Im from Toronto and I dont feel angry at Israel one bit. They were in a war zone and accidents happen. And for you to call Israel a coward for not risking sending in commando's is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Sending in ground troops would cause far more deaths on both sides than strategic bombing.Buzerk1 wrote:
Any country dropping bomb in a area occupied by civilians is bound to kill civilians, to say it was not the target is being blind or stupid. Killing 1000 to get 1 person doesn't legitimize the action, it's still killing innocent.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
I dont feel like reading through five pages of liberal crap so ill sum this up. Israel dosent target civilians. Yes, sometimes they get caught in the cross fire but that is going to happen in war no matter how careful you are. Hezbollah on the other hand is purposefully targetting Israeli civilians by firing missles into urban centers hoping to kill as many innocent people as possible. To say that Israel is the evil one because a few people were killed in an accident while Hezbollah purposefully targets innocent civilians is just stupid.
It's a coward action, instead of risking a "commando attack" to get the people they really want they destroy the life of many people who will joy the ranks of people supporting the Hezbollah.
And I put "suicide bomber" in the same bag, it's blind less act of violence with the only purpose of creating fear.
I'm Canadian..... I'm not saying because I'm Canadian. I'm saying this because I don't put more value to a person from Israel or a person from Liban.
Accidents happen, eh? Hmm, when you say "accident", do you mean "unexpected" or "unforeseen"? I think the word you want to be pulling out at this stage is "regrettable", from a propaganda POV. You're welcome.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Im from Toronto and I dont feel angry at Israel one bit. They were in a war zone and accidents happen.Buzerk1 wrote:
Any country dropping bomb in a area occupied by civilians is bound to kill civilians, to say it was not the target is being blind or stupid. Killing 1000 to get 1 person doesn't legitimize the action, it's still killing innocent.
It's a coward action, instead of risking a "commando attack" to get the people they really want they destroy the life of many people who will joy the ranks of people supporting the Hezbollah.
And I put "suicide bomber" in the same bag, it's blind less act of violence with the only purpose of creating fear.
I'm Canadian..... I'm not saying because I'm Canadian. I'm saying this because I don't put more value to a person from Israel or a person from Liban.
i got like a million comebacks to -=NHB=- Bananahands post. lol. no offence.
To bad you only qouted half of it. All im saying is that air strikes will cause far less death and destruction than an invasion force and that Lebanon needs to get their act together and secure its own borders. They are responsible for what goes on in their territory and Israel has every right to use air strikes to insure its own safety.
You used the word "accident" in the post before the one I quoted as well. I'm just trying to save you from your own bad habits.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
To bad you only qouted half of it.
As we've already established, that's not all you were saying, but whatever -- if you're willing to back down from the "accidents happen" bullshit, fine. I don't think anyone will dispute that air strikes involve far fewer Israeli casualties than a ground invasion would.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
All im saying is that air strikes will cause far less death and destruction than an invasion force and that Lebanon needs to get their act together and secure its own borders.
This sentence is masterful. So Lebanon is responsible for Israeli air strikes that kill vacationing Canadians and >100 other civilians because they happen in Lebanon? By that logic, the US bears responsibility for 9/11 because it happened in the US. Good one.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
They [Lebanese?] are responsible for what goes on in their territory and Israel has every right to use air strikes to insure its own safety.
And as for the second part (about Israel's right to kill civilians to "insure" its own safety), I think you'll find such acts are not helpful in achieving what you seem to think is their goal. Quite the opposite.
I'm no fan of Hezbollah -- can all you pro-Israel types not see that disproportionate retaliation by Israel plays right into their hands? This is exactly the kind of thing Hezbollah need to bolster their support in the region. Why do you guys insist on helping them out?
Nice job on missunderstanding everything I said. It was an accident and I wont back down from that. Unlike Hezbollah, Israel dosent purposefully target civilians. Yes civilians have died but they were not the targets. Hezbollah on the other hand purposefully targets civilians and hopes for as much civilian casualties as possible. They have now launched over 1,000 rockets at Israel. Your 9/11 analogy is the worst one possible. Unlike Lebanon, America dosent allow terrosists in our government and we dont give them free haven. We hunt them down for the scum they are and Lebanon seems unwilling or uncapable of keeping Hezbollah from firing missles into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. As for defending itself, what would you have Israel do? I would not sit back and let my soldiers be kidnapped and killed and take no action what so ever. I agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase but next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice.spastic bullet wrote:
You used the word "accident" in the post before the one I quoted as well. I'm just trying to save you from your own bad habits.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
To bad you only qouted half of it.As we've already established, that's not all you were saying, but whatever -- if you're willing to back down from the "accidents happen" bullshit, fine. I don't think anyone will dispute that air strikes involve far fewer Israeli casualties than a ground invasion would.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
All im saying is that air strikes will cause far less death and destruction than an invasion force and that Lebanon needs to get their act together and secure its own borders.This sentence is masterful. So Lebanon is responsible for Israeli air strikes that kill vacationing Canadians and >100 other civilians because they happen in Lebanon? By that logic, the US bears responsibility for 9/11 because it happened in the US. Good one.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
They [Lebanese?] are responsible for what goes on in their territory and Israel has every right to use air strikes to insure its own safety.
And as for the second part (about Israel's right to kill civilians to "insure" its own safety), I think you'll find such acts are not helpful in achieving what you seem to think is their goal. Quite the opposite.
I'm no fan of Hezbollah -- can all you pro-Israel types not see that disproportionate retaliation by Israel plays right into their hands? This is exactly the kind of thing Hezbollah need to bolster their support in the region. Why do you guys insist on helping them out?
Wait, they weren't even known as Ottoman to the West. They were known as Austro-Hungarian. And they were still and empire, as they were made of two or more nations (although they may have considered themselves bigger than they were).GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
yes and no. the Ottoman empire didnt consider that the case but the rest of the world did. I would like to be the first person on debate and serious section to call the Ottomans, a paper empire.
Bananahands, I understand your points perfectly well. I am just keen on pointing out their many flaws, which you either have not considered, or gloss over in the hope they will not be noticed.
See, you use words, but don't give any indication you understand what they actually mean.
"Accident" clearly implies "unexpected" and/or "unforeseen". How can civilian deaths resulting from air strikes be either? They can't, unless you either (1) don't know anything about the nature of these air strikes; or (2) just want to minimize the damage Israel does to its reputation by killing civilians. So which is it?
"Terrorism" is another word you seem more than a little confused about. It's notoriously difficult to consistently define in a manner that does not incriminate our friends and allies. Try it and see. Or better yet, use words that are more precise, and that don't rely on triggering a vague, essentially emotive response.
Finally, if you "agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase", how does that in any way help Israel? Is it not highly likely that the "next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice", because they will have more new recruits than they know what to do with?! Way to cause Hezbollah an operational headache by flooding them with eager personnel! Good job!
Like I said, why are all you pro-Israel types so keen to help Hezbollah gain influence in the region?
See, you use words, but don't give any indication you understand what they actually mean.
"Accident" clearly implies "unexpected" and/or "unforeseen". How can civilian deaths resulting from air strikes be either? They can't, unless you either (1) don't know anything about the nature of these air strikes; or (2) just want to minimize the damage Israel does to its reputation by killing civilians. So which is it?
"Terrorism" is another word you seem more than a little confused about. It's notoriously difficult to consistently define in a manner that does not incriminate our friends and allies. Try it and see. Or better yet, use words that are more precise, and that don't rely on triggering a vague, essentially emotive response.
Finally, if you "agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase", how does that in any way help Israel? Is it not highly likely that the "next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice", because they will have more new recruits than they know what to do with?! Way to cause Hezbollah an operational headache by flooding them with eager personnel! Good job!
Like I said, why are all you pro-Israel types so keen to help Hezbollah gain influence in the region?
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-17 18:39:21)
even outside of wartime, Israel has purposefully targeted civilians. As have the other terrorists, the suicide bombers.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Nice job on missunderstanding everything I said. It was an accident and I wont back down from that. Unlike Hezbollah, Israel dosent purposefully target civilians. Yes civilians have died but they were not the targets. Hezbollah on the other hand purposefully targets civilians and hopes for as much civilian casualties as possible. They have now launched over 1,000 rockets at Israel. Your 9/11 analogy is the worst one possible. Unlike Lebanon, America dosent allow terrosists in our government and we dont give them free haven. We hunt them down for the scum they are and Lebanon seems unwilling or uncapable of keeping Hezbollah from firing missles into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. As for defending itself, what would you have Israel do? I would not sit back and let my soldiers be kidnapped and killed and take no action what so ever. I agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase but next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice.spastic bullet wrote:
You used the word "accident" in the post before the one I quoted as well. I'm just trying to save you from your own bad habits.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
To bad you only qouted half of it.As we've already established, that's not all you were saying, but whatever -- if you're willing to back down from the "accidents happen" bullshit, fine. I don't think anyone will dispute that air strikes involve far fewer Israeli casualties than a ground invasion would.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
All im saying is that air strikes will cause far less death and destruction than an invasion force and that Lebanon needs to get their act together and secure its own borders.This sentence is masterful. So Lebanon is responsible for Israeli air strikes that kill vacationing Canadians and >100 other civilians because they happen in Lebanon? By that logic, the US bears responsibility for 9/11 because it happened in the US. Good one.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
They [Lebanese?] are responsible for what goes on in their territory and Israel has every right to use air strikes to insure its own safety.
