Reffering to the link source.spastic bullet wrote:
Did you accidentally quote the wrong post? Or is there some connection to Headstone's post in there somewhere?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Um, what? I think this means you're referring to the Dershowitz article? But if you are, I still don't get the reference. Can you be more specific? Also, do you think a guy like him can be trusted, given his track record of dishonesty?Kmarion wrote:
Reffering to the link source.spastic bullet wrote:
Did you accidentally quote the wrong post? Or is there some connection to Headstone's post in there somewhere?
If kidnapping soldiers makes you a terrorist, then every army on earth is a terrorist group. They're called prisoners of war when your own country does it.Kmarion wrote:
Or perhaps kidnapping soldiers.jonsimon wrote:
They are a diplomatic entity and are in fact mislabeled terrorists because of their limited millitary might.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-01 06:25:19)
Since they started hyping the 'kidnapped soldiers' issue in the news I now refer to Gitmo prisoners as 'kidnapped soldiers'.jonsimon wrote:
If kidnapping soldiers makes you a terrorist, then every army on earth is a terrorist group. They're called prisoners of war when your own country does it.Kmarion wrote:
Or perhaps kidnapping soldiers.jonsimon wrote:
They are a diplomatic entity and are in fact mislabeled terrorists because of their limited millitary might.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-01 06:27:05)
Agreed, we should just kill them. Behead them, on tape, and hang the body, set it on fire, then have 8 year old kids kick the body and hit them with shoes.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Since they started hyping the 'kidnapped soldiers' issue in the news I now refer to Gitmo prisoners as 'kidnapped soldiers'.jonsimon wrote:
If kidnapping soldiers makes you a terrorist, then every army on earth is a terrorist group. They're called prisoners of war when your own country does it.Kmarion wrote:
Or perhaps kidnapping soldiers.
That bill will never get through congress. They're short about 10 votes.Erkut.hv wrote:
Agreed, we should just kill them. Behead them, on tape, and hang the body, set it on fire, then have 8 year old kids kick the body and hit them with shoes.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Since they started hyping the 'kidnapped soldiers' issue in the news I now refer to Gitmo prisoners as 'kidnapped soldiers'.jonsimon wrote:
If kidnapping soldiers makes you a terrorist, then every army on earth is a terrorist group. They're called prisoners of war when your own country does it.
Sadly there probably would be quite a few congress members who would probably vote in favour. I wish people would learn that you can't expect to hold people to standards which you don't believe in yourself.CameronPoe wrote:
That bill will never get through congress. They're short about 10 votes.Erkut.hv wrote:
Agreed, we should just kill them. Behead them, on tape, and hang the body, set it on fire, then have 8 year old kids kick the body and hit them with shoes.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Since they started hyping the 'kidnapped soldiers' issue in the news I now refer to Gitmo prisoners as 'kidnapped soldiers'.
By wishing the same treatment upon prisoners taken by America, and complaints against that sort of treatment for prisoners taken by the other side become hypocritical and shallow. Although I sense a slight tone of irony, I can't help but wonder what proportion of that statement is true sentiment, and how much is simply a jab a perceived inequality of the treatment of prisoners.
We won't know until the other side comes out of the stone age will we. Until then they are free to stone to death rape victims and store boxes of women's " painted " fingernails that were removed because they found it offensive. Our guys will take a few degrading snap shots. I guess it cuts both ways in your eyes, not mine.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
By wishing the same treatment upon prisoners taken by America, and complaints against that sort of treatment for prisoners taken by the other side become hypocritical and shallow. Although I sense a slight tone of irony, I can't help but wonder what proportion of that statement is true sentiment, and how much is simply a jab a perceived inequality of the treatment of prisoners.
Sometimes a crazy rabid dog needs to be put down.
That's how I think of Muslim fanatics. Crazy rabid dogs.
That's how I think of Muslim fanatics. Crazy rabid dogs.
