# UN secretary-general slams Israeli raid



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is accusing Israel of violating the fragile ceasefire between that nation and Hezbollah in the wake of a deadly commando raid in eastern Lebanon Saturday.
> In a statement Saturday, Annan said he is "deeply concerned" about the "violation" of the truce deal, adding that Israeli aircraft had also committed several "air violations" of the ceasefire.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=0994c806-78eb-4fa7-8e86-87cc6fcae567&k=46619

Pretty much says it all - Can't wait to hear Israeli apologists...I guess they don't really want peace....and it goes with what Israel does best: violate treaties...

Of course if "the other side" had broken the truce, we'd be hearing about it ad nauseam...

and you can couple it with:


> Palestinian deputy prime minister seized, wife claims
> 
> Israeli soldiers burst into the home of the Palestinian deputy prime minister before dawn Saturday and took him away for questioning, detaining the highest-ranking Hamas official in a seven-week-old crackdown against the ruling Islamic militant group.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060818.wisrael0818/BNStory/Front
Just add another kidnapping victim to the 9500 or so POWs that Israel has....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hmmm, civilians forced into hiding to avoid being kidnapped/captured by an armed force

what does that sound familiar?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macspectrum - Congratulations on your 10 000th post. :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> Macspectrum - Congratulations on your 10 000th post. :clap:


Congrats Michael. But should we count the ones about Don Cherry?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

don cherry is a horrible example of being Canadian
he's an elitist and a bigot
hardly "Canadian"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Here you go, then.

It matters not if you don't want to hear from what you call "Israeli apologists."

It remains that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations that exist to kill innocent Israelis, and who don't care how many of their own people, soldiers, women and children have to die to make their point.

Under their rule, you have the right to hate and to practise high levels of prejudice and misogyny. It's in the curriculum of the regular schools. If that's what you want to win, go join up. It's tiresome that you cannot tell the difference between the two; and that you probably never will.

I notice that you haven't made references to explanations for the Israeli raid, which apparently was intended to stop the flow of Syrian and Iranian rockets into Lebanon-still.

Link
"Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from Iran and Syria to the militant Shiite fighters."

So which ceasefire violation came first, or do you even care?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> So which ceasefire violation came first, or do you even care?


chicken and egg argument


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver, what a joke. Keep on with your tired BS - I'm glad you may convince yourself. I'm not saying that some of what you say is not true - but you have such a black and white view that it's frankly a joke...

Seems that some are opening their eyes...


> député libéral d'Etobicoke-Centre, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, a en effet affirmé que le Canada devrait retirer le Hezbollah de sa liste d'organisations considérées comme terroristes.
> 
> Sa position est en partie partagée par la députée bloquiste Maria Mourani, qui explique ne pas avoir la même vision du mouvement chiite qu'avant son départ: « Quand on a quitté le Canada, c'était très clair [qu'on ne rencontrerait] aucun militant du Hezbollah, et c'est ce qu'on fait. Mais à chaque fois qu'on rencontre quelqu'un, ils disent: “vous vous trompez, vous voyez la chose différemment” ».


http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/National/2006/08/20/001-canada-hezbollah.shtml

Continue on Hasbara warriors....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and he's "right" next door to Iggy's riding....
I'm guessing those two aren't exchanging Christmas cards this year


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks, the important parts are true, and the rest is true too.

So long as you're posting one-sided ASBS, the other side needs to be referenced--you know, the side most mainstream media believe because they have the resources to do the research, and because they don't have the built-in bias that you like.




ArtistSeries said:


> HowEver, what a joke. Keep on with your tired BS - I'm glad you may convince yourself. I'm not saying that some of what you say is not true - but you have such a black and white view that it's frankly a joke...
> 
> Seems that some are opening their eyes...
> 
> ...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm not sure which part AS thinks is true and which part isn't, but this statement is complete garbage:

"Israel said the raid was launched to stop arms smuggling from Iran and Syria to the militant Shiite fighters."

...when you read about the details of the raid and what transpired.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Too bad IDF has pretty much spent most credibility it had.

After bombing the roads, controlling the skies, imposing a naval blockade, Israeli claims it was stopping Hezbollah from rearming – sounds more like carrying out a targeted assassination…


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Wonder why we call this "assassination"; I guess it sounds much better than pre-medidated murder.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I guess this is a terrorist.....


> He sneaked into his office at the ministry when he could, took paperwork with him and made calls for work from hidden locations, organizing the start of the Palestinian school year. This weekend, he met his wife and six children after they had left their high-rise apartment to rendezvous secretly at another house. That's where the Israelis found him.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/20/AR2006082000690.html

Unlike many, seems that Haaretz starting to point out the obvious... 


> This is no way to make a deal
> 
> ...discussions will begin on the list of 600 prisoners Israel would release in exchange (for Corporal Gilad Shalit). The list will include Palestinian women imprisoned in Israel, youths under 18, veteran prisoners who have been held since before the Oslo Accords, and the sick.
> 
> he Israeli government acts as if the Palestinian political running around does not concern it. Business proceeds as usual with the uprooting of olive trees, lately in the village of Zbuba in the Jenin district, and the expropriation of lands for use of the wall and the settlements (last week complaints came from the areas of Susiya, Halhoul, Beit Omar and Al-Arub in Mount Hebron, and from Tul Karm and Paron in Samaria). Raids, assassinations and arrests continue, the last of which was of Deputy Prime Minister Nasser al-Shaer of Hamas, who was taken from his Ramallah home and joined the dozens of Hamas politicians, including ministers and Parliament members, who are imprisoned in Israel. Related to this or not, various organizations' cells in the West Bank are preparing for attacks, and as usual there is no end to the abuses at the checkpoints, which, apart from the women of Machsom Watch, no longer bother anyone in Israel.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/752754.html


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

But what is there to suggest that Israel is wrong in bombing continued arms shipments from Syria and Lebanon?

It goes back to the events in July: according to people like you, Israel should just roll over and let Hezbollah collect and fire missiles, stockpiling however many thousands of them it wants, with no answer.

So if Hezbollah was re-arming against the UN resolution, and the UN does nothing about it, what would you do? Ask them nicely to stop? Sure you would.

Yesterday Iran tested a dozen long-range missiles capable of delivering its nuclear arms, now under development. I guess if that was aimed at Montreal or Toronto, you'd just ask the UN to ask them nicely to point the missiles somewhere else.







ArtistSeries said:


> Too bad IDF has pretty much spent most credibility it had.
> 
> After bombing the roads, controlling the skies, imposing a naval blockade, Israeli claims it was stopping Hezbollah from rearming – sounds more like carrying out a targeted assassination…


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> But what is there to suggest that Israel is wrong in bombing continued arms shipments from Syria and Lebanon?


Please - Lebanon shipping arms to who? 
What arms shipments? 
Of course Israel has vowed to kill Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, UN be damned....



HowEver said:


> It goes back to the events in July: according to people like you, Israel should just roll over and let Hezbollah collect and fire missiles, stockpiling however many thousands of them it wants, with no answer.


A little revisionist here? The pretext was the kidnapping - stick the story line please...  




HowEver said:


> *Yesterday Iran tested a dozen long-range missiles* capable of delivering its nuclear arms, now under development. I guess if that was aimed at Montreal or Toronto, you'd just ask the UN to ask them nicely to point the missiles somewhere else.


Your translation machine seems to be broken again hasbara warrior... 


> Iran tests short-range missile


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/20/iran.wargames/

But why care about facts when you have a propaganda war to wage....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Your quoting is ridiculous here. Even you realize I meant Iran and Syria shipping arms into Lebanon, as they have been doing for years. Arming Hezbollah terrorists for war.

The UN wants to stop these shipments also, or have you missed that point?



ArtistSeries said:


> Please - Lebanon shipping arms to who?
> What arms shipments?
> Of course Israel has vowed to kill Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, UN be damned....
> 
> ...


Short-range or long-range, the point was that the missiles would reach Israel. I'm sure this point hasn't escaped you, it clearly isn't propoganda, it's something Iran is quite proud of.

So, is this something you want to happen, or is this something you want to defend against or prevent?

It certainly sounds like you don't give a **** if these missiles reach Israel.


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

Interesting enough are the different view Canadian ans Quebequers have on this conflict.

ArtistSeries, I admit that part of what you're saying is true, but I totaly dislike the way you do it because you're not open to discution, but rather trying to impose your point of view.

