• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Lebanon's Official War on Israel


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#61

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:43 PM

RIght like if a faction of the turkish gov't abducted some Greek soldiers what would happen?


The key point is "faction". Anyway, we would certainly not bomb their civilian airports or kill innocent citizens. Rather we would seek a multilateral solution in conjuction with the UN and NATO. When Turkey invaded Cyprus and killed civilians we did not reciprocate in kind. We could have but we didn't. And let me tell you, that when the call was broadcast for military deployment at that time every male was ready to die for his country but not kill innocents. In all the rich history of Greece you will find many words and concepts but never atrocity. We have never bullied or exploited the weaker Albanians or Bulgarians of our borders. We never took revenge on the cruelty inflicted upon Greek women and children by the Turkish occupation. The Greeks have been some of the finest warriors in history but were never barbarians.

#62 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:44 PM

These are the facts. If the Arabs stopped attacking the Israeli's, that would be the end of the fighting. If the Israeli's stopped attacking the Arabs, that would be the end of the Israeli's

#63

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:46 PM

1. Which still does not answer the question of Hesb...'s act of war


What act of war? Abducting a soldier? Instead I'd be quartmarshalling the leader of the unit that allowed it to happen in the first place for incompetence and dereliction of duty.

War is only a last resort - not the first option.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 17 July 2006 - 03:49 PM

These are the facts. If the Arabs stopped attacking the Israeli's, that would be the end of the fighting. If the Israeli's stopped attacking the Arabs, that would be the end of the Israeli's


Israel has the backing and empathy of most of the world. It does not need to act unilaterally. It is damned stupid for their government to put its own people in jeopardy by indulging in a mini war which has the potential to draw into it the surrounding regions. It is totally irresponsible - but not surprising considering the leadership - for the US government to endorse it.

#65 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:07 PM

This is about regime change in Lebanon - at any price - including Israeli lives.

This is obvious. The Israeli people are sick and tired of the constant war and death that surrounding terrorist factions inundate them with day after day for years. Hezbollah is worth destroying .. NOT at the cost of massive civilian deaths- remember the Israelis are the one's telling people where they are about to bomb before they attack in order to spare civilian lives- NOT Hezbollah.

Well why do you talk as if Islam was the only threat to mankind?

That implication comes from your own head. Of course there are many threats to mankind. Bush isn't going to nuke anybody unless he really has to. Bush is not a fanatic (yes, he is a conservative, which means *gasp* he does stupid things like veto stem cell appropriations and crap- but he isn't fucking insane, and has no desire for death whatsoever, whereas Islamofacsists crave death above practically anything- and NO, NOBODY is insinuating that ALL muslims are fascist/extemists/terrorists/etc).

Let's not forget the absurdity of the situation.

That's right, Israel is under a constant attack from terrorists, and they APPEASE THE TERRORISTS rather than DESTROY THEM (pretty absurd! hopefully they are demonstrating a rational change)

True, there are some zionist terrorists, but they are the enemy of Israel just as much as Islamic terrorists.



Give me a moderate democrat to choose from and I'd launch Bush in a minute.

I'd probably agree with this, but I would want to make sure the democrat wasn't going to cut and run in Iraq, or appease terrorists in any way.


By the way would USA attack anything if it weren't for the oil or to stop the "communist threat"?

Because terrorists have ATTACKED US, declared WAR/JIHAD on us, and are actively and resourcefully attempting to KILL us.

DUH!

including the outright incompetence in the handling of Afghanistan and Iraq

What, attacking terroristic safe havens? Simply the act of STANDING UP to the terrorists is more than any Democrat would have done, I imagine. Even if they weren't optimal military procedures, they were effective and competent strategic decisions.

Anyway, we would certainly not bomb their civilian airports or kill innocent citizens. Rather we would seek a multilateral solution in conjuction with the UN and NATO.

Haha. The UN is useless (obviously), and Israel did not intentionally kill anybody innocent. They attacked civilian airports and transportation as a means to thoroughly destroy Hezbollah's capabilities in Lebanon.


War is only a last resort - not the first option.

As if this is the first time Israel has tried to handle Hezbollah.

The UN passed a resolution that said Hezbollah was to be disbanded and disarmed. Lebanon couldn't do it because Hezbollah owns their government, the UN does nothing except pass resolutions and thus took no effective action, so Israel really IS acting according to the UN- and this IS a last resort, because nothing has changed since the UN resolution passed in the 80s.

has the potential to draw into it the surrounding regions

THANK GOD FOR THAT... let's destroy the power center of EVIL TERRORISTS... Why is it such an impossible thought that we might attempt to stop people actively trying to kill us (particularly if you are an Israeli!) ???


enough political ranting for now...

#66 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:12 PM

"why do you talk as if Islam was the only threat to mankind? What about a creationist retarded president with nuclear weapons? "

Either you are not aware of the implications of what you are saying, or you do not wish to own up to them.


Well, because the Muslims are the only ones able and foolish enough to use it just like that, they do not mind dying, you see that everyday + they believe the Shahada.

-Infernity


You dont understand my words, threats are threats independent of their nature and degree of danger, just because one threat is less dangerous that does not make it a Non-Threat.

The world is full of stupid people that one day does anything so stupid that no one even thought it was possible to happen.

Lets look at this: the USA suffers a heavy terrorist attack, they think the terrorists are hiding in pakistan so they nuke the place, pakistan nukes israel in response, israel nukes pakistan, then north korea takes advantage of the situation and nukes japan and so on... after this they catch the minds behind the attack playing poker in some Casino... then we're all in danger because of the nuclear winter that will follow this sittuation

Bush is not only a threat to peace as he is also a threat to scientific development because of his fanatic views on science, give him enough power and all your children will be learning intelligent design and stuff like that.

By the way, we have many muslims here in my country, most black people here are either christian or muslims(yes there are many muslims in africa too) and I dont see them killing themselves because some idiot says they are doing god's will.
A tip read the koran and compare to the what fanatics say it contains.
I guess if it is alright to call all muslims fanatics then it is alright to do so to jews and christians.

See you around.

#67 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:15 PM

NO, NOBODY is insinuating that ALL muslims are fascist/extemists/terrorists/etc

NO, NOBODY is insinuating that ALL muslims are fascist/extemists/terrorists/etc

NO, NOBODY is insinuating that ALL muslims are fascist/extemists/terrorists/etc

NO, NOBODY is insinuating that ALL muslims are fascist/extemists/terrorists/etc



#68 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:19 PM

hankconn i've got net lag or something when posting I only saw your post (and others) after posting [tung]

#69 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:25 PM

then we're all in danger because of the nuclear winter that will follow this sittuation


Massive nuclear war is a major concern. Personally, I'm not the head of the CIA, so I don't know what exactly the state is of nuclear proliferation in terrorist states or factions around the world.

You are right in that some fool in the US government could screw something up really, really bad and end up causing a massive nuclear war, but that isn't really the major concern.

I think the biggest concern is effectively sealing our border, creating an effective missile defense system, continuing to create new surveillance/intelligence technologies and methodologies, and having a "Zero-Fucking-Tolerance" policy on WMDs in the hands of crazy people in positions of power.

Which makes me all the more wary of Democrats in office.

(but like I said I think this all ultimately boils down to the race for computational general intelligence)

Edited by hankconn, 17 July 2006 - 04:37 PM.


#70 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:28 PM

In the last 50 years I can't remember any other country fighting along side the Israeli's to protect Israel.

The Israeli's have tried to make peace time and time again. I really don't see that they have any choice except to fight to survive.

#71 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:45 PM

In the last 50 years I can't remember any other country fighting along side the Israeli's to protect Israel.

The Israeli's have tried to make peace time and time again. I really don't see that they have any choice except to fight to survive.


1956 Suez Crisis - UK, France, Israel

Yes this one was exactly 50 years ago, has israel asked for UN intervention on any of the following "wars"?(this is a question I am no expert in israel history)

I know that in the begining of israel it was protected in some way by the UK I think, after all not much people would be happy when some other country suddenly declares a part of their territory as an independent state lol

:)

#72 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:46 PM

Prometheus,

Nicely said. I don't agree about the worth of the UN or multi-lateralism, but I understand where you are coming from.

Don't remember if I've posted this here, but here is a...piece of "fiction" which includes a lesson on the dangers of not being ruthless when one should be...courtesy of Thucydides, ancient Athens and Syracuse (Dan Simmons usually has his facts checked pretty well, though the point is a valid one even if the history is controversial)

http://www.dansimmon...age/2006_04.htm

Hank,

I agree, the problem is finding any republicans any better then the democrats....Zell Miller that's the guy. Let's get him to come out of retirement and run for president. Any other old style southern democrats around?

Evil,

"A tip read the koran and compare to the what fanatics say it contains."

Though there are debates, it is totally irrelevant, right now the reality is they, not George Bush and his Evil henchman Karl Rove are the one going around blowing things up. All else is imagination.

#73 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 04:52 PM

Scottl
If we had used imagination to antecipate the arab fanatism we would not have this problem now, but people decided to let it go for so long that when things started to blow up really bad they were already highly efficient and organized cells. One must deal with the problems before giving them time to develop and not wait until something blows up.

#74 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 05:02 PM

If we had used imagination to antecipate the arab fanatism we would not have this problem now, but people decided to let it go for so long that when things started to blow up really bad they were already highly efficient and organized cells. One must deal with the problems before giving them time to develop and not wait until something blows up.


*ahem* ...

Iran developing nuclear technology ... [mellow]

#75 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 05:05 PM

I'm not limiting myself to arabs, I'm more afraid right now of north korea that almost for sure has nukes than Iran.
What has been done to deal with them before? Nothing.
Why? Not worthy no oil there.

Be back later :)

#76 seeker_of_time

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 07:08 PM

Let's not forget the absurdity of the situation. The Hezbollah abducted an Israeli soldier. Rather sending a crack team of elite commandos to rescue and eliminate those responsible, the Israeli government launches a war on Lebanon.


Hey All, hope tomorrow i will get to sleep a little more then 6 hours or something like that...
Anyways I'd like to make few things clear, with an emphesise on that quote...

First...The situation isnt absurd at all and no one should take it so lightly , so please trust me when i say there arent no easy solotions to our problems in the middle east.

As a result saying "sending a crack team of elite commandos to rescue and eliminate those responsible" sounds to me very arrogant and childish (nothing personal :) ) since its not a video game and every one must remember its people lives on the line, and exposing any infantry on hostile ground is deadly.

Second...I would like to correct you guys in this forum...Israel government doesn't launch a war on lebanon as you said...it launches an attack on Hezbollah, So if you guys think its something about changing lebanon's government or method of controlling its own country then your wrong..its about eliminating terrorist groups inside lebanon.

Needless to say that if lebanon is being damaged thats because it allows these organizations develop and collect more and more harmful weapons.


I realy hope we get to do the job and clean that cancer which lebanon should'v cleaned long ago .

#77 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2006 - 07:23 PM

I'm not limiting myself to arabs, I'm more afraid right now of north korea that almost for sure has nukes than Iran.
What has been done to deal with them before? Nothing.
Why? Not worthy no oil there.

Be back later :)


Shall we discuss the president responsible....?

#78 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 07:44 PM

Well scottl I think the responsability on that falls on UN members and on the UN itself for being so useless.
There are more oil interested countries besisdes USA, UK and France only helped Israel on the Suez Crises because of that.
Don't you agree?

#79 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2006 - 07:50 PM

I was adressing this:

"I'm more afraid right now of north korea"

#80 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11

Posted 17 July 2006 - 07:54 PM

Our "Dear Leader" enlightens us on what needs to happen in the Middle East.

Bush caught on tape swearing about Syria

#81 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:09 PM

Scottl,
If Kim Il Sung and now Kim Yong Il were not allowed to build them by the UN, North Korea would not be a problem right now.

#82 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:20 PM

The UN is about as effective as prayer...nah prayer may occasionally do something.

While diplomacy and groups of nations can certainly accomplish something, the UN by virtue of the way it is set up is useless (not to mention corrupt--oil for food ring a bell?). The US should withdraw and kick them out.

I could be wrong, but off he top of my head I believe Clinton our dear oh so effective former president had a hand in North Korea.

#83 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:35 PM

Edit: this was a reply to Don who deleted his post.


Where is there a simple solution listed? Getting rid of the UN is not a solution, merely getting rid of a useless tool--no not useless, expensive and counterproductive.

#84 Trias

  • Guest
  • 270 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:37 PM

Harold and everybody:

A few points I'd like to clear about the current situation here in Israel.

-First and foremost, Israel primary target is not the restoring of the abducted soldiers, but the absolute defeat of the surrounding terrorist organizations, who grow strength with every passing day and threaten to harm Israeli civilians for years (listen for Na'sralla's speeches, and take a glance at the Hamas' declaration of principles).

-The IAF does not strike at civilian-concentration-regions. Instead, our bombings are specifically and precisely aimed at Hezbollah's targets, wether infrastructure, arsenals or offices. Putting a stop to the chain of command of this terror group is inevitable.

-Problem is, the Hezbollah people hide their weapons and launchers in civilian buildings. Such buildings serve as missle luanching zones as well. In the least, we send out warnings to the civilians nearby prior to bombing.

-Unlike us, Hezbollah's military units shoot their missles specifically on Israel's civilian-concentration-regions, to damage and kill as much civilians as possible and to create terror amongst our people.

-Lebanon is a sovereign country, just like Israel. They are responsible for everything coming out of their country. If missles are what's coming out, they are the ones to blame for. How would they react if Israeli terrorist groups start shooting missles at south Lebanon and abduct two Lebenese soldiers for no reason, without antecedent provocation? -This is the Lebanese government's responsibility. 100%.

-The UN has dictated that Lebanon must dispatch its army at the Israeli border in the south, that in order to prevent actions such as the Israeli soldiers' abduction. Lebanon neglected her duty for years, allowing this murderous group to rein freely and gain strength without obstacles.

-The Israeli army cannot just send commando units to rescue the soldeirs becasuse we don't know where they are stored. For all we know, the Huzballah might have transferred them to Iran already (the country endorses Huzballah openly). Again, the main mission is not the rescuing of the soldiers - but the destruction of this wrteched terror network; something we should have taken care off years ago.

This time, there are no more hesitations.

#85 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:45 PM

inarchunite..

This time, there are no more hesitations.

**** yeah.


and good eye, Don.

#86 PeriPhysis

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2006 - 08:57 PM

Scottl
Getting rid of the UN could cause more problems in my opinion, I think we must make it work like it is supposed to or it will become another failure like the League of Nations and there will be a WW3 soon.

#87 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 09:17 PM

newt gengrich is saying we are in the early stages of WW3

#88 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 17 July 2006 - 11:38 PM

This person has done a graphic using Google Earth seeing how far into Israel Hezbollah can reach with their bombs.

Here is a smaller version of the image, as requested by Jay:
Posted Image


For the full sized image, see here:
http://static.flickr...d7762133c_o.jpg

Edited by Live Forever, 18 July 2006 - 01:34 AM.


#89

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:02 AM

the main mission is not the rescuing of the soldiers - but the destruction of this wrteched terror network


Then this is not about the occurance of Casus belli as mainstream media and Israel diplomats are seeking to suggest to make the strikes more palatable to world opinion. This is not the about the value that Israel places on a single soldier.. The general attitude of most Israelis seems to be reflected in your sentiments - unadulterated vengeance. You know and I know- this is not the conduct of civilized people.


our bombings are specifically and precisely aimed at Hezbollah's targets, wether infrastructure, arsenals or offices


The main international airport is a Hezbollah target? I'm sure there are numerous military installations that the airforce can target. Why on earth prevent civilians from leaving Beirut? Hezbollah are fighters and they welcome the conflict - but why target civilan targets, particularly the only main means to leave the country?

I'll suggest a reason: to instill widespread fear and panic in the general civilian population. Fear and panic = terror. Now the only reason this act cannot be called terrorism is if it is given legal legitimacy which in this case can only occur under the auspices of a declaration of war.

What was the act of war again?

#90

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:24 AM

This person has done a graphic using Google Earth seeing how far into Israel Hezbollah can reach with their bombs.


Each time a rocket is fired by Hezbollah its point of origin can be immediately detected based on the network of military satellites that Israel has access to. It is a simple matter to deploy a guided weapon within seconds to that point of origin. Considering that these launch sites are very likely to be mobile use of an explosive with a wide spread will ensure that even if the target is missed that collateral damage will be sufficiently destructive to disourage future cooperation by non-Hezbollah personel. In parallel provide an anonymous means of informing on key locations and activities of Hezbollah that once confirmed can be targeted. Ensure there are financial incentives for the provision of strategically valuable data and there will be a constant stream of intelligence to undermine the enemy. Much better than bombing international civilian airports.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users