Since when are armies supposed to go back to old technology because the enemy hasn't got the same weapons. Thats like me running around Karkand with only a knife because no one else has got unlocks.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Can you not see his point????? You are saying it is cowardly not to fight in open warefare and Cameron is making the point that the Israelies' military arsenal is also designed to ensure they can strike from a safe distance. Flying a Jet over lebenon and dropping bombs from 1000s ft up in the air is hardly open warefare.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Cameron your always wrong, but you wont accept that. No US soldier would hide behind his wife and child after firing missles into another country. These actions by Hezbollah just show you how little they care for the people of lebanon. Ive seen videos of Hezbollah firing missles then getting in a truck and running into an apartment complex. If they cant take being killed in open combat then they should lay down their arms and give back the kidnapped soldiers.CameronPoe wrote:
Well if you think bombing houseloads of women and children from a few thousand feet up is 'brave' then I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
The funny thing is, if asked what you'd do to defend your country in spite of an organised military, you'd probably tell me how you take up arms and then have a pop at these guys for doing the same...
Agreed.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Sometimes a crazy rabid dog needs to be put down.
That's how I think of Muslim fanatics. Crazy rabid dogs.
I just find it ironic that we abuse prisoners by giving them PC meals to eat, time to pray, and what not. While when Americans have been taken captive, well, you've all seen the videos.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Sadly there probably would be quite a few congress members who would probably vote in favour. I wish people would learn that you can't expect to hold people to standards which you don't believe in yourself.CameronPoe wrote:
That bill will never get through congress. They're short about 10 votes.Erkut.hv wrote:
Agreed, we should just kill them. Behead them, on tape, and hang the body, set it on fire, then have 8 year old kids kick the body and hit them with shoes.
By wishing the same treatment upon prisoners taken by America, and complaints against that sort of treatment for prisoners taken by the other side become hypocritical and shallow. Although I sense a slight tone of irony, I can't help but wonder what proportion of that statement is true sentiment, and how much is simply a jab a perceived inequality of the treatment of prisoners.
Yet time and time again we are called dogs. Oh well, what can you do?
Plus, I want our gov't to take the gloves off a little bit. Our boys aren't allowed to fight the way they were trained to, it seems from the outside.
Except they dont have a limited amount of weapons. Iran sends them through Syria into Lebonan. I would say they have an unlimited amount of resources to wage a long battle with Israel. My big point is this. If Israel were to get out of Lebonan and give back the Palestinians land and leave them alone for good what would happen? Will that end the violence in the area. NO. It would just create a new conflict were these groups start fighting for land, create a humanitarian crisis, force the UN to send peace keepers, those peace keepers come under attack, return fire kill civilians and the cycle continues.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You don't think Hezbollah would use technology if that had it? Unlike Israel, they don't have U.S sponsored Blackhawks, Jets and Tanks. They don't have the biggest economy in the World bank rolling their activities or supplying them with weapons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Using technology and hiding behind women and children is a very very different thing. What do you want Israel to do? Not use their jets because its unsportsman like? If hezbollah dosent want to fight then why did they start this conflict?
With this in mind, only the most retarded Hezbollah leader would try and match Israel pound for pound, because they would lose!!!!! Would you enter a fight you couldn't win? Come on man, wake up and smell the coffee!
IF (and it's staying at 'if' untill I have seen enough evidence although I do conceed it is likely) Hezbollah are placing their launchers in residential areas, I would say it was because they wouldn't expect the Israelies to dare fire at them because of their positions rather than hoping they are fired on for some kind of PR conspiracy. It doesn't make sense, I mean......
Hez' leader - "let's place our rocket launchers, which are limited in numbers, here so they get blown up, reducing our aresnal, but getting the already tainted Israelies in the media's bad books" [/sarcasm]
....it would be a lot more hassle than its worth.
Wake up? Are you serious? You admit that Hezbollah takes their launchers into civilian centers. What difference does it make about their intent? Either way they are catching civilians in the cross fire. By hoping that Israel wont strike back because they are in civilian centers that is infact using the civilian population as a human shield. You just said it your self.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You don't think Hezbollah would use technology if that had it? Unlike Israel, they don't have U.S sponsored Blackhawks, Jets and Tanks. They don't have the biggest economy in the World bank rolling their activities or supplying them with weapons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Using technology and hiding behind women and children is a very very different thing. What do you want Israel to do? Not use their jets because its unsportsman like? If hezbollah dosent want to fight then why did they start this conflict?
With this in mind, only the most retarded Hezbollah leader would try and match Israel pound for pound, because they would lose!!!!! Would you enter a fight you couldn't win? Come on man, wake up and smell the coffee!
IF (and it's staying at 'if' untill I have seen enough evidence although I do conceed it is likely) Hezbollah are placing their launchers in residential areas, I would say it was because they wouldn't expect the Israelies to dare fire at them because of their positions rather than hoping they are fired on for some kind of PR conspiracy. It doesn't make sense, I mean......
Hez' leader - "let's place our rocket launchers, which are limited in numbers, here so they get blown up, reducing our aresnal, but getting the already tainted Israelies in the media's bad books" [/sarcasm]
....it would be a lot more hassle than its worth.
don't you know we should take pity on them because they are poor and can only target schoolbuses?
i concurrawls2 wrote:
Since when are armies supposed to go back to old technology because the enemy hasn't got the same weapons. Thats like me running around Karkand with only a knife because no one else has got unlocks.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Can you not see his point????? You are saying it is cowardly not to fight in open warefare and Cameron is making the point that the Israelies' military arsenal is also designed to ensure they can strike from a safe distance. Flying a Jet over lebenon and dropping bombs from 1000s ft up in the air is hardly open warefare.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Cameron your always wrong, but you wont accept that. No US soldier would hide behind his wife and child after firing missles into another country. These actions by Hezbollah just show you how little they care for the people of lebanon. Ive seen videos of Hezbollah firing missles then getting in a truck and running into an apartment complex. If they cant take being killed in open combat then they should lay down their arms and give back the kidnapped soldiers.
The funny thing is, if asked what you'd do to defend your country in spite of an organised military, you'd probably tell me how you take up arms and then have a pop at these guys for doing the same...
Exactly, the cycle continues. What we need is a definitive end to the conflict, i.e one side totally pwns the other. Its unfortunate, but that's how a lot of wars seem to end, with one side the clear winner. For example, dropping atomic bombs was horrific and killed heaps of people, but it sure as hell put the japs in their place and finished WW2.rawls2 wrote:
Except they dont have a limited amount of weapons. Iran sends them through Syria into Lebonan. I would say they have an unlimited amount of resources to wage a long battle with Israel. My big point is this. If Israel were to get out of Lebonan and give back the Palestinians land and leave them alone for good what would happen? Will that end the violence in the area. NO. It would just create a new conflict were these groups start fighting for land, create a humanitarian crisis, force the UN to send peace keepers, those peace keepers come under attack, return fire kill civilians and the cycle continues.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You don't think Hezbollah would use technology if that had it? Unlike Israel, they don't have U.S sponsored Blackhawks, Jets and Tanks. They don't have the biggest economy in the World bank rolling their activities or supplying them with weapons.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Using technology and hiding behind women and children is a very very different thing. What do you want Israel to do? Not use their jets because its unsportsman like? If hezbollah dosent want to fight then why did they start this conflict?
With this in mind, only the most retarded Hezbollah leader would try and match Israel pound for pound, because they would lose!!!!! Would you enter a fight you couldn't win? Come on man, wake up and smell the coffee!
IF (and it's staying at 'if' untill I have seen enough evidence although I do conceed it is likely) Hezbollah are placing their launchers in residential areas, I would say it was because they wouldn't expect the Israelies to dare fire at them because of their positions rather than hoping they are fired on for some kind of PR conspiracy. It doesn't make sense, I mean......
Hez' leader - "let's place our rocket launchers, which are limited in numbers, here so they get blown up, reducing our aresnal, but getting the already tainted Israelies in the media's bad books" [/sarcasm]
....it would be a lot more hassle than its worth.
So i suppose if a bank robber goes into someones house to hide we should just blow up the whole fucking house?
Israel had the option to take the moral high ground, go in on foot and take on Hezbollah. Instead they've shown there thirst for blood and have only guaranteed future terrorism in the area.
Terrorists vs Terrorists.
Israel had the option to take the moral high ground, go in on foot and take on Hezbollah. Instead they've shown there thirst for blood and have only guaranteed future terrorism in the area.
Terrorists vs Terrorists.
put that up because by reading this thread if you just link to it then nobody reads it.source wrote:
At the moment, international law seems to help the terrorists. According to former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians" is a violation of international law. By this formulation, any democracy that counterattacks terrorists who fire rockets from civilian population centres is guilty of war crimes. This must be changed.
It must become a war crime to fire rockets from civilian population centres and then hide among civilians. The terrorists, not their victims, must be deemed the war criminals.
It should, of course, already be a war crime for terrorists to target civilians from anywhere -- though you wouldn't know it by listening to statements from some UN leaders and "human rights" groups. But it exacerbates the existing crime to target civilians while using human shields.
Nor would it be enough simply to declare Hezbollah's cynical use of civilians as human shields to be a war crime. A multinational force must be empowered to enter the civilian areas from which the rockets have been, are being, or will be fired, and to remove them. This will not be easy, but if it were done it would change the nature of the conflict from one between Israel and Hezbollah to one between the international community and Hezbollah. If the international community believes that Israel is causing too many civilian casualties, let it try to disarm Hezbollah with fewer casualties and with more "proportionality."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news … 4a90605440
so wait a minute, a maj in the UN building is saying he can see Hezbolla static postions aroudn the complex, he also says that the close bombardment was at military targets. hmmmmsecond source wrote:
"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.
That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.
A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.
The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."
"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/new … 50&p=1
.....1st source again wrote:
The legitimization of Hezbollah's despicable tactics -- tactics that maximize civilian deaths on both sides -- transcends the Arab-Israeli dispute. It marks a new kind of warfare that must become a priority for the international community. To date, much of the criticism has been directed at Israel. At best, Israeli and Hezbollah tactics have been cast as morally equivalent -- despite the indisputable reality that Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties while Hezbollah seeks to maximize them.
Israel uses pinpoint intelligence and smart bombs in an effort, not always successful, to target the terrorists. Hezbollah, on the other hand, targets Israeli population centres with anti-personnel bombs that spray thousands of pellets of shrapnel in an effort to maximize casualties. There is no moral or legal equivalence between these intentions. But there is equivalence between the level of condemnation directed against them by some in the international community, human rights organizations and the media.
Hezbollah has learned how to use civilian casualties both as a shield and as a sword against democracies. They win every time they kill an Israeli civilian (as long as it is not an Israeli Arab, for which they shed crocodile tears and apologize). And they win every time they induce Israel to fire at them and kill Lebanese civilians.
Just as using human shields is a domestic crime in all civilized nations, so too must using human shields be a war crime under international law. Enforcing a prohibition against launching rockets from a civilian population centre would go a long way toward depriving Hezbollah of its most effective tactic.
If your country be it US , Ireland, france whatever, is being attacked by rockets from the neighbouring country what do you do? You send a diplomat over saying please stop, you recieve a video of him being butchered. you send another one, same thing happens. mean while you are still being blown up by rockets. but you dont want to fight back as the rocket postions are located in densly populate civilian areas. So you just sit there and watch your country blow up? no you go in and do the best you can to push them back from your borders as israel is doing.
As one of my quotes says, if an international body is going to critisize israel and say they are hurting too many civilians, then why dont the interantional body show them how to stop the rockets attacks without hurting civilians?
Except Israel has never tried diplomacy.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
.....
If your country be it US , Ireland, france whatever, is being attacked by rockets from the neighbouring country what do you do? You send a diplomat over saying please stop, you recieve a video of him being butchered. you send another one, same thing happens. mean while you are still being blown up by rockets. but you dont want to fight back as the rocket postions are located in densly populate civilian areas. So you just sit there and watch your country blow up? no you go in and do the best you can to push them back from your borders as israel is doing.
As one of my quotes says, if an international body is going to critisize israel and say they are hurting too many civilians, then why dont the interantional body show them how to stop the rockets attacks without hurting civilians?
You know, if Hezbollah are being cowards and doing all their diry work near women/children/civilians. Doesn't that mean that BOMBING THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF THEM (Using LGM's etc..), will obviously cause condemnation? Again, it seems Israel is playing right into Hezbollah's hands. Propaganda-wise.
I've said it before - needle in a haystack, that you want to get rid of? What do you do?
Israels response would be to blow up the haystack, terminating the needle. Real nice, isn't it?
Eg: Some guy throws a grenade and kills an soldier, then runs into the hospital. Blowing up the hospital would be a stupid way of dealing with it, right? Not to Israel. Not to those "War is bad, but it rules!" type of people
I've said it before - needle in a haystack, that you want to get rid of? What do you do?
Israels response would be to blow up the haystack, terminating the needle. Real nice, isn't it?
Eg: Some guy throws a grenade and kills an soldier, then runs into the hospital. Blowing up the hospital would be a stupid way of dealing with it, right? Not to Israel. Not to those "War is bad, but it rules!" type of people
Here's a quote:Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
put that up because by reading this thread if you just link to it then nobody reads it.source wrote:
At the moment, international law seems to help the terrorists. According to former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians" is a violation of international law. By this formulation, any democracy that counterattacks terrorists who fire rockets from civilian population centres is guilty of war crimes. This must be changed.
It must become a war crime to fire rockets from civilian population centres and then hide among civilians. The terrorists, not their victims, must be deemed the war criminals.
It should, of course, already be a war crime for terrorists to target civilians from anywhere -- though you wouldn't know it by listening to statements from some UN leaders and "human rights" groups. But it exacerbates the existing crime to target civilians while using human shields.
Nor would it be enough simply to declare Hezbollah's cynical use of civilians as human shields to be a war crime. A multinational force must be empowered to enter the civilian areas from which the rockets have been, are being, or will be fired, and to remove them. This will not be easy, but if it were done it would change the nature of the conflict from one between Israel and Hezbollah to one between the international community and Hezbollah. If the international community believes that Israel is causing too many civilian casualties, let it try to disarm Hezbollah with fewer casualties and with more "proportionality."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news … 4a90605440so wait a minute, a maj in the UN building is saying he can see Hezbolla static postions aroudn the complex, he also says that the close bombardment was at military targets. hmmmmsecond source wrote:
"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.
That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.
A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.
The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."
"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/new … 50&p=1.....1st source again wrote:
The legitimization of Hezbollah's despicable tactics -- tactics that maximize civilian deaths on both sides -- transcends the Arab-Israeli dispute. It marks a new kind of warfare that must become a priority for the international community. To date, much of the criticism has been directed at Israel. At best, Israeli and Hezbollah tactics have been cast as morally equivalent -- despite the indisputable reality that Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties while Hezbollah seeks to maximize them.
Israel uses pinpoint intelligence and smart bombs in an effort, not always successful, to target the terrorists. Hezbollah, on the other hand, targets Israeli population centres with anti-personnel bombs that spray thousands of pellets of shrapnel in an effort to maximize casualties. There is no moral or legal equivalence between these intentions. But there is equivalence between the level of condemnation directed against them by some in the international community, human rights organizations and the media.
Hezbollah has learned how to use civilian casualties both as a shield and as a sword against democracies. They win every time they kill an Israeli civilian (as long as it is not an Israeli Arab, for which they shed crocodile tears and apologize). And they win every time they induce Israel to fire at them and kill Lebanese civilians.
Just as using human shields is a domestic crime in all civilized nations, so too must using human shields be a war crime under international law. Enforcing a prohibition against launching rockets from a civilian population centre would go a long way toward depriving Hezbollah of its most effective tactic.
If your country be it US , Ireland, france whatever, is being attacked by rockets from the neighbouring country what do you do? You send a diplomat over saying please stop, you recieve a video of him being butchered. you send another one, same thing happens. mean while you are still being blown up by rockets. but you dont want to fight back as the rocket postions are located in densly populate civilian areas. So you just sit there and watch your country blow up? no you go in and do the best you can to push them back from your borders as israel is doing.
As one of my quotes says, if an international body is going to critisize israel and say they are hurting too many civilians, then why dont the interantional body show them how to stop the rockets attacks without hurting civilians?
Now, if that attack occurred on Lebanese soil, and the members who were not shot were arrested, then a counter raid to take prisoners for negotation would have been justified, would it not? And snatching those remaining Hezbollah members trying to arrest soldiers who had encroached on their turf could easily be described as a kidnap raid by Hezbollah. Of course, we don't know which side of the border that raid took place on, but the point remains:In the past few months, Hizbollah militiamen have made several abortive attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers. In one incident earlier this year 20 Hizbollah militiamen stormed a farm house close to the border in the mistaken belief that a group of Israeli soldiers had taken shelter inside. They were victims of an elaborate trap set by the Israeli army and most of the Hizbollah attackers were killed in the ensuing shoot-out.
If you walk around a poor neighbourhood fanning yourself with a wad of cash then you are asking to mugged. Both you and the mugger are partly to blame. And if you deliberately set traps for people, you are asking to have traps set for you.
edit: I bet you thought that was a hypothetical quote... it's not: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … xnews.html
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-02 10:16:35)
What if the USA's Democrats or Republicans started a shooting war with Mexico? Would they be considered a legit party or political organization at that point? NO SIR!!! They lose legitimacy at the point they act without governmental approval. Did Lebanon direct the kidnapping and missile attacks? They said "no", did they change their position?jonsimon wrote:
WRONG. Hezbollah is an organization which is a political party in Lebannon. They have a military wing with at least rudimentary organization, and a civillian wing which is well organized and provides many services to the people of lebannon. They can be reasoned with, and they can be talked to. They are a diplomatic entity and are in fact mislabeled terrorists because of their limited millitary might.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
hezbolla isnt a diplomatic entity... theyre terrorists... ffs, those cowards hide behind women and children.jonsimon wrote:
As a matter of fact yes. And how to stop the rockets? Well perhaps you could try diplomacy. Israel has refused to acknowledge Hezbollah as a diplomatic entity. This means any possibility of cutting a deal to stop the rockets or even agreeing to disagree is null. Israel sure exhausted a lot of effort to avoid killing those people before resorting to military action.
When Hizbollah operates unilaterally they are acting as terrorists. Is everyone in Hizbollah guilty by membership alone, I don't think so. When they fulfill their policital/social obligations to their constituancy by feeding the hungry and build houses and infrastructure in Southern Lebanon they are legitimate.
Why is everyone such twats about this...Hezbollahahahalalalalala is a terrorist organization with a political wing. Jihad this, Jihad that...they fucking Jihad for lunch. I also love how they hide their faces under those pieces of carpet..."I say defamatory things and make terroristic threats to foreign countries, but hide my face while doing it." Next week he has a bomb on his back and kills some poor bastard on his way to get a hair cut. Just unacceptable.jonsimon wrote:
WRONG. Hezbollah is an organization which is a political party in Lebannon. They have a military wing with at least rudimentary organization, and a civillian wing which is well organized and provides many services to the people of lebannon. They can be reasoned with, and they can be talked to. They are a diplomatic entity and are in fact mislabeled terrorists because of their limited millitary might.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
hezbolla isnt a diplomatic entity... theyre terrorists... ffs, those cowards hide behind women and children.jonsimon wrote:
As a matter of fact yes. And how to stop the rockets? Well perhaps you could try diplomacy. Israel has refused to acknowledge Hezbollah as a diplomatic entity. This means any possibility of cutting a deal to stop the rockets or even agreeing to disagree is null. Israel sure exhausted a lot of effort to avoid killing those people before resorting to military action.
Anyway, back to your arguement, if Hezbolla is a political organization and an acting governing entity within the borders of a country then their firing of weapons on a foreign country would consitute an act of agression - also called an act of war. Actually, I like their method better than the US'. We actually, like a complete bunch of imbiciles, go to the UN, ask for permission, try to gain support, give the enemy plenty of time to prepare.
Aside from nuking the entire region, there is no solution to the problem because, ah, THEY DON'T WANT ONE.
Yes, I just advocated the use of nuclear weapons (not to be confused with nukular weapons *that was me being funny*). The real point is, you'll never be able to tell the difference between the civilian and the terrorist (especially when they harbor them - so is there really a difference?), hence the nuke comment. I know, I know..."typical American" or do you spell it with a K. Ah, whatever.
Believe it or not it has been done.PRiMACORD wrote:
So i suppose if a bank robber goes into someones house to hide we should just blow up the whole fucking house?
Israel had the option to take the moral high ground, go in on foot and take on Hezbollah. Instead they've shown there thirst for blood and have only guaranteed future terrorism in the area.
Terrorists vs Terrorists.