News: Israel v. Lebanon conflict

Most countries use weapons made elsewhere, especially small countries. All in all only the well industrialized, stable countries have decent weapons manufacturing, and even so the smaller the country, the more specialized it tends to be. So, that's not really a valid argument when comparing any conflict to Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr3atfull

One of the people who died was a canadian.

---

And one was a Finn. Poor fellows. Good thing UN withdrew the rest of the observers, as Israel obviously wasn't capable of guaranteeing their safety, despite their statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukimura

I personally wonder what the plan is from Israel's perspective though. The only solution that stops what I think Israel seeks to stop is the physical elimination of the large number of people who believe Israel shouldn't exist. If there were less anti-Israeli people then they're wouldn't be so many terrorist attacks against Israel. Obviously not too many people would consider the mass murder this solution would require, but if you think about it, Israel wants to be safe, and doesn't have the power to 'conquer' the Arab world and subjugate it. What other way is there to diminish the anti-Israel sentiment to a level where Israelis wouldn't have to deal with this stuff on so broad a scale.

---

This is impossible. Because with every bom dropped the israel/jew hate grows. so in the end i think they will have more anti-israeli people then they had in the begin.

And i don't think iran is that much involved i think it's just a plan of the US to have a reason to attack iran. They just can't afford to aid the libanese while they are threatened with a war ageanst the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukimura

I personally wonder what the plan is from Israel's perspective though. The only solution that stops what I think Israel seeks to stop is the physical elimination of the large number of people who believe Israel shouldn't exist. If there were less anti-Israeli people then they're wouldn't be so many terrorist attacks against Israel. Obviously not too many people would consider the mass murder this solution would require, but if you think about it, Israel wants to be safe, and doesn't have the power to 'conquer' the Arab world and subjugate it. What other way is there to diminish the anti-Israel sentiment to a level where Israelis wouldn't have to deal with this stuff on so broad a scale.

---

So to prevent another holocaust from happening, they must kill everyone that hates them or, in essence, commit the same kind of atrocities on others that they do not wish upon themselves. Wow, what a super selfish way of looking at things. Let us destroy the whole world because they might want to harm us! If a nation with such immense power has beliefs like that, then thats just sad, really sad. Thats far worse than the terrorist philosophy itself. Lets just hope that is not what Israel wants.

This events are deeply saddening. Lebanon was one of those few nations were muslims, christians and people from other religions were actually living in complete harmony with one another without the feeling of resentment or hate. I personally don't understand why Israel decided to pounce on lebanon so suddenly based on one little incident involving two soldiers. I personally believe that this operation itself is something that was pre planned and israel was merely waiting for an something like the soldier abduction to take place so it could launch a full scale invasion. By the way, anyone have any confirmed reports on the circumstances in which the Israeli soldiers were captured? Were they actually 'abducted' from Israeli territory or were they caught in Lebanon. Or are the details of such incidents rather blurry with no clearcut agreement between people on what happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukimura

Anyway, I woulnd't tempt 'him', as that utter destruction of the islamic populace could theoretically be done. Ever heard of a neutron bomb? Anyway hundreds of dead civillians....no one (in America and with any authority) seems to care, and the world doesn't seem too wuick to do something about it either.

---

What I meant is that Israel cant just drop a bomb and kill every one. There was the killing of the jews in WW2, and now they cant be the one killing all the arabs in the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukimura

Also, not everyone in the Middle East supports Hezbollah, I've seen many reports of Egypt and Saudi Arabia denouncing Hezbollah's actions. The Arab world is anything but United (which is one of the goals of Hezbollah, as well as Iran IIRC, a unified, possibly global, theocratic Islamic state)

---

Saudi Arabia and Egypt might not support them now, but when their government see that their people are supporting Lebanon, they will change their mind. Its all about politics. If they want to be reelected, they have to follow their peoples point of view. Saudi Arabia might not help Lebanon because they are friends with the Bush administration.

It is true not every middle easterner are supporting Hezbollah. Last night, I was watching an interview with Lebanons prime minister and a canadian journalist. He pointed out that from a serious lebanese newspaper, ~86% of the Lebanese supported Hezbollah. The support grew from before the conflict. My point is, it is true not every one support Hezbollah, but a big majority (75%+) of arabs are supporting them which is enough for them.

Here is a part of the interview.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...interview.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr3atfull

Saudi Arabia and Egypt might not support them now, but when their government see that their people are supporting Lebanon, they will change their mind. Its all about politics. If they want to be reelected, they have to follow their peoples point of view. Saudi Arabia might not help Lebanon because they are friends with the Bush administration.

---

The rulers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are dictators who are not elected but derive their support from America, and oppress their people with America's blessing. They don't have to bother with unimportant matters such as listening to the people and getting re-elected. It's much easier and quicker just to lock them up and torture them instead. They all serve America's designs on the middle east... there is a reason after all why Egypt is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel, why that fat monstrosity of a man that is the King of Saudi Arabia gets to waddle down to Bush's ranch in Texas and why Jordan is a real buddy of the US, ever so willing to play the 'honest broker' with the US.

The government of Syria is a dictatorship not supported by America, but it oppresses its people anyway, just as brutally as the above trio, maybe even worse. Funny thing is they are so brutal to their own people yet so cowardly to the rest of the world.

Ironically despite having a theocratic flavour Iran is the only country involved/with a stake in this conflict that has an elections of some sort to elect their President. That's not to say that they are angels, they have blood on their hands from this conflict too... and I'm talking about Lebanese blood.

The population of the Muslim countries is seething, as gr3atfull has correctly identified. It is this that the Prime Minister of Lebanon and Prince Hassan (the uncle of King Abdullah of Jordan) cited as being the most dangerous development of this entire conflict. They both said in much the same words that if this conflict does not stop the forces of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism (read here people who don't want to be ruled by dictators and happen to be Muslim) will gather and gain strength, eventually toppling the governments that currently rule the Muslim world. The Syrians have also been making similar noises.

This is my analysis on the situation so far:

Syria and Iran have picked this fight with Israel, with Hizbullah acting as their proxy. The reason is that they both want international recognition of their regimes and to demonstrate their strength to highlight what they could do in any future conflict. Syria's reason is that it feels it is next on America's radar so it feels insecure, Iran knows that if Syria goes down it will be next. An added reason for Iran is for it strengthen its hand in any negotiations over its nuclear program in the future. The intention of this conflict was to use the Israeli soldiers to free some Lebanese prisoners (of which there are many in Israeli jails which no one seems to care about) and hence flex some muscle. Hizbullah was up for this and went ahead with the operation. The Israeli response was not anticipated to be this brutal, with the Syrians and Iranians hoping international pressure and perhaps even respect for human life and property on the part of the Israel will prevent it from wreaking such bloody havoc as it has done on Lebanon.

Israel for its part seems to have figured this out, and did what was strategically viable for it do, namely pound Lebanon, kill innocent Lebanese and conduct an excercise in collective punishment. Israel knows it cannot defeat Hizbullah proper, so it has decided to punish the people, in this case mostly Shia Muslims from whom Hizbullah derives its support from. The objective was to hit Hizbullah's support base, as this is easier to target and would lead to potentially permanent damage to Hizbullah, with regards to its future and support. The non-Muslims that are being targeted by Israel is in line with the strategy to increase pressure on the Muslims who support Hizbullah.

Infrastructure is being destroyed not only to restrict movement, but also as part of Israel's revenge on the Lebanese people for allowing Hizbullah to exist. Power stations and airports are not Hizbullah property, they are targeted to cause suffering to the people which in turn it is hoped will anger against Hizbullah.

This from the Israeli military stand point seems to make sense. Morally however, it is a travesty and highlights Israel's disregard for the life of others. It has called the bluff of Syria and Iran, and Syria and Iran have been found to be wanting. They are unwilling to escalate the situation because at the end of the day they fear for their own survival. Getting rid of Israel is less important than ensuring that their respect regime's continues to live on. From a military stand point, Israel cannot take out Hizbullah. Hizbullah cannot take out Israel. This is why you are having negotiations now, with Israel dropping the demand for Hizbullah to be disarmed. Israel has even struggled to take a few villages from Hizbullah. In the short term Israel seems to have for now held off the plans against it. Iran, Syria and Hizbullah didn't expect the World Community to be so paralysed in the face of such destruction by Israel, which was their miscalculation. Israel on the other hand did not expect Hizbullah to be as well prepared as they have proven themselves to be. In the long term, Israel has only succeeded in increasing the number of people in the world who don't like it.

But for now, who is the loser in all of this?

Lebanon and its people. They are the ones who have had their country destroyed and the people massacred. The countries directly responsible for this are Israel, the US, the UK, Syria and Iran.

Of course the Saudis and Egyptians don't like Hezbollah. Hez is a Shiite (shia) group, and Saudia Arabia is over 97% hardcore Sunni, the largest Muslim faction on the planet. People tend to forget that Islam is a deeply divided religion.

And obviously the US and any capitalist country will coaxe up to their little Arab pet...rolium providers...

Then again, the Israeli and US military have ties from way back. I know plenty of people who are convinced that the Jewish lobbyists have too much of a say in US foreign policy. I don't happen to agree with those people, but I do think that the US backing of Israel makes them think they can get away with alot more bad shit than they actually can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr3atfull

My point is, it is true not every one support Hezbollah, but a big majority (75%+) of arabs are supporting them which is enough for them.

---

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, as masa said Islam is a divided religion. It is primarily composed of two sects, with 85%-90% of muslims following the Sunni teachings and 10%-15% the Shi'a, with several smaller sects mixed in. There extremists on all sides and to put it mildly...they don't usually care for one another. The sectarian violence you may have heard about in Iraq is usually Suunis and Shiites trying to kill one another.

For some reference, Saudi Arabia is 98% Sunni, Iran is 91% Shi'a, Iraq is 65% Shi'a 20% Kurd and 15% Sunni, (Sadaam Hussein's party was primarily Sunni, and oppressed the Shi'a and Kurds quite a bit [no one seems to like the Kurds anywhere :confused: ]), Syria is 85% Sunni 5% other muslims and 10% Christian, Lebannon hasn't had a census for 70 years but it's believed to be only about 60% muslim with a Shi'a majority by numbers but until recently a Sunni dominated governement.

Hezbollah is......drumroll....a Shi'a organization. On of their goals is the creation of an Islamic government similar to the Iranian one. Much of Hezbollah's support within Lebannon came primarily from the peasants and farmers in the countryside, instead of the more 'civillized' people of the urban areas.

::Context Switch::

Some people think that Israel's actions will magically mend all the cracks in the Islamic world and they'll unite into some monstrously powerful juggernaut to destroy the world, however the break goes back about 1300 years and they still fight, so it's probably not going anywhere. The Catholic-Protestant break is only 500 years old and there is still plenty of simmering animosity between them.

Ok the issue of Islam being divided has been raised a couple of times now and I think I should clear up what exactly the divide is over, since people seem to be mistaking it as differences that are so huge that the different groups in Islam are all out to kill each other.

The major divide in Islam is the Sunni/Shia divide. The origins of this divide lie pretty early on Islam. Without going into excessive detail, the stumbling block was who should be Caliph during the early era of the Caliphate. Hence the divide between the Sunni and the Shia is political in origin, not theological as many people mistake it to be. Ofcourse in the Sunni and the Shia different schools of thought exist on theological issues, but Islam allows for this difference. An example of what this means is as follows. During the time of the 4th Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib, there was a dispute as to which affairs of the State should be given priority (The Shia are 'the party of Ali'). The Caliph was locked in a dispute with the Governer of Syria, Muwawiyah. Muwawiyah was said to have become even more powerful than Ali, as he was at the frontiers of the Caliphate with the Roman Empire and had developed a powerful military there. The Romans, seeing this potential split as a chance to break apart the Caliphate, offered Muwawiyah support in overthrowing Ali as Caliph. Muwawiyah responded by telling the Romans that was once his dispute with Ali was solved he would come after them to destroy them.

Just like then, today the Sunni Shia split is manipulated by foreign powers. Today the added difference is that there are corrupt religious ministers who also use this to their own ends, and if you throw in people who don't know their history with regards to the split you have quite a confusing situtation.

Today there are many sects in Islam, on both the Sunni and the Shia. Some of them have acceptable differences in the framework Islam provides, others do not. The main difference in the Sunni and the Shia today is again guess what... political. The Sunni believe that a Caliphate must be recreated and ruled by Islam and by electing a Caliph, whilst the Shia believe that no ordinary man can rule the Caliphate and must one of the 'Chosen Imams'. Since there is now chosen Imam in the world today, but one expected near the end of time, the Shia's believe in not getting involved in political activity. The Sunni believe any man is capable of running the Caliphate, and hence activley call for its restablishment. That is why the Shia's have Ayatollahs, who are spiritual leaders but no such figure exists for the Sunni's, who await a Caliph to give their allegience to.

So there was a mention of Saddam's party being mostly Sunni. Yes, they were Sunni but they did not implement Islam. They were Baa'thist nationalists, hence the Sunni 'tag' was only an identifier and nothing more than that. As for the Kurds, that is an ethnic label, they are actually sunni's. The reason why the Kurds are not liked by many countires is because they want to form their own country along nationalist lines, Kurdistan. Kurds today exist in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. If they formed their own country they would take a chunk of territory from each of these countries. They continue fighting for their country since they were promised one by the British, who helped carve up the last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire.

Getting back to the latest conflict, for Muslims, regardless of if they are Sunni or Shia, the killing of the (Shia) Muslims is like the killing of just that, a Muslim. The differences are manipulated and exploited due to politics, not Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DB_Hunter

The rulers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are dictators who are not elected but derive their support from America, and oppress their people with America's blessing.

---

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

About the divison of Islam, sure its divided in the Middle East, but they are still muslims. In the Al-Qaeda video, it said all Sunni and Shi'a should "work " together to stop the killing in Lebanon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr3atfull

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

About the divison of Islam, sure its divided in the Middle East, but they are still muslims. In the Al-Qaeda video, it said all Sunni and Shi'a should "work " together to stop the killing in Lebanon.

---

Which, I should also add, is a radical change in tactics for al Qaeda. Before they were fanatically devoted to their strain of Islam. That video called for all Muslims AND non-believers angry at the U.S. and their allies to rise up and wage a holy war.

Post deleted - MOD

The reasons for it are many but I'll point them out so that you don't repeat your mistakes, if you do repeat these mistakes you are going on a vacation.

-You are trying to incite others to hatred, and spreading propaganda
-There are so many things wrong with what you say logically,that this seems to be a direct assault on those parties that don’t agree with your point of view
-You are disrespectful to anyone posting here from those hard-working Israeli civilian families who have nothing to do with the war.
-Your post makes no effort to make discussion with the others on this forum
-I deleted your thread earlier for these same reasons I don’t know why you didn’t get the hint

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gr3atfull

Egypt is a democratic country and Jordan has a prime minister and a king (like the UK).

---

The President Hosni Mubarak has been in power since 1981, with nobody allowed to run against him in 'elections' until 2005. These 2005 elections were also blatantly flawed, as the Muslim Brotherhood (a political party) had its members/supports beaten and arrested and many were prevented from voting in the elections. He has used the Emergency Law rule to govern the country under a state of emergency for 25 years....

The King of Jordon rules the nation, as all executive power lies with him. In Britain the Queen is merely a figurehead with no real power, with the Executive power being with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. There are no elections held for the position of King.

First of all, I'm sorry I didn't take the time to read everything, so i might be missing out on some points.