I know that Quebec's news are great at defending the "poor" side and wherever there is more emphasis on the passionate side.


let me copy you a speech of Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, published in Maariv on Monday, July 31, 2006




Ehud Olmert said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.
> 
> The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel. We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere.
> 
> ...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Willy Z said:


> Interesting enough are the different view Canadian ans Quebequers have on this conflict.


Quebecers ARE Canadians.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

HowEver said:


> But what is there to suggest that Israel is wrong in bombing continued arms shipments from Syria and Lebanon?


The point is there were no arm shipments where the raid took place. There was also no bombing. You need to read the details of what transpired.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

*United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is accusing Israel of violating the fragile ceasefire between that nation and Hezbollah in the wake of a deadly commando raid in eastern Lebanon Saturday.
In a statement Saturday, Annan said he is "deeply concerned" about the "violation" of the truce deal, adding that Israeli aircraft had also committed several "air violations" of the ceasefire.*




ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=0994c806-78eb-4fa7-8e86-87cc6fcae567&k=46619
> 
> Pretty much says it all - Can't wait to hear Israeli apologists...I guess they don't really want peace....and it goes with what Israel does best: violate treaties...
> 
> ...



Kofi is a big part of the problem. (As is the UN and the EU at this point. ) He is “concerned” about Israel breaking the ceasefire but doesn’t speak out about the transferring of replacement weapons from Iran to Syria for eventual transshipment to Hezbollah. There have been reports that Turkey forced down at least six flights from Iran to Syria to check the cargo. One flight had anti-ship missiles and was turned back. The others had paperwork saying that they were destined for the Syrian Army. I guess the Syrian Army needs resupply after the war. The ceasefire has already been broken whether Kofi wants to admit or not - *by Lebanon*. When Lebanon said they would do nothing to disarm Hezbollah, *as is their duty under 1701*, but that the army would stand beside Hezbollah in the resistance, long before the raid took place, they effectively tore 1701 up. (Did I miss the speech by Kofi where he expressed his "concern" at the Lebanese government saying this)?

The UN as an organization, is part of the problem since 1701 was not instituted under Chapter 7 which would call for the UN peacekeepers being able to enforce the ceasefire as opposed to Chapter 6 which does not. The peacekeeping force is a farce. They can’t get countries to contribute since they know the rules under which they are deployed are vague and therefore, useless. The timetable called for the force to be in place is outrageous. It will take up to a year to get the whole force in place. I have a news flash. They don’t have a year if they really want an effective ceasefire. 

Finally the EU is part of the problem. They bleated about getting a ceasefire, strutted around about participating in the peacekeeping force, but when it came time to ante up, suddenly became very shy. France, which boasted that they wanted to lead the force suddenly became squeamish and instead of contributing thousands as originally said they would, contributed only a couple of hundred. (Whatever happened to the vaunted French Foreign Legion. that they used to fight their colonial wars. isn’t it available.) Finland has said they will send some troops but not until November. Too little, too late. Italy is the only EU nation that has had the guts to contribute, and they weren’t one of the loud mouth nations. Take is cheap, as the EU has proven.

Don’t keep blaming just Israel. If you take a little more objective view of this mess, there is enough blame for *all* parties involved.

Voyager

P.S. I find it ironic that Hezbollah is giving out $12,000 cash in crisp, new $100 US bills to up to 15,000 people. That adds up tp 150 million dollars. Wonder where they picked up that kind of change?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

inetersting that in his speech the PM of Israel didn't bother to mention ANYTHING about the "investigations" into the civilians deaths and the destruction of a manned UN observation outpost

we're still waiting to hear why a Canadian working under a UN flag was killed when the output contacted the IDF several times and was given assurance that they would NOT be bombed

the IDF knew the building was there and acknowledged as such
the building is clearly marked
the only answer is that the destruction of the outpost was meant to send a message to the UN
message received


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the problem would solve itself quite speedily if ALL arms shipments stopped to all countries in the middle east

they would eventually expend their munitions and we might have a lasting peace amongst elements in the area that seem to thrive on war


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Sadly, I think the response from the rest of the world (read: I don't think most heads of state even got briefed on these events) proves that the UN can't 'slam' anything. Don't get me wrong, I believe the UN has a role in the world (humanitarian aid, keeping some form of dialogue going between most nations of the world). However, finger wagging shouldn't be one of them.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the problem would solve itself quite speedily if ALL arms shipments stopped to all countries in the middle east
> 
> they would eventually expend their munitions and we might have a lasting peace amongst elements in the area that seem to thrive on war



Guaranty me that * all* sides would abide by it and I might agree with you. When you come up with a plan to change the mindsets of *all* involved, let me know. And, good luck selling it to some of the individuals since they probably consider you a "*****" and therefore "najis"

Voyager


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Interesting that you conveniently forget that (1) the Canadian himself said that the Israelis were bombing strategic targets a few metres away from the UN post. Unless you're being held a gunpoint, if you notice Hezbollah camped a few metres away using you as a shield, get the hell away;

and (2) Kofi Annan convicted Israel of "deliberately" targetting the UN post a few hours after it happened while at the same time calling for an investigation. This little irony was pointed out at the time. What would be the best timeframe for Mr. Annan's retraction?

Remember that the UN is not a majority of democracies. Large dictatorships get the same votes there as the small puppet dictatorships. And their biases are well-documented.





MACSPECTRUM said:


> inetersting that in his speech the PM of Israel didn't bother to mention ANYTHING about the "investigations" into the civilians deaths and the destruction of a manned UN observation outpost
> 
> we're still waiting to hear why a Canadian working under a UN flag was killed when the output contacted the IDF several times and was given assurance that they would NOT be bombed
> 
> ...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager - I don't see where Kofi is a big part of the problem at all.

What do arms shipments from Iran to Syria have to do with UN resolution 1701? That talks about arms shipments into Lebanon.
And exactly how did an Israeli commando raid inside Lebanon disrupt those shipments? Which shipments? There was no evidence from either the Israeli or lebanon side that there were any arms shipments where the raid took place.

I thought the Lebanese government made it quite clear that the only legitimate arms in the area in question would be those of the Lebanese army and the UN. And Hezbollah agreed to that as soon as the Israeli army completed their pull out of Lebanon.
All elements of the resolution can't be implemented immediately, but right now Hezbollah is doing a better job in following the spirit of the UN resolution that Israel, and Hezbollah wasn't even at the negotiating table.........well maybe just a little through their two representatives in the Lebanese government.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

HowEver said:


> and (2) Kofi Annan convicted Israel of "deliberately" targetting the UN post a few hours after it happened while at the same time calling for an investigation. This little irony was pointed out at the time. What would be the best timeframe for Mr. Annan's retraction?


Israel offered to do a detailed investigation. And not only of that episode.

What happened to those - that is the question.

And the Israeli army has already admitted that the UN post was deliberately targetted. the only question is "Why?" Last I read, two groups in the army were blaming each other for the mishap.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Interesting that you conveniently forget that (1) the Canadian himself said that the Israelis were bombing strategic targets a few metres away from the UN post. Unless you're being held a gunpoint, if you notice Hezbollah camped a few metres away using you as a shield, get the hell away;
> 
> and (2) Kofi Annan convicted Israel of "deliberately" targetting the UN post a few hours after it happened while at the same time calling for an investigation. This little irony was pointed out at the time. What would be the best timeframe for Mr. Annan's retraction?
> 
> Remember that the UN is not a majority of democracies. Large dictatorships get the same votes there as the small puppet dictatorships. And their biases are well-documented.


convenient that you "forget" that the outpost contacted the IDF 8 times and was assured by the IDF they would NOT be bombed

tell me again how the IDF doesn't target civilians?
when do we put IDF on trial for war crimes?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Voyager - I don't see where Kofi is a big part of the problem at all.
> 
> What do arms shipments from Iran to Syria have to do with UN resolution 1701? That talks about arms shipments into Lebanon.
> And exactly how did an Israeli commando raid inside Lebanon disrupt those shipments? Which shipments? There was no evidence from either the Israeli or lebanon side that there were any arms shipments where the raid took place.
> ...


How does Iran get arms into Lebanan. It doesn't have a direct border with Lebanan. They go through Syria. The resolution calls for Hezbollah to be north of the Latani River. They, by all accounts, aren't. Hezbollah is never going to disarm. They had the chance to do so after Israel pulled out of Lebanan in 2000 after their stated goal was accomplished but they didn't. Instead they build massive bunker and tunnel systems and amassed huge numbers of missles and other weapons. Israel found hight goggles that were given to Iran as part of an anti drug smuggling campaign. Strange they should be found on a battlefield, isn't it. It's unfortunate you don't see Kofi for what he is. Why has he had his picture taken shaking hands with Nasrallah? All in a day's work meeting heads of state?

Voyager


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

If Israel's beef is really with Syria and Iran, why doesn't Israel go to war with them?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> If Israel's beef is really with Syria and Iran, why doesn't Israel go to war with them?


those are far more expensive military actions
lest Israel use her nuclear arsenal which they either do or do not have...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> How does Iran get arms into Lebanan. It doesn't have a direct border with Lebanan. They go through Syria. The resolution calls for Hezbollah to be north of the Latani River. They, by all accounts, aren't. Hezbollah is never going to disarm. They had the chance to do so after Israel pulled out of Lebanan in 2000 after their stated goal was accomplished but they didn't. Instead they build massive bunker and tunnel systems and amassed huge numbers of missles and other weapons. Israel found hight goggles that were given to Iran as part of an anti drug smuggling campaign. Strange they should be found on a battlefield, isn't it. It's unfortunate you don't see Kofi for what he is. Why has he had his picture taken shaking hands with Nasrallah? All in a day's work meeting heads of state?
> 
> Voyager


I know Iran doesn't have a direct border with Lebanon, but you can't assume that arms shipments to Syria automatically end up with Hezbollah. How would Syria ever be able to obtain arms for their own needs if you made that assumption.
Shipments would have to be illegal and cross the Lebanese frontier before they could be considered arms shipments to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah north of the Latani River - Depends how you define Hezbollah. Are Lebanese who took up arms against the Israelis (as freedom fighters by their definition) still "Hezbollah" after they lay down their arms? What was reported in the news was that the only armed force in Lebanon south of the Latani River will be the Lebanese army (and for now the UN). The Lebanese people who took up arms in the name of Hezbollah will lay those down, but they can't be forced to leave their home territory. The whole issue was the Lebanon government taking full control of this area with no other militia present and that is what's happening. 

Hezbollah disarming after the 2000 pull out - With over 10 000 border violations by Israel in the 6 year period between 2000 and now, I can see why they didn't. Even now Lebanon is a sitting duck.

Kofi shaking hands with Nasrallah - hezbollah needs to be part of the solution to make all this work. Ignoring them like the US does is burying your head in the sand. They are not terrorists in the sense that they fly planes into buildings and indiscriminantly bomb subways and trains in foreign countries at random to cause chaos and fear. In a way they remind me of the Chechen rebels - they were called terrorists too by some. It all depends on your point of view.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> those are far more expensive military actions
> lest Israel use her nuclear arsenal which they either do or do not have...


Here is a BBC article on that question:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/892941.stm


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So do you care that Iran and Syria are cruel dictatorships that incarcerate, torture and slaughter their own people and others? Where human rights are a joke? Where freedom of speech is a dangerous dream? Where women have no rights? If you care at all, why support them in their endeavour to spread their influence beyond their borders by funding these terrorists in Lebanon?


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

krs said:


> Depends how you define Hezbollah. Are Lebanese who took up arms against the Israelis (as freedom fighters by their definition) still "Hezbollah" after they lay down their arms?


Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party with representatives at the chamber of deputy (or their equivalent)....also called....part of the official government...

A couple weeks ago, the Lebanese President was interviewed by the french television TF1 (tf1.fr) about the situation... he didn't defend his people but clearly took position in favor of Syria. Didn't accuse Hezbollah of being a ""police" within the police" but call them Savers and great names.

Hezbollah does exactly what Hamas did and still does they pretedn to be a caritative association, there to serve and protect local population. they compare themselves to the Red Cross....
Man could you imagine the Red Cross and Medecin Sans Frontiere having a militia to fight those they don't like???


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/21/hezbollah-mps.html?ref=rss



> The Lebanese-based militant group Hezbollah should be removed from Canada's list of banned terrorist organizations, two Canadian MPs say.
> 
> Liberal MP Boris Wrzesnewskyj looks at a bomb shell in Lebanon. (CBC)
> Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash made the comments Sunday during a fact-finding mission to southern Lebanon as Israeli troops continue to withdraw from the region following 34 days of conflict.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

Last I checked RedCross didn't have a Charter to destroy any country or nation let alone singling out a country (such as Israel) for destruction.



> Hezbollah does exactly what Hamas did and still does they pretedn to be a caritative association, there to serve and protect local population. they compare themselves to the Red Cross....
> Man could you imagine the Red Cross and Medecin Sans Frontiere having a militia to fight those they don't like???


Read the Hezbollah charter they clearly state one of their goals is the destruction of israel. The fact they joined Lebanon as a political party does not negate the fact they are terrorists.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> I know Iran doesn't have a direct border with Lebanon, but you can't assume that arms shipments to Syria automatically end up with Hezbollah. How would Syria ever be able to obtain arms for their own needs if you made that assumption.
> Shipments would have to be illegal and cross the Lebanese frontier before they could be considered arms shipments to Hezbollah.
> 
> Hezbollah north of the Latani River - Depends how you define Hezbollah. Are Lebanese who took up arms against the Israelis (as freedom fighters by their definition) still "Hezbollah" after they lay down their arms? What was reported in the news was that the only armed force in Lebanon south of the Latani River will be the Lebanese army (and for now the UN). The Lebanese people who took up arms in the name of Hezbollah will lay those down, but they can't be forced to leave their home territory. The whole issue was the Lebanon government taking full control of this area with no other militia present and that is what's happening.
> ...


Re: shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Iran via Syria see http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMrIiCQRWnMo&refer=home
You will find the reference re: the Syria connection part way down.

Re; Hezbollah laying down their arms. Doesn't that mean actually giving them up to the Lebanese Army and not just hiding them? I haven't seen any Katyusha rockets being handed over. Oh. I see, they will give them up later. 

Re: "They are not terrorists in the sense that they fly planes into buildings and indiscriminantly bomb subways and trains in foreign countries at random to cause chaos and fear. In a way they remind me of the Chechen rebels - they were called terrorists too by some." 
Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets across the Israeli border. How many of them hit military targets. One or two may have landed on military targets accidently but the vast majority did not. (I heard it said you were safest on any military base in Israel.) You don't consider indiscriminate rocketing of civilian populations using Katyusha rockets that have no real control mechanism as a terrorist act? We must have different definitions of what constitutes terriorism.

Re: "Kofi shaking hands with Nasrallah - hezbollah needs to be part of the solution to make all this work." Nasrallah has already said several time he will not disarm, period. I must have missed Kofi rebuking him for that stand. Remind me when he expressed his "conecrn".

"10 000 border violations by Israel in the 6 year period" seems to be a large number. Care to give a link to where that was found?

Voyager

P.S The safest town in northern Israel was probably Metulla.The reason, it was surrounded on three sides by Lebanese territory and Hezbollah knew their inaccurate rockets would most likely land on Lebanese targets not Israeli.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Interesting development , if really true. Now to find some soldiers who could actually implement it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1154525913247


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

You do realise of course, that all this bickering and arguing back and forth matters not, because the world will end tomorrow? beejacon 

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/11/world_to_end_on_aug_.html

Have a great end of days!

Miguel


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> You do realise of course, that all this bickering and arguing back and forth matters not, because the world will end tomorrow? beejacon
> 
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/11/world_to_end_on_aug_.html
> 
> ...


Yup, heard that rumour. Let's hope Ahmadinejad is all talk and no action. But from what I've read about this man and his obsession, anything is possible. Let's hope we can continue this discussion on the 23rd.

Voyager


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Let's hope we can continue this discussion on the 23rd.
> 
> Voyager


Just in case, let me get my 5 cents worth in.

I was a bit surprised by some of the statements in the Jerusalem Post article.

The expectation there is that Hezbollah remains as a militia in the south - both the resolution amd Hezbollah themselves said that would not be the case.
Also, everyone kept talking about a "robust" UN force - well to me that means the force has some 'teeth' ie weapons and the right to use them in a defensive manner. Preventing Hezbollah by force from setting up rocket launchers in the south would certainly qualify as 'defensive action' in my mind. 
If it comes to that, it's easier for the UN to confront them than the Lebanese army.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Just in case, let me get my 5 cents worth in.
> 
> I was a bit surprised by some of the statements in the Jerusalem Post article.
> 
> ...



Might as well get my 2 cents in while I can. 

What Hezbollah says and what it finally does may be two very different things. Forgive me if I say it, but I will believe it when I see it. Especially when I see articles like this. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3293777,00.html

Everyone, especially the French, talked a good game about a robust force but without physical bodies, "teeth" don't matter. If the UN can't get a big enough force on the ground very, very, soon it's all probably academic. And of course with Iran refusing to admit the IAEA inspectors, a first, the world's attention may soon be shifted. The news just keeps getting better and better.

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Macspectrum, they're probably Ignatieff supporters.


peggy nash is NDP and Borys is supporting Kennedy


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Voyager said:


> What Hezbollah says and what it finally does may be two very different things. Forgive me if I say it, but I will believe it when I see it.


Fair enough, I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is Israel trying to add new rules to the UN resolution. For instance: the Lebanese army can't occupy the last 2km strip at the border and countries that have no diplomatic relations with Israel can't contribute to the UN force in Lebanon.
After all, it took over a week to trash this out and Israel should have thought of those little detais then.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

krs said:


> Fair enough, I have no problem with that.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is Israel trying to add new rules to the UN resolution. For instance: the Lebanese army can't occupy the last 2km strip at the border and countries that have no diplomatic relations with Israel can't contribute to the UN force in Lebanon.
> After all, it took over a week to trash this out and Israel should have thought of those little detais then.



Tradition has been that both parties in the dispute have to agree on the members of the Peacekeeping force. Would a country that does not recognize Israel be really neutral in a situation like that? Can the world afford to take that risk. And let's be honest, When the whole issue of a peace keeping force was brought up, it was widely assumed by many that the military force would be a mostly European one lead by France. Few people thought that the situation would develop as it has in recent days.
Re: the Lebanses Army. I believe Israel said they would stay in place until the Lebanese Army *and the UN Peacekeepers* were in place to replace Israeli troops. I'm actually surprised that they have given up as much as they have without the UN force so much as on the horizon, never mind being there in force as they were supposed to have been. 

Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i find it very interesting that bushco and the harpocrites won't commit to any (i.e. ZERO) peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, but seem to have lots of troops and dollars for "peacemaking" (i.e. killing) in Afghanistan and, in the U.S. case, Iraq

seems nobody really wants peace
war is much more profitable


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i find it very interesting that bushco and the harpocrites won't commit to any (i.e. ZERO) peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, but seem to have lots of troops and dollars for "peacemaking" (i.e. killing) in Afghanistan and, in the U.S. case, Iraq
> 
> seems nobody really wants peace
> war is much more profitable


The US is committing "intelligence". 
Given that the US is such a staunch ally of Israel, I don't think their presence is welcomed. 
As for Canada, Harper is just showing a weak spot (international affairs).


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i find it very interesting that bushco and the harpocrites won't commit to any (i.e. ZERO) peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, but seem to have lots of troops and dollars for "peacemaking" (i.e. killing) in Afghanistan and, in the U.S. case, Iraq
> 
> seems nobody really wants peace
> war is much more profitable


Afghanistan was never proposed as a "peacekeeping" measure, not even by the UN. The U.S., as an open backer of Israel, would never be accepted in Lebanon, especially by the defacto government Hezbollah. It would be equivalent to Iran volunteering to be a member of the force. {Hey, there's an idea. Have the U.S. and Iran as the "peacekeeping" force. Then we can get right to the main event.) Harper, no matter what you think of him, is no fool. He, like the major EU nations realize that the "peacekeeping" force is a farce if Hezbollah is not going to be disarmed- which they have made abundantly clear they will not do even if Israel withdraws from Lebanon. Their openly stated aim is to destroy Israel (mentioned in an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette} as Nasrallah. has publically stated.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=ebd3051f-ce10-45b7-a7e5-fb3eb56327a0

By the way I wonder what Iran's response to the UN's "request" to stop their nuclear program. Seemingly they are in a meeting with various representatives as I write this. (Just idle speculation, but it would be a nasty surprise if they are being told that Iran is not going to aquire weapons, but that they already have them. We only know a country has weapons when they tell us or they are seen testing them. Israel has never stated that they have nuclear weapons but it is generally assumed that they do have quite a few)
Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> The U.S., as an open backer of Israel, would never be accepted in Lebanon, especially by the defacto government Hezbollah. It would be equivalent to Iran volunteering to be a member of the force. {Hey, there's an idea. Have the U.S. and Iran as the "peacekeeping" force. Then we can get right to the main event.) Harper, no matter what you think of him, is no fool. He, like the major EU nations realize that the "peacekeeping" force is a farce if Hezbollah is not going to be disarmed- which they have made abundantly clear they will not do even if Israel withdraws from Lebanon. Their openly stated aim is to destroy Israel (mentioned in an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette} as Nasrallah. has publically stated.


Voyager - does the present UN resolution call for the disarming of Hezbollah? 
I don't think so, so this is really a false argument.

We may see some UN resolution in the near future.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=4e03c832-9e47-43f9-861d-7611cca7e06a

Funny how you give the benefit of the doubt to Harper - he's said a boatload of stupid statements in the past and now you seem to be a cheerleader for him.
Maybe the same kind of "evolution" and benefit should be given to Hezbollah.


> In contrast to the above, in recent interviews Nasrallah has answered questions concerning the establishment of a Palestinian state established alongside an Israeli state in a way which suggested that the organization no longer has the intent to destroy the state of Israel. . Hezbollah’s present leadership disclaims any interest in contesting Israel’s right to exist outside of disputed territories.[5] In a 2003 interview, Nasrallah stated that "at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on."[58] "Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel... [but] let it happen. I would not say O.K. I would say nothing."[58] Similarly, in 2004, when asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, Nasrallah said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter.[5] He also said that outside of Lebanon, Hezbollah will act only in a defensive manner towards Israeli forces, and that Hezbollah's missiles were acquired to deter attacks on Lebanon.[59]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Position_on_Israel


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I find it very interesting that you conveniently forget or perhaps have no idea that the mission in Afghanistan represents perhaps the first time that Canada has been at "war" in decades, and that other missions in which we've been engaged have been, in fact, peacekeeping only.

So you're either trying to rewrite history or have just woken up after an extremely deep sleep of some 20 or 40 years. Care to tell us which?



MACSPECTRUM said:


> i find it very interesting that bushco and the harpocrites won't commit to any (i.e. ZERO) peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, but seem to have lots of troops and dollars for "peacemaking" (i.e. killing) in Afghanistan and, in the U.S. case, Iraq
> 
> seems nobody really wants peace
> war is much more profitable


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Israel has never stated that they have nuclear weapons but it is generally assumed that they do have quite a few


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

like it is "generally assumed" that the sun rises in the east


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> I find it very interesting that you conveniently forget or perhaps have no idea that the mission in Afghanistan represents perhaps the first time that Canada has been at "war" in decades, and that other missions in which we've been engaged have been, in fact, peacekeeping only.
> 
> So you're either trying to rewrite history or have just woken up after an extremely deep sleep of some 20 or 40 years. Care to tell us which?


oh gee, i thought we were there for "peacemaking" reasons
war is peace(keeping)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What's funny about this debate is that Israel broke the ceasefire with a raid under the false pretext of stopping arms shipment. 
The raid has been denounced by Lebanon and the UN. Israel has offered no proof (no captured weapons or evidence). 
It sounds more like another commando kidnapping (but gone wrong). 



> The raid took place overnight under the cover of sonic booms from Israeli jets flying overhead, which occur often over Lebanon. But this time they masked the sound of helicopters bringing in the commando unit and two Humvee vehicles. Villagers said *the soldiers were dressed in Lebanese Army uniforms.*
> 
> The Israeli Army said it would continue such raids until “proper monitoring bodies are established on the Lebanese borders,” another task for the United Nations forces in Lebanon.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/w...e1d505a5&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

But continue on Israeli apologists....


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Voyager - does the present UN resolution call for the disarming of Hezbollah?
> I don't think so, so this is really a false argument.


A UN resolution from 2004 (Un resolution 1559)] called for their disarmament... what has the Lebanese governement done so far ?

This new resolution doesn't mean the old one ain't valid anymore...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Voyager - does the present UN resolution call for the disarming of Hezbollah?
> I don't think so, so this is really a false argument.



“3. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory *in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004)* and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon; 

Taken from Resolution 1701. Doesn't 1559 specify disarming Hezbollah?

UN link: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8808.doc.htm[/b]
Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so let me get this straight
the lebanese gov't was supposed to disarm hezbollah, but didn't so israel helped the lebanese gov't by bombing lebanon back into the stone age?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What's funny about this debate is that Israel broke the ceasefire with a raid under the false pretext of stopping arms shipment.
> The raid has been denounced by Lebanon and the UN. Israel has offered no proof (no captured weapons or evidence).
> It sounds more like another commando kidnapping (but gone wrong).
> 
> ...


And you have Nasrallah's personal guarantee that he isn't getting arms shipments from Iran or Syria in violation of 1701?


Voyager


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just like that dead Cdn. soldier had the IDF's guarantee his outpost wouldn't be bombed


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Villagers said the soldiers were dressed in Lebanese Army uniforms.



How about Palestinians terrorists who were dressing up as Orthodox Jews to blow themselves up among civilians in buses in Jerusalem ?

How about those same terrorists who dresses up as Israeli militaries to blow themselves up at the bus station in Tel Aviv ?

One is fighting against the ammunition,the source of the problem, while the other one uses the same technique to simply kill people only because they're jewish...
ArtistSeries, it's quite interessting how you always seem to forget some parts of the conflicts and its history.
The Middle East crisis is VERY complicated.


Ho, one more thing about what the villagers said... Aren't they the same one who pretented to be evacuating some dead bodies until the carries fell down and saw the "dead one" running away ? (still looking for that video to prove it)

Aren't they the one with a prime minister crying in front of international televisions the death of 42 people in Beirouth on august 7th ?...when there were only ONE (too many) person killed?
 here

Isn't this very same prime minister who back in 2004 with UN resolution 1559 said he would disarm all the militias, deploy all over his country (that includes the SOUTH where the lebanese army hasn't step for over 70 years !)

With that much BS coming out of them...sorry, don't trust them anymore, they talk nicely but act differently (remember Yasser Arafat....)


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> 
> like it is "generally assumed" that the sun rises in the east


 I may have missed the announcement but when has Israel offically stated it has nuclear weapons? It's unfortunate you seem to have a hard time dealing in fact and resort to sarcasm instead. Very sad really. I had hoped to have intelligent, reasoned debate but I guess that's not possible with everyone. . 

Voyager


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so let me get this straight
> the lebanese gov't was supposed to disarm hezbollah, but didn't so israel helped the lebanese gov't by bombing lebanon back into the stone age?



Who declared war ??

When parts of a government attack another one, it's a war declaration !

Israel doesn't care about what happens in Lebanon...they just wanna make sure they're safe. and if the government allows part of its population to launch rockets and kill civilians just because they're jewish...well, they're still the one who declared war.

What was Israel supposed to do, just wait for more missiles to kill israelis without reacting ? they've been doing that for some times...but like all of us, we have limits.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Originally Posted by ArtistSeries
Villagers said the soldiers were dressed in Lebanese Army uniforms.



This is nothing new for Hezbollah. They have been doing this for years. In 2001 Hezbollah was reported to have used UN uniforms and equipment when they attacked on Israeli post in Israel. UN "peacekeepers" stopped the cars and, even though the cars were splattered with the Israeli soldiers' blood and had UN identified equipment, handed it all over to unidentified, armed thugs. The UN did not admit that it had happened for a year. Take you choice of links.



http://www.mia.org.il/archive/010706ha_eng.html

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/03/un.lebanon.report/index.html

IWhy do you hold Israel to a much higher standard. It has a right to protect its citizens.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

It's interesting that the war has caused such a furore in Israel.

It seems clear most Israeli's are behind attempts to deal harshly with the country's enemies. But there are some interesting questions:
- Did Israeli intelligence fail to note the size of the rocket build-up
- If intelligence did know about it, did politicians fail to act early enough
- why were the Israeli actions so clumsy: poor targeting, heavy handed bombing based on poor intelligence, unusually heavy casualties, ammunition supply issues.

Some of this is covered in this piece in the star: a bit weak, but, well, it's the Star:  
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156241410844&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Willy Z said:


> Who declared war ??
> 
> When parts of a government attack another one, it's a war declaration !
> 
> ...



I wonder if that's excatly what MACSPECTRUM thinks they should do. Wait to be massacred - again.

Voyager


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

Pelao said:


> - Did Israeli intelligence fail to note the size of the rocket build-up


Noope, they knew it but since they withdrew from Lebanon it wasn't their issue. It was an internal affair within Lebanon.


Pelao said:


> - If intelligence did know about it, did politicians fail to act early enough


this is only my opinion but I wonder if Rafik Hariri wasn't linked to this story, what I mean is why was he killed by Syria? was he arranging something with Israel ? None the less, today's lebanese gov is really PRO Syria and pro Hezbollah and doesn't seem to mind that "regular citizens" own rockets launchers or assaults weapons...



Pelao said:


> - why were the Israeli actions so clumsy: poor targeting, heavy handed bombing based on poor intelligence, unusually heavy casualties, ammunition supply issues.


Their targeting was actually quite good (ok, they sometimes failled) but their objectives was to destroy the hebzolah infrastructure. Now these terrorists hide in building where people live. they use a HUMAN SHIELD to protect themselves. this is why there were so many casualties, they thought Israel wouldn't not target those places...even though, before each attach, Tsahal warned the inhabitants to leave the place as they were going to attack.

As for ammunition supply...I don't know, ask the military authorities.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Willy Z said:


> Their targeting was actually quite good (ok, they sometimes failled) but their objectives was to destroy the hebzolah infrastructure. Now this terrorist hide in building where people live. they use a HUMAN SHIELD to protect themselves. this is why there were some many casualties, they thought Israel wouldn't not target those places...even though, before each attach, Tsahal warned the inhabitants to leave the place as they were going to attack.


Hiding behind women and children, eh?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Voyager said:


> I wonder if that's excatly what MACSPECTRUM thinks they should do. Wait to be massacred - again.
> 
> Voyager



i guess the massacred 1000 lebanese civilians don't count eh?
people and people lite


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Their targeting was actually quite good (ok, they sometimes failled) but their objectives was to destroy the hebzolah infrastructure.


and just what Hezbollah infrastructure was targetted when the UN outpost that the IDF repeatedly promised NOT to bomb, was destoryed by IDF air strikes, killing a Cdn. solider?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Willy Z said:


> Who declared war ??
> 
> When parts of a government attack another one, it's a war declaration !
> 
> ...


finally we agree...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Pelao said:


> It's interesting that the war has caused such a furore in Israel.
> 
> It seems clear most Israeli's are behind attempts to deal harshly with the country's enemies. But there are some interesting questions:
> - Did Israeli intelligence fail to note the size of the rocket build-up
> ...


There have been intersesting stories in the Israeli news. There are concerns that Mossad dropped the ball in the intelligence sector. The problem seems to be Hezbollah is so secretive it was difficult to penetrate. Olmert was the first PM without a real military background. Most had been upper level officers in the military. He had to rely on his Chief of Staff, the first Airforce person to hold the post. He convinced Olmert that air power could win it without a much of a push on the ground, a big mistake. From what I've read, the army was not happy. They knew the only way to win was by a massive ground assault, inculding the probably of a lot of casualities, although they were surprised at the number and advanced nature of the anti-tank missles Hezbollah had.
In the end Olmert has to take major responsibility. He equivocated on his position and the army was whiplashed by his decisions.

Voyager


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Noope, they knew it but since they withdrew from Lebanon it wasn't their issue. It was an internal affair within Lebanon.


Would you mind clarifying? It seems to me that every country is interested in any arms build up in nearby countries. It seems nonsense that Israel would know about a build up of heavy rockets, but decide that it was an internal affair of Lebanon.



> Their targeting was actually quite good (ok, they sometimes failled) but their objectives was to destroy the hebzolah infrastructure. Now these terrorists hide in building where people live. they use a HUMAN SHIELD to protect themselves. this is why there were so many casualties, they thought Israel wouldn't not target those places...even though, before each attach, Tsahal warned the inhabitants to leave the place as they were going to attack.


The criticisms of the targeting are not that they id not hit the targeted buisldings - they did. The criticisms stem from the fact that all to often there were no valid targets within the buisldings at the time. The criticisms do not stemm from the human shield issue, which is something that is more common post 1945. The questions are again about poor intelligence and over reliance on large scale strikes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Willy Z said:


> A UN resolution from 2004 (Un resolution 1559)] called for their disarmament... what has the Lebanese governement done so far ?
> 
> *This new resolution doesn't mean the old one ain't valid anymore...*


Ironic that Israel has not obeyed any previous UN resolution. 
Now you dredge up an old resolutions - so where is your condemnation to the fact that Israel has a long list of resolutions it ignores?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Willy Z said:


> How about Palestinians terrorists who were dressing up as Orthodox Jews to blow themselves up among civilians in buses in Jerusalem ?


Equally horrible.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> I may have missed the announcement but when has Israel offically stated it has nuclear weapons? It's unfortunate you seem to have a hard time dealing in fact and resort to sarcasm instead. Very sad really. I had hoped to have intelligent, reasoned debate but I guess that's not possible with everyone. .


Rolleyes indeed - 
Israel has never confirmed nor denied that it has nuclear weapons - alway ambiguous... 

It is widely believed to have nuclear weapons. 
Let's see - it has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (keeping company with the likes of India and Pakistan...

Britain and France have shipped (sometimes secretly) materials needed for nuclear weapons (in the 50's and 60's).

And of course Mordechai Vanunu a nuclear technician was kidnapped in Rome by Mossad after leaking details of the nuclear program to the British Press. 
He was convicted of treason is Israel (18 years in prison) - but that must be for other reasons...

Carry on apologists.....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You keep defending terrorists.

So which is your favourite U.N. country when it comes to these resolutions? Somalia? Moldova? North Korea? Yemen? Pakistan? Djibouti? Bahrain?

Clearly they all have something to teach Israel about democracy, freedom and fairness.

You know what? When a democracy starts attacking Israel, one with a tiny passing acquaintance with equal rights, do let us know.

And do you think that you, and say, all of your family, and friends, could safely walk down main street in south Lebanon or Gaza?





ArtistSeries said:


> Ironic that Israel has not obeyed any previous UN resolution.
> Now you dredge up an old resolutions - so where is your condemnation to the fact that Israel has a long list of resolutions it ignores?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh However, one of my favourite apologists - so ready with the accusations and labels but never one to debate the subject when it comes to Israel (as they can do no wrong...)
So what do you think of Lehi and Irgun? Weren't they neat little terrorist groups?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh However, one of my favourite apologists - so ready with the accusations and labels but never one to debate the subject when it comes to Israel (as they can do no wrong...)
> So what do you think of Lehi and Irgun? Weren't they neat little terrorist groups?





> former Irgun warriors unveiled a plaque "commemorating the attack on the King David hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946. On that day the Irgun 'resistance' to British rule in Palestine detonated a bomb inside the hotel." 91 people died, including 28 British subjects. (Harry de Quetteville, Telegraph July 22, 2006)
> 
> "The Hebrew Resistance Movement" ops planted explosives in the hotel basement, claiming to have warned the hotel's occupants to leave. For unknown reasons the hotel remained full when the bombs exploded.
> ...
> ...


http://www.counterpunch.org/landau08022006.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Amnesty International*



> *Israel/Lebanon: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure*
> 
> Amnesty International today published findings that point to an Israeli policy of deliberate destruction of Lebanese civilian infrastructure, which included war crimes, during the recent conflict.
> 
> ...


http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE020182006

Measured response?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Exclusive: Israel buys 2 new submarines from Germany
> 
> In the face of Iran's race to obtain nuclear power, Israel signed a contract with Germany last month to buy two Dolphin-class submarines that will, according to foreign reports, provide superior second-strike nuclear capabilities, The Jerusalem Post has learned.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525926927&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Why would Israel need these attack subs if they don't have nukes (according to a poster here)?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525926927&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
> 
> Why would Israel need these attack subs if they don't have nukes (according to a poster here)?



Where have I said they don't have them . I said they have never *admitted* having them. The only unanswered question is how many warheads they currently possess. 

Voyager


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

*Israel/Lebanon: Evidence indicates deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure*

*ArtistSeries* - Can you point me to the link where Amnesty International published findings that point to a Hezbollah policy of deliberate destruction of Israeli civilian targets during the recent conflict. If Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilians and infrastructure is a considered a war crime then surely indiscriminate firing of thousands of Katyusha rockets at Israel cities and towns should also be considered a war crime.

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager - in the quote I put here, you can read:
The report reinforces the case for an urgent, comprehensive and independent UN inquiry into *grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by both Hizbullah and Israel during their month-long conflict. *


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and just what Hezbollah infrastructure was targetted when the UN outpost that the IDF repeatedly promised NOT to bomb, was destoryed by IDF air strikes, killing a Cdn. solider?



The infrastructure that was being targeted were the Hezbollah positions that were deliberately set up, by Hezbollah, using UNIFIL positions as cover. They did this quite regularly according to the source I looked up. The UNIFIL press releses make for interesting reading. It does raise the question though. Would Israel have fired on UNIFIL positions if Hezbollah hadn't deliberately set up positions very close to UNIFIL positions and used them as shields?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/unifilpress.htm[/b]
Voyager


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Voyager - in the quote I put here, you can read:
> The report reinforces the case for an urgent, comprehensive and independent UN inquiry into *grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by both Hizbullah and Israel during their month-long conflict. *


Sorry, I guess I read it too quickly. Got to slow down.

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> Where have I said they don't have them . I said they have never *admitted* having them. The only unanswered question is how many warheads they currently possess.


Yes, you have been vague on that...


> *We only know a country has weapons when they tell us or they are seen testing them. Israel has never stated that they have nuclear weapons* but it is generally assumed that they do have quite a few)





> I may have missed the announcement but *when has Israel offically stated it has nuclear weapons?* It's unfortunate you seem to have a hard time dealing in fact and resort to sarcasm instead. Very sad really.


I may of misunderstood what you were trying to convey when rebutting MS. Apologies if so.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> It does raise the question though. Would Israel have fired on UNIFIL positions if Hezbollah hadn't deliberately set up positions very close to UNIFIL positions and used them as shields?


The answer is yes - they have been playing games with the UN (bombing roads when the UN was travelling on them, trying to cut them off). I'll have to dig up the news reports...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes, you have been vague on that...
> 
> 
> I may of misunderstood what you were trying to convey when rebutting MS. Apologies if so.



Of course Israel helping South Africa build nuclear weapons should have been a broad hint. 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/rsa/nuke/

Voyager


----------



## Willy Z (Oct 25, 2004)

A bit off topic, 

but why do you care that much about what's going on in Israel / Lebanon when most of the people don't care about other places in the world crumbled with war.

PNG has been a war zone for the past couples of years because Indonesia claims it's its.
in Rwanda, I don't recall people arguing so much about the rivalry between clans.
In Ivory Coast, during the last civil war, nobody cared...

So why when it comes to Israel, Everybody jumps in and add comments with or without facts?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Willy Z said:


> A bit off topic,
> 
> but why do you care that much about what's going on in Israel / Lebanon when most of the people don't care about other places in the world crumbled with war.
> 
> ...


I think a lot of it is that the Middle East is such a flash point. Combine that with Iran's antics, the general terrorist situation, and you have a potentially explosive situation that could ultimately have much wider consequences. That doesn't exist in the other conflicts. Just my 2 cents.

Voyager


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Brilliant questions. Why indeed? I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with religion, or more specifically, perceived "difference." There's that "AS" word, too: "*A*nti-*S*emitism." Sure seems like there are double standards in effect here.




Willy Z said:


> A bit off topic,
> 
> but why do you care that much about what's going on in Israel / Lebanon when most of the people don't care about other places in the world crumbled with war.
> 
> ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

What a surprise! 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/24/mideast.main/index.html

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Almost as surprising as this:


> *Italy refuses to send troops until Israelis stop shooting*
> 
> "From Israel we expect a renewed effort, this time truly binding, to respect the ceasefire," Mr. D'Alema told La Repubblica newspaper. "It's fair to expect that Hezbollah put down their weapons, but we cannot send our troops to Lebanon if the [Israeli] army keeps shooting."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv....MIDDLEEAST23/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Brilliant questions. Why indeed? I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with religion, or more specifically, perceived "difference." There's that "AS" word, too: "*A*nti-*S*emitism." Sure seems like there are double standards in effect here.


It would be a lot easier if you just went and called me an Anti-Semite without going through this bull****.


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

I'd still feel safer with israel having nukes then iran. If israel has nukes they sure don't seem to want to use them.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Of course that would be namecalling. I feel the same way about that as I do about smilies.

I'm pretty sure you don't write things that are explicitly anti-Semitic, but my comment relates to why some people focus on Israel specifically while purposefully ignoring other countries that are not democratic, that do not have human rights, that stone and kill their own women, and who target those in other countries because of perceived differences. The focus on Israel isn't anti-Semitic in itself, but it is part of what is known as the "new anti-Semitism." It gives a hollow legitimacy to those same old prejudices.

I'm sure you don't want to fall into that category.




ArtistSeries said:


> It would be a lot easier if you just went and called me an Anti-Semite without going through this bull****.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

VNJ85 said:


> I'd still feel safer with israel having nukes then iran. If israel has nukes they sure don't seem to want to use them.


i don't feel safe with either of them having nukes
as a matter of fact i don't feel safe with the U.S. having nukes, nor Russia, China, N. Korea...

nukes are far too destructive like a stone thrown into a still pond, the ripples are far reaching


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Of course that would be namecalling. I feel the same way about that as I do about smilies.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't write things that are explicitly anti-Semitic, but my comment relates to why some people focus on Israel specifically while purposefully ignoring other countries that are not democratic, that do not have human rights, that stone and kill their own women, and who target those in other countries because of perceived differences. The focus on Israel isn't anti-Semitic in itself, but it is part of what is known as the "new anti-Semitism." It gives a hollow legitimacy to those same old prejudices.
> 
> I'm sure you don't want to fall into that category.


sounds a lot like NewSpeak to me


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

VNJ85 said:


> I'd still feel safer with israel having nukes then iran. If israel has nukes they sure don't seem to want to use them.


It's not really a case of "if". Think back to Mordechai Vanunu 20 years ago. He revealed the Israeli secret Nuclear program and was imprisoned in solitary for it. He got out of jail, if I remember correctly, last year and is under such strict living conditions he chooses to seek sanctuary in a church. He was ordered not to speak to journalists as part of his release. He did, including CBC radio last year and - as far as a I know - is still in hiding because of it. He's also not allowed to leave the country.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

The Secretary General criticizes Israel about breaking the ceasefire but not a mention from him about UNIFIL's conduct during the war. UNIFIL was supposed to be neutral. Some neutral!

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

Maybe the shelling wasn't unjustified.

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> Maybe the shelling wasn't unjustified.


That maybe - but it's not like Israel has not been playing games with the UN....


> *The UN here is in constant contact with the Israelis.* And they will tell the Israelis that we have a convoy of three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) passing our headquarters, heading along such and such a road, leaving at such and such a time.
> So t*he Israelis* are fully aware of what's on the road and they have complete aerial coverage of the area through their drones and aircraft and helicopters anyway, so they can see them.
> But they *will blow up the road in front of them, for example, or there will be shellfire falling around them.*


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1692091.htm

Maybe the Israelis got bored of indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets and cluster bombs against innocents.....


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That maybe - but it's not like Israel has not been playing games with the UN....
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1692091.htm
> 
> Maybe the Israelis got bored of indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets and cluster bombs against innocents.....


It would help if Hezbollah acted like men and not the cowards they really are using civilians as human shields. But then, human life has little value to their likes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25sunnis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Those cluster bombs sure are useful... don't you think?

Funny how Hezbollah seems able to rebuild and help citizens unlike the victims of Katrina... Maybe there is not enough profit to be made on the back of regular citizens in LA....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It's by comments like this one that we get to know the true AS:



ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe the Israelis got bored of indiscriminate shelling of civilian targets and cluster bombs against innocents.....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Makes for good photo ops, no doubt.

Funny how the Americans are able to send $$$millions to help rebuild southern Lebanon. I wonder how much the Arab world helped rebuilt New Orleans and environs?



ArtistSeries said:


> Those cluster bombs sure are useful... don't you think?
> 
> Funny how Hezbollah seems able to rebuild and help citizens unlike the victims of Katrina... Maybe there is not enough profit to be made on the back of regular citizens in LA....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

But you're ignoring that you quoted


> If israel has nukes they sure don't seem to want to use them.


How long after Iran produces a nuclear bomb do you think it will take them to "test" it on the people they hate?




Deep Blue said:


> It's not really a case of "if". Think back to Mordechai Vanunu 20 years ago. He revealed the Israeli secret Nuclear program and was imprisoned in solitary for it. He got out of jail, if I remember correctly, last year and is under such strict living conditions he chooses to seek sanctuary in a church. He was ordered not to speak to journalists as part of his release. He did, including CBC radio last year and - as far as a I know - is still in hiding because of it. He's also not allowed to leave the country.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> It's by comments like this one that we get to know the true AS:


Ah yes HowEver
Why don't you complain to "The World Today" that they are not reporting the news with enough pro-Isreali spin to satisfy you...


> I*srael's army has ordered residents* of dozens of villages near the border *to leave* their homes. But the United Nations peacekeeping force in South Lebanon says *virtually every civilian or humanitarian convoy that's chanced the roads has come under Israeli fire.*
> 
> They've been hitting houses, civilian houses in almost every case, with these aerial bombs, which just basically turn large buildings into a pile of rubble with a large crater and killing the families within.
> 
> ...


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1692091.htm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This sounds like what terrorists would use:


> Cluster munitions are useful against tanks, massed conventional forces and other purely military targets. But they should never be used in populated areas. *By nature they kill indiscriminately.
> 
> But today’s dangers are different, and require different responses. Attacking guerrilla or terrorist sanctuaries in populated areas is not a mission that calls for cluster weapons, and the United States should not be supplying them.
> *


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/opinion/26sat1.html



Carry on apologists....


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Those cluster bombs sure are useful... don't you think?
> 
> Funny how Hezbollah seems able to rebuild and help citizens unlike the victims of Katrina... Maybe there is not enough profit to be made on the back of regular citizens in LA....



Would it make you feel better if Israel had dropped "dumb" bombs instead? I will agree cluster bombs are problematic. I will also agree that they are supposed to be used on regular army battlefields, not against cowards who hide behind women and children and reap the propaganda benefits when they get killed?

Funny how Hezbollah is able to rebuild so quickly the damage they called down on peoples heads, using unlimited funds from their patron, Iran. It's like thugs, trashing your house and then offering to help you clean up and repair the damage. I guess they hope you will forget that they caused the damage in the first place. Funny, isn't it, that Hezbollah was giving out 100 American dollar bills, money that originated from the Great Satan. Unless, of course, as some have speculated, it was funny money. 

Voyager


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> But you're ignoring that you quoted
> 
> How long after Iran produces a nuclear bomb do you think it will take them to "test" it on the people they hate?


Given the frequent comments of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, how fast can you blink?

Voyager


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Funny how Hezbollah is able to rebuild so quickly the damage they called down on peoples heads, using unlimited funds from their patron, Iran. It's like thugs, trashing your house and then offering to help you clean up and repair the damage. I guess they hope you will forget that they caused the damage in the first place.


Bad analogy. Hezbollah didn't do the damage. And few in that part of the world view it as their fault. How you, or I, or Israel view it is irrelevant.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Bad analogy. Hezbollah didn't do the damage. And few in that part of the world view it as their fault. How you, or I, or Israel view it is irrelevant.


Maybe it wasn't the best analogy. It's unfortunate the people have been so programmed in that part of the world to see thugs like these as 'freedom fighters" that they don't see them for what they really are. 

Voyager


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Voyager said:


> Would it make you feel better if Israel had dropped "dumb" bombs instead?



I have to jump in at this point... The whole "smart" bomb thing is disengenuous crutch that plays well for the media. I highly doubt that the usage of the type of munition is as high as they claim.

My reasoning for this argument is that they are incredibly expensive when compared to traditional "iron" bombs.

Also... This is the kind of thing that bugged me. I was watching "fox news" (something I do from time to time) and the were broadcasting from an Israeli forward airstation. The reporter made the statement that "all" the bombs being dropped were "smart bombs" and just as he said that an F-16 taxied past him loaded with traditional iron bombs. At a glance you tell the difference in that guided munitions have a guidance pack on the nose of the bomb. It sadly made me chuckle, either fox was feeding lies or they just don't know what they are talking about. I suspect it was ignorance.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I have to jump in at this point... The whole "smart" bomb thing is disengenuous crutch that plays well for the media. I highly doubt that the usage of the type of munition is as high as they claim.
> 
> My reasoning for this argument is that they are incredibly expensive when compared to traditional "iron" bombs.
> 
> Also... This is the kind of thing that bugged me. I was watching "fox news" (something I do from time to time) and the were broadcasting from an Israeli forward airstation. The reporter made the statement that "all" the bombs being dropped were "smart bombs" and just as he said that an F-16 taxied past him loaded with traditional iron bombs. At a glance you tell the difference in that guided munitions have a guidance pack on the nose of the bomb. It sadly made me chuckle, either fox was feeding lies or they just don't know what they are talking about. I suspect it was ignorance.



You would be surprised how ignorant reporters can be. Actually, Israel ran out of "smart" bombs pretty quickly.

Voyager


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Maybe it wasn't the best analogy. It's unfortunate the people have been so programmed in that part of the world to see thugs like these as 'freedom fighters" that they don't see them for what they really are.


It may be, but if we are the supposedly logical part of the world, we are going to have to start from where they are if we hope to ever have peace. Referring to them as "thugs" does more harm than good on the international stage.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Once again, you get to decide how Israel defends itself, and how they target terrorists who barricade themselves in civilian areas. You get to decide that Israel has no defense against kidnappers and killers, homicidal bombers who strap themselves up and go into civilian areas, or katyusha or other rockets that are aimed at civilian areas--if they are even aimed at all. You decide all this from your safe enclave and safe job and safe life, while Israel continues to make concessions and offer peaceful solutions that are met with hatred, bombs and your complicity. Tiresome, ineffective complicity at that.




ArtistSeries said:


> This sounds like what terrorists would use:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/opinion/26sat1.html
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Once again, you get to decide how Israel defends itself, and how they target terrorists who barricade themselves in civilian areas. You get to decide that Israel has no defense against kidnappers and killers, homicidal bombers who strap themselves up and go into civilian areas, or katyusha or other rockets that are aimed at civilian areas--if they are even aimed at all. You decide all this from your safe enclave and safe job and safe life, while Israel continues to make concessions and offer peaceful solutions that are met with hatred, bombs and your complicity. Tiresome, ineffective complicity at that.


Israel claims to to everything to minimize civilian (sorry collateral) damages. Israel wage a propaganda battle by stating that the "terrorists" are targeting indiscriminately, loading their rockets with ball bearing. They call it criminal.

So Israel states that it somehow has the "high moral ground", yet it's fine when it use cluster bombs? They rightly condemn Hezbollah yet see nothing wrong when they use the same methods. I can guarantee that Israel's arsenal is much more sophisticated and destructive that anything Hezbollah has. 

So bombing the **** out of Lebanon is defending yourself? Ha!

Complicity? Give me a break. First you insinuate that I'm an anti-semite and now you are accusing me of helping a "terrorist" organization. It would make discussions a lot more fruitful if you stated exactly how you felt instead of your words. 

Unilateral peace that Israel is trying to impose will never work. Kidnapping members of parliament (Hamas) will not work. Before demonizing it's enemy, Israel should look at the way it acts....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I completely miss how this is a response to what I wrote, which you quoted; I asked, Why do *you* get to decide how Israel [or anyone else] defends itself?

That's why your complicity is not effective.

And since Hezbollah's "arsenal" is effectively that of Syria and Iran, be thankful it's not as sophisticated as others.

If what you are saying has any basis in reality, Israel could easily over-run its neighbours militarily. It doesn't.

Israel's neighbours publicly claim they want to obliterate Jewish people in Israel (but are willing to kill everyone else who resides there in the process, and do so on a smaller scale all the time). They would if they could.

Be thankful they aren't as sophisticated.




ArtistSeries said:


> Israel claims to to everything to minimize civilian (sorry collateral) damages. Israel wage a propaganda battle by stating that the "terrorists" are targeting indiscriminately, loading their rockets with ball bearing. They call it criminal.
> 
> So Israel states that it somehow has the "high moral ground", yet it's fine when it use cluster bombs? They rightly condemn Hezbollah yet see nothing wrong when they use the same methods. I can guarantee that Israel's arsenal is much more sophisticated and destructive that anything Hezbollah has.
> 
> ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> It may be, but if we are the supposedly logical part of the world, we are going to have to start from where they are if we hope to ever have peace. Referring to them as "thugs" does more harm than good on the international stage.


What then, RevMatt do you call people who build hospitals and schools over its military bunkers and rocket launching sites? What do you call people who use ambulances to transport armed fighters from one place to another? What so you call people who put their headquarters right in the middle of heavily populated centers?

Voyager


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Israel claims to to everything to minimize civilian (sorry collateral) damages. Israel wage a propaganda battle by stating that the "terrorists" are targeting indiscriminately, loading their rockets with ball bearing. They call it criminal.
> 
> So Israel states that it somehow has the "high moral ground", yet it's fine when it use cluster bombs? They rightly condemn Hezbollah yet see nothing wrong when they use the same methods. I can guarantee that Israel's arsenal is much more sophisticated and destructive that anything Hezbollah has.
> 
> ...




What would you call it when Hezbollah fires unguided Katyusha rockets by the hundreds in the general direction of Israel? (By the way, almost none hit military targets.)

You disagree that Israel tried to minimize civilian casualties. Considering Hezbollah put much of their military capacity in civilian areas and deliberately used the civilian population as shields, there could have been horrendous loss of life. The fact that there wasn’t, and I’m not trying to minimize the loss of life there was, indicates that bombing wasn’t totally indiscriminate. The New York Times published a story about the bombing in Beiruit along with a map showing the area of south Beruit that the Israeli Air Force bombed. The bombing was non indiscriminate, hitting specific buildings and leaving others very close by virtually untouched. Were there casualties? Yes.

Were there civilian casualties in south Lebanon? Yes there were. Urban warfare is the kind of warefare most likely to produce civilian casualties. One question though. Why did Hezbollah choose to fight the Israelis within this environment and not outside the villages and so produce fewer civilian casualties?

Hezbollah started the war, Israel responded. As much as you dislike it, war *is* hell.

Israel is not trying to impose peace but just trying to stop being attacked. Israel has made peace with both Egypt and Jordan. But then, they wanted peace and were willing to negotiate. 

Voyager[


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Voyager said:


> What so you call people who put their headquarters right in the middle of heavily populated centers?


The CIA had offices in the World Trade Centre. Do you believe that was a valid military target? If not, why not?

Hezzbolah is not the only organization that has military infrastructure amongst civillian infrastructure. For instance US military recruiters offices can be found in malls and officers can be found in high schools all across that nation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Hezzbolah is not the only organization that has military infrastructure amongst civillian infrastructure. For instance US military recruiters offices can be found in malls and officers can be found in high schools all across that nation." Valid to a point, Paul. However, ROTC and "Uncle Sam wants you" recruiters for the "New Army", or "The Marine Corps builds men" recruiters do not then ramdomly fire rockets into communities with the hopes of killing as many people as possible.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I concede that recruiters aren't creating an offensive. That does not mean they wouldn't necessarily be military targets, in the same way we would imagine Hezzbolah recruiters would be. The CIA in the World Trade Centres may or may not have been part of an offensive. 

In the world of war, enemy military are legitamate targets whether they are offensive, defensive, or even logistical positions. The only safe military havens I would imagine would be military hospitals and medical vehicles. I could be wrong.

There are many occasions when Israel has attacked Hezzbolah targets that operated from civillian areas, but there are also many occasions when it appears that Israel attacked civillian areas where there was no Hezzbolah targets. 

I condemn both attacks from civillian areas and attacks on civillain areas. I condemn all agressive military actions regardless of the nation or the group taking the offensive. I would go further to say that I condemn radically disproportionate defensive military action regardless of the nation or group.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> What would you call it when Hezbollah fires unguided Katyusha rockets by the hundreds in the general direction of Israel? (By the way, almost none hit military targets.)


Not the point, and a deflection. 

If I tell you I'm not using chemical pesticides and then use Agent Orange to clear bush, you'd call me a hypocrite and liar..


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not the point, and a deflection.
> 
> If I tell you I'm not using chemical pesticides and then use Agent Orange to clear bush, you'd call me a hypocrite and liar..



How is stating a fact a deflection?

voyager


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I condemn all agressive military actions regardless of the nation or the group taking the offensive. I would go further to say that I condemn radically disproportionate defensive military action regardless of the nation or group." Paul, on this we agree. It is becoming more and more difficult, given the realities of the world, to hold this view. Still, working towards peace is far better than fanning the flames of war and hatred. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

for any chance at peace there first must be dialogue


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"for any chance at peace there first must be dialogue". Very true, Michael. Very true. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> "for any chance at peace there first must be dialogue". Very true, