cåblelady Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There's also the fact that most of the rank and file members of the army are shiite muslims and are unlikely to want to fight Hizbollah. 738491[/snapback] Oh, shiite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 What about the stuff they got from Afghanistan? 738422[/snapback] What about the stuff they got from Liechtenstein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 The disaster heaped on the Palestinians by the creation of Israel cannot be viewed as a singular event, as it ignores the disaster heaped upon the Kurds in the creation of Turkey and Iraq, or the disaster placed on the Ahwazi Arabs in Iran. Why are they less worthy of terrorist attacks and world pity? Again, this goes to the double standards that Israel is forced to live with. Its creation is deemed suspect, but the same post-colonial mandates that created the current Middle East nations are perfectly fine by the rest of the world. The UN and League of Nations sanctifying national borders are obviously legit when it comes to adherents of Islam, but not when it comes to the Jewish state. How many times can we have the circular argument about the viability of the Palestinian state? With whom were the Israelis negotiating prior to 2004? Who really doesn't want a peace deal? Just another question, don't you stop for a moment and ask if it's a coincidence that on the eve of Abbas' call for a referendum to resume negotiations with Israel, Hamas stepped up its rocket attacks and then crossed the border, only to be followed two days later by similar Hezb attacks? Stunning coincidence, no? Yet, Israel is expected to turn her cheek. 738138[/snapback] Hey you quoted me... I feel flattered... You made a very nice post... Yet, I expect them to turn the other cheek to forward peace. The problem here is that both sides are very similar in nature, both sides will not relent. I have always (in my views) have believed that the side with the most power and the most to give away SHOULD be the one to lead with concessions... IMO... Of course. Israel feels they got the deal they like and ran with it. The Palestinians feel they got the wrong end of the deal (no matter how much we debate this... I don't necessarily believe this also). The fact of the matter, that is not going to go away? What to do? Pummeling the weaker side into submission and remain with the staus quo will never change the above fact... People become more resistant and fight harder. You will have a festering problem till the end of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I'm not backing any side. If Israel had confined itself to attacking Hizbollah alone rather than blowing up the infrastructure of Lebanon in an act of collective punishment, I would have agreed that it was legitimate self-defence. 737934[/snapback] How, pray tell, are they supposed to do that given the positioning of Hizbollah's fighters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 How, pray tell, are they supposed to do that given the positioning of Hizbollah's fighters? 740206[/snapback] Special Forces. Lots and lots of them. It's worked for the Brits. (Of course, if the Israelis deployed Special Forces in an undeclared war in southern Lebanon to combat Hizb'Allah without blowing up all of Lebanon, people would not only B word about "Israeli aggression" as they are now, they'd B word about the "criminal" use of "death squads" in "hunting down" "civilians". ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 How, pray tell, are they supposed to do that given the positioning of Hizbollah's fighters? 740206[/snapback] I'm not saying that they can avoid attacking any of Lebanon's infrastructure at all, but the fact is that they have purposely been attacking Lebanon's infrastructure as a matter of policy, even when they are not going after Hizbollah, as an act of collective punishment. Israel basically admitted as much - I think the quote was that they would put Lebanon back by 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I'm not saying that they can avoid attacking any of Lebanon's infrastructure at all, but the fact is that they have purposely been attacking Lebanon's infrastructure as a matter of policy, even when they are not going after Hizbollah, as an act of collective punishment. Israel basically admitted as much - I think the quote was that they would put Lebanon back by 20 years. 740240[/snapback] Usually, the statement "bomb them back to the stone age" indicates the desire to inflict collective punishment on an entire state. But "Bomb them back to the '80's"? I'd just like to state, for the record, that I am not getting a Flock of Seagulls haircut again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I'd just like to state, for the record, that I am not getting a Flock of Seagulls haircut again... 740247[/snapback] Thanks for that image. Where the hell is that F-You smilie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Thanks for that image. Where the hell is that F-You smilie? 