I'm fine, as you can probably tell, my battelion has been called to the north border, and might be active. that's just about all you need to know.
as for myself, I haven't been behined enemy lines, since i'm not a tank person anymore, but take a look at an Israel map, anything from Nazerth (jesus's place of birth, and mostly an israel-arabic city) has been attacked by Hizzbhalla missles, including Haifa, the 3rd largest city in israel. So me being inside the israeli borders doesn't really mean a thing about my safety.
While I'm perfecrly aware that not everyone killed in Lebanon was a terrorist, it's puts some perspective about the situation, no one's innocent.

here's terror as i see it.
use of violence against citizens in order to achieve a certain idiology.
the kidnapping of Shallit in the gaza strip wasn't a terror act, it was a military commando mission by the Hammas, which is a terror orginazation.
the kiddnapping of the two soldiers wasn't a terror act, but the missle fire on the north (international agreed) border was a terror act.
Israel probably wouldn't have acted like this if not for the missle attacks, as it seems that since israel evacuated the south lebanon strip in 2000, Hizzbhalla has used this time to amass thousends of rackets, including rockets that can reach Tel-aviv and Jerusalem.

One of the problems of the inoformation media is it's tendenc to decide who's right by counting the victims. the lebnon people had over 300 killed, the israel had about 30 civilians (not soldiers) killed. sound's like simple math, right?
then again, consider that a good amount of the lebanonise had hizzbhalla explocives in them, and the Hizzbhalla used thae citizens as human shields. on the israel side, however, the goverment built safe underground 'rooms' for the citizens, and has it's army bases outside of citizen cities.
see, that's as far as the equasion goes.

I'm biased towards israel. I can't be anything else. Shallit, if he was here today, would have now been celevrating his first year of the army, as me and him have been drafted in the same day, so it was only by a small luck of the draw that he was in Gaza and i wasn't. the kiddnapped soldiers on the north border weren't professional military-men, they have been called back from the civil life to allow some battelions to go down to Gaza, my father has been doing the same up until ten years ago, and once i'm out of the army, I'll be called to help too, if ever needed.
That's what happens when the army is on a 'must-join' basis, there's no possibility that someone will stay quiet when a soldier is hurt. that's isreal's army strengh and weakness.

Those who talked about the Sunni-Shiai conflict in the muslim world are correct, Hizbahalla action aren't only directed at israel, they're showing their muscles against the lebanon goverment, like what happend with the ex prime minister Harriri, who was (or was suspected to be) killed by syrian forces becuase of his opposition to syria's army being station in Lebanon. there's a lot of inner politics involved in this thing,
but that doesn't matter, the facts are:
A. Israel has left south lebanon six years ago and didn't ingage in any offencive action.
B. Hizzbahlla has used this time to stock rockets and missles and targeted them on israel, including weapons from Iran.
C. Hizzbahalla has attacked Israel soldiers and fired rockets at isreal cities.

The Israeli attack is justified, by the UN's 'laws of war', if a state is attacked from a building that has both innocents and terrorist/enemy soldiers in it, the said state should go after the said building, terrorist shouldn't be allowed to use innocents as human shields.

Well, that's the last of the war i'm going to talk about in the next two days. if i'm home, i shouldn't be thinking about the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Death BOO Z

While I'm perfecrly aware that not everyone killed in Lebanon was a terrorist, it's puts some perspective about the situation, no one's innocent.

---

Are you saying the killing of innocent civillians is justified?

Quote:

---

here's terror as i see it.

---

And my take on your view. Ofcourse not all may agree with, but a hell of a lot of people do.

Quote:

---

use of violence against citizens in order to achieve a certain idiology.

---

Like Zionism and Apartheid right?

Quote:

---

the kidnapping of Shallit in the gaza strip wasn't a terror act, it was a military commando mission by the Hammas, which is a terror orginazation.

---

According to Israel and its allies. Russia for example does not consider Hammas to be a terrorist organisation. There are many people who consider Israel to be a terrorist state.

Hammas also happens to be the elected government of the Palestinian people. But then again elections don't mean jack right if foreign powers don't like the results?

Quote:

---

the kiddnapping of the two soldiers wasn't a terror act, but the missle fire on the north (international agreed) border was a terror act.

---

Again the word terror... it seems to people like Bush and his ilk use this as some taboo word against people the don't like and they must be hated by all with a vengence. And I suppose this is noble warefare and not terror?

Quote:

---

One of the problems of the inoformation media is it's tendenc to decide who's right by counting the victims.

---

No, less than 3000 people died in the 9/11 attacks and hundreds of thousands have been killed, tortured, kidnapped and humilated in Afghanistan and Iraq yet a lot of the world media still tries to justify this so called 'War on Terror'.

Quote:

---

the lebnon people had over 300 killed, the israel had about 30 civilians (not soldiers) killed. sound's like simple math, right?

---

Yes, seems simple enough to me. And this was over a week ago. Since then many more Lebanese have been killed, and I can't remember any Israeli civillian that has been killed (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am). Whereas on the Lebanese side you have had many more killed, with the Qana massacre killing over 50 civillians, including disabled children.

Quote:

---

then again, consider that a good amount of the lebanonise had hizzbhalla explocives in them,

---

I'm sorry, are you saying that as of yet unproven claims of the existance of Hizbullah weaponry being kept in houses has somehow spontaneously exploded by itself?

Quote:

---

on the israel side, however, the goverment built safe underground 'rooms' for the citizens

---

Interestingly enough according to early reports on Sky News Israel has not built any underground shelters for the Arab populace that live in Israel... could you confirm whether this is true or not?

Quote:

---

I'm biased towards israel. I can't be anything else.

---

Yes you can. Your a human with a conscience, you should use it. You should wake up and see what you and your army is doing to the people of the region and the world as a whole. The only governments that support you are the US and the UK. I can't speak about the US, but the vast majority of the people in the UK are against Israel's actions.

And this isn't an anti-Jewish or anti-semitic thing. There were Jews who were marching against Israel's actions in London. You don't have to be a Muslim or an Arab to see the injustice here.

Quote:

---

the facts are:
A. Israel has left south lebanon six years ago and didn't ingage in any offencive action.
B. Hizzbahlla has used this time to stock rockets and missles and targeted them on israel, including weapons from Iran.
C. Hizzbahalla has attacked Israel soldiers and fired rockets at isreal cities.

---

Israel gets its weapons from the US. Without the US, Israel cannot fight any war. One week into this conflict and the US was flying in bombs in an emergency, and has continued to do so since then.

Also, show us even just one building that has been destroyed by Hizbullah rocket, just one, like what Israel has countless Lebanese villages, towns and cities.

Quote:

---

The Israeli attack is justified, by the UN's 'laws of war', if a state is attacked from a building that has both innocents and terrorist/enemy soldiers in it, the said state should go after the said building, terrorist shouldn't be allowed to use innocents as human shields.

---

What the UN says is irrelevant to countries like Israel. It chooses to use the UN when it needs to, such as in the case of Resolution 1559 and ignores it in the case of resolutions 194 and 242 and clause two of resolution 338. It's chief ally the US ignores the UN and selectivley applied internationals norms, as was the case with the Iraq War and the application of the Geneva convention on the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (to which it says the Geneva convention will now apply).

In conclusion I will say to you that Israel is fighting a brutal war, it is attacking helpless people and it is not achieving any of its stated objectives. I would also advise you on a more personal level not to take part in this war any longer. It is clearly unjust and I hope you can arrive to this conclusion also.

Take a look at this link... this is what you are helping to do. I warn you though some pictures are disturbing.. This is the other page, also disturbing

So your saying he should just abbandon his country because they are killing a lot of people in an attempt to make their own citizens safer. In Israel everyone fights (not sure about the women...) which seems like a good idea being that there's so much hate ready to come down on them at any given time. That you would even suggest these things to a member of the Israeli military is quite amazing to me. Civillians are the ones who question their governments not soldiers, and while someone is a soldier they have a duty to follow orders and defend their country. All I hope is that Death Boo Z stays safe.

As I see it. Israel is doing a lot (relatively) of collateral damage and this is very unfortunate for the Lebanese, but from Israels perspective doing nothing will likely lead to more attacks on Israel. Any reasonable leader would attempt to take the fight to the enemy rather than accept more deaths among his/her own people. If it comes down to Lebanese civillians and Israeli civillians and someone is going to die, [This Is Where An Obvious, 'No one has to die' Counter-Argument Goes!!!!!!!] the Isrealis will protect their own. Sure it's not 'right' by most standards to kill in the hope that others won't be killed if you do, but if nations only did what was right by some arbitrary, and regardless of how hard you try 'right' will always be arbitrary, definition then anyone who wasn't willing to follow the 'right' path could run all over them.

And as to the UN, is the UN going to protect Israel's citizen's? I doubt it, and from Israel's behavior they probably doubt it as well. The UN lacks the punch that goes along with it's supposed authority, it can give and take favours but it doesn't have the third leg of authority, the ability to inflict direct damage. The reason countries like the US and Israel ignore it so much is because it most closely represents the type of idealistic 'right thing only' organization of any world body. The UN will always seek to avoid causing suffering of any kind, even when there is no other option to induce complience. It is interesting how well the UN and countries match with parents and children.

Some parents are like the UN and refuse to inflict harm to discipline their children Instead they negotiate with the children, taking away privilages or offering incentives in the hope of bartering for a desired behavior from them. I have seen many good people who grew up never having a hand raised to them in punishment, and they are respectful and obedient. I have also seen children who were beaten for anything and everything who turned out to be terrible, disrespectful, and rebelious wastes of material. In addition to the ability of the one weilding the authority, the children themselves have something to do with how they turn out, just as the people/leaders of a country have something to do with how that country will respond to pressures.

Some countries, just like some children, can be brought into line with nothing but sanctions or incentives. Others will do whatever suits them no matter what you offer them or threaten them with. A notable thing is that the countries that come to mind as rebellious are generally fighting amoungst each other. The US and, to a lesser extent, Israel, share their disrespect for the 'rules' with countries like Iran, the old Iraq, and North Korea. The most likely reason being that these countries have strong ideological goals on an international stage and will to see those goals fulfilled to the best of their abilities. NOTE: When I reference a county I'm talking about it's government, not nessecarily it's populace.

And what is a 'just' war? When is it just to drop a 500lb bomb on something that's not yours. Even I don't think it's 'just' to attack someone else, even if you've been attacked. However I think you damn well better attack anyone who attacks you, and teach them a lesson lest they attempt to hurt you again. Justice and Righteousness have no place on a battlefield. When no one wants anyone dead anymore (or isn't willing to follow through on their desire), then people should start talking about justice, until then it's about saving your own ass any way you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yukimura

So your saying he should just abbandon his country because they are killing a lot of people in an attempt to make their own citizens safer. In Israel everyone fights (not sure about the women...) which seems like a good idea being that there's so much hate ready to come down on them at any given time. That you would even suggest these things to a member of the Israeli military is quite amazing to me. Civillians are the ones who question their governments not soldiers, and while someone is a soldier they have a duty to follow orders and defend their country. All I hope is that Death Boo Z stays safe.

---

I'm sorry but I don't subscribe the 'I'm a soldier so I don't have a brain or will of my own to make decisions' theory.

Quote:

---

As I see it. Israel is doing a lot (relatively) of collateral damage and this is very unfortunate for the Lebanese, but from Israels perspective doing nothing will likely lead to more attacks on Israel. Any reasonable leader would attempt to take the fight to the enemy rather than accept more deaths among his/her own people. If it comes down to Lebanese civillians and Israeli civillians and someone is going to die, [This Is Where An Obvious, 'No one has to die' Counter-Argument Goes!!!!!!!] the Isrealis will protect their own. Sure it's not 'right' by most standards to kill in the hope that others won't be killed if you do, but if nations only did what was right by some arbitrary, and regardless of how hard you try 'right' will always be arbitrary, definition then anyone who wasn't willing to follow the 'right' path could run all over them.

---

I'm sorry if you are saying that you lack a moral compass and the ability to define what is right or not then you will never be able to solve any conflict. As for what Israel should do, this is a question that has its roots in history rather than this conflict. When did the first conflict start?

Quote:

---

And as to the UN, is the UN going to protect Israel's citizen's? I doubt it, and from Israel's behavior they probably doubt it as well. The UN lacks the punch that goes along with it's supposed authority, it can give and take favours but it doesn't have the third leg of authority, the ability to inflict direct damage. The reason countries like the US and Israel ignore it so much is because it most closely represents the type of idealistic 'right thing only' organization of any world body. The UN will always seek to avoid causing suffering of any kind, even when there is no other option to induce complience. It is interesting how well the UN and countries match with parents and children.

---

You see when I said that Israel ignores the UN, I was trying to render the UN meaningless. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can see that the UN is a useless organisation which is inherently flawed in its setup, implementation and influence. A so called 'Security Council' that consists of 5 permanant members with diverging interests is supposed to look aftet the well being of the world? Gimme a break, the only people who adhere to the UN rules and resolutions are third world countries who are/feel threatned by the more powerful nations in the world who also happen to sit on the Security Council. I just found it so cynical that an attempt was made to use such a useless, ineffective organisation to justify the current conflict.

Quote:

---

And what is a 'just' war? When is it just to drop a 500lb bomb on something that's not yours. Even I don't think it's 'just' to attack someone else, even if you've been attacked. However I think you damn well better attack anyone who attacks you, and teach them a lesson lest they attempt to hurt you again. Justice and Righteousness have no place on a battlefield. When no one wants anyone dead anymore (or isn't willing to follow through on their desire), then people should start talking about justice, until then it's about saving your own ass any way you can.

---

A just war is defined by your ideological beliefs. Not exactly the same as arbritrary, as justice is defined by what your nation (or even the individual) believes in.

But by your thinking would it then be safe to say you have no problem with "suicide" bombers?

These guys should certainly have no problem. They are the epitomy of what I have said (which I think is what you are trying to say also with regards to what is a just war). However that does not stop others of different ideological persuasions to call such statements unjust.

The funny thing is that they are attacking and destroying a country wich has no power over hezbollah and that tried to get ride of them and even asked for international help.

The 2 countries that are behind hezbollah and the current "war" are syria and iran neither of them are being targeted nor acused.

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

People should learn a bit about others to try to know who they are (empathy is a need for any human being) and not talk like manuals of the perfect soldier without brains or to get their mouths full with words such as freedom, democracy and justice. Something they claim to defend by violating all of them.

I just pity them and I suffer for all those lebannon people that die for a war that has almost nothing to do with them, leaving their country in ruins and with decades of reconstruction and economic recession.
One of the most prosperous countrys in the area was too much of a threat uh? :rolleyes:

I wonder if IRA bombs the US or israel will they bomb and invade belfast or dublin?

It just never ends. You hurt me, so I'll hurt you. Then you hurt me back, so I hurt you back.

DeathBooZ, although I disagree with your government I hope you remain safe. You're stuck in the middle of something overwhich you have no control, and I'm sure that even those who disagree with this war can empathize with you.

DB Hunter, I can understand your passion; I felt (and still feel) much the same way about the Iraq war. On matters like this I remember what the Dali Lama said on his last visit to the US. Anyone can criticize or hate a government; anyone can talk about all the things that are wrong, but few can suggest a solution.

The Iraq war was a simpler debate; either you honestly believed that Iraq was a threat or you didn't (I didn't). This is different; Hezbollah definitely is a threat to Israel, and they definitely have a stronghold on Lebanon. From Israel's point of view, what can be done? Attacking Lebanon is probably the wrong thing to do, but doing nothing is definitely the wrong thing to do. I wish I had an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DB_Hunter

Are you saying the killing of innocent civillians is justified?

---

I'm pretty sure he means that there's no "right" side in this whole ordeal.

Latest development: Ceasefire (so-called)


About damn time? Or too late?