And as for the second part (about Israel's right to kill civilians to "insure" its own safety), I think you'll find such acts are not helpful in achieving what you seem to think is their goal. Quite the opposite.
I'm no fan of Hezbollah -- can all you pro-Israel types not see that disproportionate retaliation by Israel plays right into their hands? This is exactly the kind of thing Hezbollah need to bolster their support in the region. Why do you guys insist on helping them out?
You said:
America dosent allow terrosists in our government and we dont give them free haven.
are you sure about that one?
You said:
As for defending itself, what would you have Israel do? I would not sit back and let my soldiers be kidnapped and killed and take no action what so ever. I agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase but next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice
first it helps to not be constantly uprooting settlements, carrying military equipment in the street (even though it may seem necessary) driving tanks into situations where angry people throw stones, smoking people and using rubber bullets in preemptive action segregation, building walls pushing on recognized borders etc Israel is hardcore against any kind of opposition. I agree they'll probably think twice but you have to consider why they thought it the first time hmm
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-17 18:21:22)
check your facts. austro-hungary empire and the ottoman empire were two wholly seperate nations. they never were the same.Bubbalo wrote:
Wait, they weren't even known as Ottoman to the West. They were known as Austro-Hungarian. And they were still and empire, as they were made of two or more nations (although they may have considered themselves bigger than they were).GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
yes and no. the Ottoman empire didnt consider that the case but the rest of the world did. I would like to be the first person on debate and serious section to call the Ottomans, a paper empire.
You couldn't be more wrong.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Israel dosent purposefully target civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5186140.stm
"Israel has carried out a heavy bombing campaign across Lebanon, hitting Hezbollah sites, but also a wide range of civilian targets."
Nice job on being a condescending asshole. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They are not an army who wears uniforms and attacks millitary targets. I stand by my statement that the deaths of civilians are accidents. What would Israel gain by targeting civilians? They are trying to gain the freedom of their kidnapped soldiers and do as much damage to Hezbollahs infrastructure as possible. While you moan and bitch about Israel killing innocent civilians you seem to forget that Hezbollah has now launched over 1,000 rockets into Israel in hopes of killing innocent civilians.spastic bullet wrote:
Bananahands, I understand your points perfectly well. I am just keen on pointing out their many flaws, which you either have not considered, or gloss over in the hope they will not be noticed.
See, you use words, but don't give any indication you understand what they actually mean.
"Accident" clearly implies "unexpected" and/or "unforeseen". How can civilian deaths resulting from air strikes be either? They can't, unless you either (1) don't know anything about the nature of these air strikes; or (2) just want to minimize the damage Israel does to its reputation by killing civilians. So which is it?
"Terrorism" is another word you seem more than a little confused about. It's notoriously difficult to consistently define in a manner that does not incriminate our friends and allies. Try it and see. Or better yet, use words that are more precise, and that don't rely on triggering a vague, essentially emotive response.
Finally, if you "agree that hatred of Israel will probably increase", how does that in any way help Israel? Is it not highly likely that the "next time a group thinks about kidnapping an Israeli soldier you can be guaranteed that they will think twice", because they will have more new recruits than they know what to do with?! Way to cause Hezbollah an operational headache by flooding them with eager personnel! Good job!
Like I said, why are all you pro-Israel types so keen to help Hezbollah gain influence in the region?
I dont see anything other than the fact that they targeted a civilian owned radar station that was used to target the ship that was recently attacked and that they have taken out power grids and bridges. That is far different from sending missles packed full of ball bearings into apartment complexes and train stations.PRiMACORD wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Israel dosent purposefully target civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5186140.stm
"Israel has carried out a heavy bombing campaign across Lebanon, hitting Hezbollah sites, but also a wide range of civilian targets."
DUMBOYS! all who say that arabs start to be terrorists only after 1948! there is nothing to talk with u morons! SAVE THE WORL KILL YOURSELF!
Lisik, is what Israel is doing right now any better than what you fight against?
you mean the civilian targets that hezbollah uses to sheild their stores, themselves, and from which they launch the missiles? I love how when the hamas/hezbollah leaders go home, hide with their children, and all you see is it's israel's fault, not the terrorist who uses them for cover.PRiMACORD wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Israel dosent purposefully target civilians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5186140.stm
"Israel has carried out a heavy bombing campaign across Lebanon, hitting Hezbollah sites, but also a wide range of civilian targets."
Now you're just making up shit. Sad.kr@cker wrote:
you mean the civilian targets that hezbollah uses to sheild their stores, themselves, and from which they launch the missiles? I love how when the hamas/hezbollah leaders go home, hide with their children, and all you see is it's israel's fault, not the terrorist who uses them for cover.
Seriously, you're defending retards like that^Lisik wrote:
DUMBOYS! all who say that arabs start to be terrorists only after 1948! there is nothing to talk with u morons! SAVE THE WORL KILL YOURSELF!
Rofl.
Nah you have a misunderstanding. The Austro-Hungarian Empire which was most of southern eastern Europe was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ottoman Empire was the Empire that consisted of Turkey and some parts of the Middle East.Bubbalo wrote:
Wait, they weren't even known as Ottoman to the West. They were known as Austro-Hungarian. And they were still and empire, as they were made of two or more nations (although they may have considered themselves bigger than they were).
Edit: Fixed Spelling Mistake.
Last edited by TeamZephyr (2006-07-17 23:32:00)
Wait........I've got it now. The Ottomans, then, were Gallipoli?
Thats right, the Ottomans (aka Turks) were part of the Central Powers and the Gallipoli invasion was an attempt to try and cut the Ottoman Empire off from the rest of the Central Powers and to try and create a Allied supply line to Russia.Bubbalo wrote:
Wait........I've got it now. The Ottomans, then, were Gallipoli?
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Here's a handy compilation of your greatest hits, from this thread alone...-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Nice job on being a condescending asshole.
And none of those people cried to their mommy about being condescended to, so STFU if you can't take a little of your own medicine.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Your the moron ... Why are you arabs so brain washed ... Did I say it was a country moron? ... I dont feel like reading through five pages of liberal crap ... To say that Israel is the evil one because a few people were killed in an accident while Hezbollah purposefully targets innocent civilians is just stupid. ... And for you to call Israel a coward for not risking sending in commando's is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. ... Nice job on missunderstanding everything I said.
Did you even read my post? Or is this actually your proposed definition of terrorism -- no uniforms/non-military targets? It seems like you just want to get an emotional response, and sidestep any consistent, rational analysis. When you refuse to define the terms you use, even when explicitly asked to, you end up just sounding hysterical.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They are not an army who wears uniforms and attacks millitary targets.
What would anybody gain by targeting civilians? A better question would be, what would Israel gain by admitting they target civilians?-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
I stand by my statement that the deaths of civilians are accidents. What would Israel gain by targeting civilians?
All you pro-Israel nuts are always going off about intent, but the bare fact of the matter is that Israel somehow manages to kill way more civilians -- without even "meaning to" -- than Hamas and Hezbollah combined, despite their openly murderous intent. Imagine going into a mass murder trial believing your stated intent matters more than how many innocents you actually killed. Over and over again.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
They are trying to gain the freedom of their kidnapped soldiers and do as much damage to Hezbollahs infrastructure as possible. While you moan and bitch about Israel killing innocent civilians you seem to forget that Hezbollah has now launched over 1,000 rockets into Israel in hopes of killing innocent civilians.
And note that I actually addressed your points, instead of consistently ignoring them like you did mine. It's become clear you're not interested in actual debate, preferring instead to just parrot pro-Israel propaganda, so I doubt I'll bother addressing whatever repetitious hysterical bullshit you come back with. Good day.
do found terror and fight for freedom the same things?Spumantiii wrote:
Lisik, is what Israel is doing right now any better than what you fight against?
or maybe u live in illusion, that thay fight for theyr motherland? yes! they fight for land! but they need that land to get closer to us and makes new terrors! do u realy belive they need that land to build civilisation in there? with any new terract thay got new reasons for that... so what is theyr main idea that they fighting for? i will tell u! to kill all non muslems!
so u say israel acting the same? is main idea of jews is to get peace or to kill all non jews?
Haganah, Irgun, Lehi - any comments?Lisik wrote:
DUMBOYS! all who say that arabs start to be terrorists only after 1948! there is nothing to talk with u morons! SAVE THE WORL KILL YOURSELF!