740278[/snapback] You think I feel all that good about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Will the Hizbollah be walking around dressed like Boy George or Michael Jackson in Thriller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Here's some video from Germany on the Green Helmet Guy staging phoyo ops in Lebanon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc Warning: Has a dead kid that the terrorists are using as a photo prop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 I'm not saying that they can avoid attacking any of Lebanon's infrastructure at all, but the fact is that they have purposely been attacking Lebanon's infrastructure as a matter of policy, even when they are not going after Hizbollah, as an act of collective punishment. Israel basically admitted as much - I think the quote was that they would put Lebanon back by 20 years. 740240[/snapback] Can you provide a link for this quote and/or anything similar that is not an editorial? Do you think Israel's intent is sport of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Can you provide a link for this quote and/or anything similar that is not an editorial? Do you think Israel's intent is sport of some kind? 740402[/snapback] Do a search of the news reports back around July 12nd. I found it on al Jazeera...which some might consider unreliable, but they generally have better journalistic integrity than to just completely make sh-- up (which puts them one up on Dan Rather, at least). "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years" Interesting thing about it though...I haven't seen it in any sort of context anywhere. On its own, the quote looks pretty bad (and in any context I can imagine, it's not good). But it doesn't necessarily mean collective retribution...it could simply mean "We'll set Lebanon's recovery from their civil war back to how their infrastructure was in the mid-80s", or "We'll destabilize the country back to what it was in the '80s, if the existing government can't control it." Both of which are a far cry from "We'll bomb them back to the stone age", as it's not infrequently interpreted. It's also a stupid policy. Lebanon's very anti-Syrian (or was a month ago, who knows now?) and was heading towards a measure of stability. A stable neighbor on its northern border is good for Israel. Instead, Israel's destabilizing the country and probably pushing it closer to Syria, both of which will make it easier for Hizb'Allah and other groups to operate there. Fortunately, it's a safe bet that Lt. Gen. Halutz doesn't make that policy...unfortunately, it seems that someone who does listened to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 The thing that galls me about Israeli policy is that they are fighting at times so as no to "appear" weak by giving up land that is stratigically useless to them... Tokens of '67 must mean a lot... And with that type of mentality (and I am not saying that Arabs don't habour this mentality either)... Peace will never be attained... Don't get me wrong... I am not saying that they shouldn't fight, defend themselves or take it to the enemy... But, to fight just to fight because of some gains made in the first war some 40 years ago is inexcusable, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Can you provide a link for this quote and/or anything similar that is not an editorial? Do you think Israel's intent is sport of some kind? 740402[/snapback] BBC link No, I don't think Israel's intent is sport. I believe there is some logic behind this, albeit a flawed logic. The idea is to punish the Lebanese people for their failure to control Hizbollah and, in this way, to get them to blame Hizbollah and turn on them. However, it seems to be having precisely the opposite effect: Christian support for Hizbollah "Basheer’s words were corroborated by a survey published on July 29 in the Daily Star, Beirut’s only English language newspaper. The paper printed a survey conducted by the Beirut Centre for Research and Information which reveals that 86.9 per cent of Lebanese support Hizbollah’s resistance against Israel. Hizbollah’s actions have the support of 96.3 per cent of Shias, 79.5 per cent of Druze, 80.3 per cent of Christians and 88.9 per cent of Sunnis. On the question of Hizbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers, 96.3 per cent of Shias supported the move, while 40 per cent of Druze, 54 per cent Christians, and 73.1 per cent of Sunnis approved. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 11, 2006 Author Share Posted August 11, 2006 BBC link No, I don't think Israel's intent is sport. I believe there is some logic behind this, albeit a flawed logic. The idea is to punish the Lebanese people for their failure to control Hizbollah and, in this way, to get them to blame Hizbollah and turn on them. However, it seems to be having precisely the opposite effect: Christian support for Hizbollah "Basheer’s words were corroborated by a survey published on July 29 in the Daily Star, Beirut’s only English language newspaper. The paper printed a survey conducted by the Beirut Centre for Research and Information which reveals that 86.9 per cent of Lebanese support Hizbollah’s resistance against Israel. Hizbollah’s actions have the support of 96.3 per cent of Shias, 79.5 per cent of Druze, 80.3 per cent of Christians and 88.9 per cent of Sunnis. On the question of Hizbollah capturing two Israeli soldiers, 96.3 per cent of Shias supported the move, while 40 per cent of Druze, 54 per cent Christians, and 73.1 per cent of Sunnis approved. " 740575[/snapback] Good. That means it's now OK to bomb everyone in Lebanon,a s they all support the main combatant in their country. Release the hounds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts