i think, already 1948573492302 times was sayed that israel not targeting civilians!Bubbalo wrote:
If it's not targetted, yes. Israel isn't exactly going to great effort to avoid civilian casualties.
First, learn how to speak EnglishLisik wrote:
i think, already 1948573492302 times was sayed that israel not targeting civilians!Bubbalo wrote:
If it's not targetted, yes. Israel isn't exactly going to great effort to avoid civilian casualties.
Second, are you really going to listen to whoever says that Israel are not intentionally targeting civilians. Get a mind of your own man
Create a muslim superstate? god forbid.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, neither Hamas nor Hizballah take that line. They merely wish to kick Israel out of the Middle East. Even Al Qaeda's stated aim is merely to create a Muslim superstate.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
Until they decide not to kill all of us would be a start. You know the whole death to all infidels bit.
Oh, would it be that much worse than the Christian superstate we kow-tow to?
Hezbolla have a right... TO GET THEIR ASSES KICKED!xXSarnathXx wrote:
hezbollah aint terrorists, they are freedom fighters, the got created last time israel messed around in libanon. israel is all bloody wrong here and hezbollah got a right to fight them.
lol are you serious? what do you expect Israel to do, the casualty rates just prove Hezbollah cant fight for shit.PRiMACORD wrote:
Or maybe they think that hiding behind civilians will force IDF forces to take them on with ground troops, man to man since they conventionally stand no chance vs IDFs military might? They're using WW2 relics vs 20th century technology, fighting conventionally is not an option. Obviously this fails and the term 'civilian shield' is meaningless since Israel will bomb the shit out of you no matter where you are or who you are hiding behind. Civilian shield, more like civilian napkin.ATG wrote:
I'll take that to mean you having nothing intelligent to say and realize that you are in over your head.jonsimon wrote:
I considered arguing with you bumble heads but I realized you're all far too past the point of no return.Skrup, love you man but you fail here to see the point.Skruples wrote:
Say what you will about Hizbollah, I'm not going to argue. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that bombing schoolchildren is going to help Israel win any wars. It's been said many times, the people that Israel really wants to kill, the terrorists, thrive on civilian deaths. Israel will lose all semblance of moral superiority if they continue on the path they've chosen.
Hizbollah sets up rocket launchers next to schools hoping that civilians get killed because they know it plays on good peoples heart strings, like yourself.
It may be that to end the terrorism we/Israel must end the teachings of hate in the Muslim schools, and if that means killing every man, woman and child who is brain washed into believing that the Jews must die, so be it, I guess...
Again, Muslims living in Israel enjoy more civil right than do Muslims living under Sharia, and if Israel started displaying imperialistic tendancies by invading other countries for land I would support bombing Tel Aviv.
Why don't you think this over logically in your head and figure out what you would do if you were a small organization facing a relatively massive army. You'll soon realize that you don't have a lot of options. I'm not excusing Hizbollahs activities, all i care about is civilian casualities.
Who's killing more innocents, the Hizbollah or Israel?
Israel.
Who is making sure terrorism will be around for decades to come.
Israel.
ow, my english is not perfect but im trying... anyway, when i say "not targeting" i mean lebanones not a target! the target is hezbollah and lebanones are victims!BlaZin'Feenix wrote:
First, learn how to speak EnglishLisik wrote:
i think, already 1948573492302 times was sayed that israel not targeting civilians!Bubbalo wrote:
If it's not targetted, yes. Israel isn't exactly going to great effort to avoid civilian casualties.
Second, are you really going to listen to whoever says that Israel are not intentionally targeting civilians. Get a mind of your own man
Allah Akbar!!!! Allah Akbar!!!! Allah Akbar!!!!choongy wrote:
Create a muslim superstate? god forbid.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, neither Hamas nor Hizballah take that line. They merely wish to kick Israel out of the Middle East. Even Al Qaeda's stated aim is merely to create a Muslim superstate.Sgt.Zubie wrote:
Until they decide not to kill all of us would be a start. You know the whole death to all infidels bit.
And what's the difference between a government that attacks civilians and civilians attacking civilians? The name of the group. Each has their causes, benefactors, and members.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Isreal is doing what needs to be done, and what everyone else is afraid to do. There should be no pussy-footing around with a country that harbors terrorists.
What would a group of people taking forceful action against its government be labeled? Patriots? Revolutionaries? Terrorists? Depends on the perspective viewing the action doesn't it? Revolutionary war in America... British think terrorists, we think revolutionaries.
Try broadening your perspective.
Then how come the civilian to terrorist ratio is so shocking? And how come the infrastucture being targetted is more useful to civilians than terrorists?Lisik wrote:
ow, my english is not perfect but im trying... anyway, when i say "not targeting" i mean lebanones not a target! the target is hezbollah and lebanones are victims!
I'd say because they're jealous, but yeah a lot of ppl ont like americansmafia996630 wrote:
a lot of ppl hate Americans, for example Iraq ? wtf is your point ?, a lot of ppl still reject to what USA and UK is doing over there, so we cant reject to what our country is doing over there, if they hate us ?. no offense to Americans but a lot of ppl around the world hate them.JG1567JG wrote:
HM1{N} You mention that the UN cant keep track of Israels transgressions. Hezbollah just happens to be part of Lebonons government and the UN wont say a damn thing condemning Hezbollah or Lebanon. Every thing that comes out of the UN mentions Israel specifically and then calls for others orginizations (none by name) to stop the aggression.
Lets see, soldier(s) get kidnapped in gaza strip. Israel starts agressions against the Palestinians. Hezbollah starts fireing rockets into Israel to open up a second front to help the Palestinians. Hezbollah starts getting their ass handed to them by Israel and they beg for the agressions by Isreal to stop.
I just want to know what Israel should do when Hezbollah fires rockets at their towns? Should they just sit back and watch.
P.S. To all you Americans that don't like what Israel is doing, just remember Hezbollah wants you dead too.
Then WHAT SHOULD ISRAEL DO??Spearhead wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Orion5413 wrote:
Then why have they not done anything about them? It is called total war....A general in the union army thought that if you break the will of the population the army will no longer fight. In this case Israel is taking the war to the people. If they don't like being bombed by Israel then they should not have let hezbola attack Israel in the first place....
Yeah, starving Germany after WW1 worked REAL DAMN WELL.
LMFAO at you
Taking the war to the people does one thing : creates more willpower than practically anything else to fight against the enemy. You really think they'll just "back down"?
1.4 billion muslims? shit, we're screwedspastic bullet wrote:
1. Is it only democracy if we approve of who they vote for, as well? Also, Hezbollah only currently hold 11% of the seats in the Lebanese parliament. Of course, they'll probably do better in the next round of elections, now that Israel has helped them look like heroes.Sondernkommando wrote:
What people are saying is: Israel should choose to let its own soldiers die rather than kill the Lebanese who:
1. Have Hezbollah as part of their government
2. Have Hezbollah as de facto government in the South
3. Have allowed Hezbollah to lob rockets at Israel for years and, now, kidnap Israelis off their own territory
That makes no sense to me.
2. Again, an unfortunate "side effect" of democracy. Maybe they wouldn't be so popular if Israel hadn't occupied that area for nearly 20 years, then left behind >100,000 landmines when they pulled out, refusing to hand over maps of the mines' locations.
3. Let's do some roleplaying here, shall we? Me and my armed terrorist friends show up at your house with a rocket launcher. Do you (a) wag your finger at me and die? Or (b) keep your mouth shut and live? Finally, how do you define "their own territory"? The Israeli soldiers were captured in Southern Lebanon.
There are 1.4 billion Muslims on the planet. Unless our goal is to basically wipe them out, we better start looking at winning some hearts and minds. Always siding with Israel, even as they massacre hundreds, or thousands, of civilians is not going to do it.
do u realy think the number of dead terrorist that u see on tv is the true one? dont be so naive... its much much more!Bubbalo wrote:
Then how come the civilian to terrorist ratio is so shocking? And how come the infrastucture being targetted is more useful to civilians than terrorists?Lisik wrote:
ow, my english is not perfect but im trying... anyway, when i say "not targeting" i mean lebanones not a target! the target is hezbollah and lebanones are victims!
and if hezbollah use lebanones infrastructures.... (i hope u got the point)
So, when I think the numbers which I get from a number of news sources are accurate, it's naive, but when you believe that Israel aren't targetting civilians because they say they aren't it's sensible?Lisik wrote:
do u realy think the number of dead terrorist that u see on tv is the true one? dont be so naive... its much much more!
But the infrastructure Hizballah use isn't what's being destroyed. Hizballah weren't taking missiles into the capital, and yet it's been cut off!Lisik wrote:
and if hezbollah use lebanones infrastructures.... (i hope u got the point)
i dont know, the Jews have been displaced a hell of a lot themselves, when they finally get their own land of course they'll do anything to keep itHM1{N} wrote:
Since you obviously have an extreme love for Israel and a blindess for the truth, allow ME to word this as eloquently as possible.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Since you obviously have an extremely skewed perception of the situation, allow me to word this as eloquently as possible. Isreal is retaliating against terrorism. Lebanon harbors terrorists that attack Isreal. The alternative would be to sit back and do nothing, while their country gets routinely attacked by missiles and suicide bombers, and their citizens kidnapped. The entire region has been hostile towards Isreal throughout history, and just recently the president of Iran has proclaimed its annihilation.HM1{N} wrote:
Exactly, they don't give a fuck...unless it benefits them. That's why all their representative on T.V. quote Res. 1559 all the time now, it benefits them. They absolutely refuse to abide by any resolution that does not further their Zionist agenda
Israel is a terrorist state that uses it's military on a daily basis to murder innocent civilians, always with some BS excuse for a reason.
If 2 of our soldiers get kidnapped, do we go and wipe out innocent civilians like Israel? NO
Does any other state or country in this world do that? NO
Israel gets routinely attacked because THEY STOLE THE LAND. Plain and simple. If there was no Israel, there would be no problem. If you steal my land and murder my family, I'm going to be hostile to you also and yes, I'm going to kill you.
How's that for eloquent?
damn straightRyansRangers wrote:
Screw being neutral. Take a side and go all out. That will fix the situation.
yes, yes it wouldBubbalo wrote:
Oh, would it be that much worse than the Christian superstate we kow-tow to?
Let me clarify: From a nuetral standpoint (that is, not from our perspective) would it be worse than what we have now? How?
OMG
Some of you arrogant yanks really need to wake up....
Do you really think that any of the action that your country supports or carrys out in the Middle East has anything to do with 'Terrorism'.
Your countrys sole reason for meddling there is that thick, black stuff that comes from the ground - yes well done, OIL + FUTURE CONTROL OF IT
Every government always has a true motive and a good excuse for these actions, with the UK being no exception - why do you think we have just commited so many troops to Afghansitan? No nothing to do with the Taliban or 'Terrorism' but it could, maybe, possibly to do with the fact that 90% of Heroin entering the UK comes from Afghanistan and the smack trade here is getting out of control.
And don't give me your 'be a man, you're a pussy' bullshit, I served in the British Army and we have spent the last 40 years fighting 'Terrorism' in Northern Ireland (and how can we blame them as we cut their country in two) - which coincidentally most of the IRA's cash + weapons came from you....
Some of you arrogant yanks really need to wake up....
Do you really think that any of the action that your country supports or carrys out in the Middle East has anything to do with 'Terrorism'.
Your countrys sole reason for meddling there is that thick, black stuff that comes from the ground - yes well done, OIL + FUTURE CONTROL OF IT
Every government always has a true motive and a good excuse for these actions, with the UK being no exception - why do you think we have just commited so many troops to Afghansitan? No nothing to do with the Taliban or 'Terrorism' but it could, maybe, possibly to do with the fact that 90% of Heroin entering the UK comes from Afghanistan and the smack trade here is getting out of control.
And don't give me your 'be a man, you're a pussy' bullshit, I served in the British Army and we have spent the last 40 years fighting 'Terrorism' in Northern Ireland (and how can we blame them as we cut their country in two) - which coincidentally most of the IRA's cash + weapons came from you....
actualy im first serg of israeli air forces in reserve, im not reading news - im making news! so when i see number of dead terrorist on cnn or whatever it make me lought! its lie, and people belive it, so i call it naive! why naive? coz when 50ton bomb fals on bunker were hezbollah made a conference, and in news they say 1 terrorist and 25 civilians - its naive!Bubbalo wrote:
So, when I think the numbers which I get from a number of news sources are accurate, it's naive, but when you believe that Israel aren't targetting civilians because they say they aren't it's sensible?Lisik wrote:
do u realy think the number of dead terrorist that u see on tv is the true one? dont be so naive... its much much more!But the infrastructure Hizballah use isn't what's being destroyed. Hizballah weren't taking missiles into the capital, and yet it's been cut off!Lisik wrote:
and if hezbollah use lebanones infrastructures.... (i hope u got the point)
infrstructures.... all lebanon thouse days its one big infrastructure of hezbollah! there is no nothing that hezbollah not useing it!
So you're telling me that from that height, at that speed, you can disinguish people well enough to tell the difference between militants and non-combatants?
And when a 50 ton bomb lands on a bunker with UN peace keepers it's..?Lisik wrote:
..coz when 50ton bomb fals on bunker were hezbollah made a conference, and in news they say 1 terrorist and 25 civilians - its naive!
I need around tree fiddy.
victim of warDonFck wrote:
And when a 50 ton bomb lands on a bunker with UN peace keepers it's..?Lisik wrote:
..coz when 50ton bomb fals on bunker were hezbollah made a conference, and in news they say 1 terrorist and 25 civilians - its naive!
btw can u tell me what in your meaning - "peace keepers" ? kinda intresting to know what is it at all...
peacekeeper:
a member of a military force that is assigned (often with
international sanction) to preserve peace in a trouble
area.
However, this preservation of peace fails when sides are determined to destroy one another.
Let's for a moment imagine ourselves in a hypothetical situation where some impartial people become killed by an airstrike followed by artillery and no actual enemies are killed. Let's also imagine the hypothetical scenario where bombardments seem to kill 80% civilians, 15% wildlife and livestock, 3% enemies and 2% miss. Casualties of war, you say?
Oh wait.. ..that really happened!
But hey, this is just the opinion I've formed by listening/watching from what I can tell, impartial news.
a member of a military force that is assigned (often with
international sanction) to preserve peace in a trouble
area.
However, this preservation of peace fails when sides are determined to destroy one another.
A deliberate one?Lisik wrote:
victim of war
Let's for a moment imagine ourselves in a hypothetical situation where some impartial people become killed by an airstrike followed by artillery and no actual enemies are killed. Let's also imagine the hypothetical scenario where bombardments seem to kill 80% civilians, 15% wildlife and livestock, 3% enemies and 2% miss. Casualties of war, you say?
Oh wait.. ..that really happened!
But hey, this is just the opinion I've formed by listening/watching from what I can tell, impartial news.
Last edited by DonFck (2006-08-07 04:02:46)
I need around tree fiddy.