, however destroying water infrastructures, targeting supermarkets, water pumping stations and water treatment plants, is a war crime,

Yes they're a war crime, only if such targets are destroyed intentionally. The simple fact that a water treatment plant is destroyed in urban conflict does not mean it's a war crime. The attacker has to willfully destroy the target with the intent of robbing its services from the populace. Now I suppose you can prove that the Israeli military purposely set out to destroy such objects right? Without quoting Amnesty International? I thought not.

According to Israeli officials, targetting electrical plant, is a military target,when An indiscriminate or disproportionate attack is also in fact a war crime.

Actually it really isn't a war crime logic. I had this argument with aeon a while back. The simple fact is that a power plant is not nesseccary to the survival of the general populace. The only way a power plany comes under protection of the geneva convention is if it's a NUCLEAR power plant, and an attack on it can cause massive civil damage. Here's a quote from the Geneva Convetion regarding power:

Dams, dikes, nuclear power plants and other dangerous installations or nearby targets must not be attacked, even if they are military objectives, if an attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and cause severe losses among the civilian population. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 1)

If a dangerous installation is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of the military effort then it loses its special protections. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 2) However, if it is attacked, the surrounding civilian population is still entitled to precautionary measures. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 3)

to be — marked with three bright orange circles. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 7)

Funny, that's the only mention of power at all in the ENTIRE Geneva Convetion. Care to back up your claim that taking our a power plant (conventional plant) is a war crime?

Lobyist group?? You only make yourself look like a fool

What is lobbying logic? I'll tell you; trying to influence the actions of politicians and/or the general populace.

With that in mind you then post this about Amnesty International:

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization with the stated purpose of campaigning for internationally recognized human rights.

In other words. They lobby for human rights. Their goal is to pressure the World to see it their way. Even if their way is generally out to lunch and completely biased. So logic, thanks for providing me some of the ammo to shoot you do. We'll have to do this again some time. I am interested to see what you have to say about the Geneva Convetion. This should be classic.

P.S. Your new name is aeon2

 

[Hotshot]

Since France uped their commitment from 200 to 2000, the idiot blackleaf is noticably absent from this thread. I guess he just farts hot air.

 

[thomaska]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. Leave it to the British.

Britain sends zero troops
The US sends zero troops

Cowards
Hypocrites
Liars

And you'd be the first to bitch and moan if the U.S. sent troops.

 

[Logic 7]

Re: RE: Shove off, France. L

Oh logic, you really aren't good at debating are you?

International de la hague, can't do nothing against israel, since israel, along with china and usa, doesnt recognize the international court de la hague.

Destroying bridge, or blowing up military target,isnt a war crime, nice cheer picking my biased friend, however destroying water infrastructures, targeting supermarkets, water pumping stations and water treatment plants, is a war crime,

Yes they're a war crime, only if such targets are destroyed intentionally. The simple fact that a water treatment plant is destroyed in urban conflict does not mean it's a war crime. The attacker has to willfully destroy the target with the intent of robbing its services from the populace. Now I suppose you can prove that the Israeli military purposely set out to destroy such objects right? Without quoting Amnesty International? I thought not.

According to Israeli officials, targetting electrical plant, is a military target,when An indiscriminate or disproportionate attack is also in fact a war crime.

Actually it really isn't a war crime logic. I had this argument with aeon a while back. The simple fact is that a power plant is not nesseccary to the survival of the general populace. The only way a power plany comes under protection of the geneva convention is if it's a NUCLEAR power plant, and an attack on it can cause massive civil damage. Here's a quote from the Geneva Convetion regarding power:

Dams, dikes, nuclear power plants and other dangerous installations or nearby targets must not be attacked, even if they are military objectives, if an attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and cause severe losses among the civilian population. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 1)

If a dangerous installation is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of the military effort then it loses its special protections. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 2) However, if it is attacked, the surrounding civilian population is still entitled to precautionary measures. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 3)

to be — marked with three bright orange circles. (Protocol I, Art. 56, Sec. 7)

Funny, that's the only mention of power at all in the ENTIRE Geneva Convetion. Care to back up your claim that taking our a power plant (conventional plant) is a war crime?

Lobyist group?? You only make yourself look like a fool

What is lobbying logic? I'll tell you; trying to influence the actions of politicians and/or the general populace.

With that in mind you then post this about Amnesty International:

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization with the stated purpose of campaigning for internationally recognized human rights.

In other words. They lobby for human rights. Their goal is to pressure the World to see it their way. Even if their way is generally out to lunch and completely biased. So logic, thanks for providing me some of the ammo to shoot you do. We'll have to do this again some time. I am interested to see what you have to say about the Geneva Convetion. This should be classic.

P.S. Your new name is aeon2

Listen, they did war crimes , amnesty international is their job to be watchdog,supported by many politiciens around the world who went to lebanon, when your job is to kill peoples, i am done with you, i don't debate with people like you anymore, you make me puke, to defend a nation like israel like you do, you are a total waste of time.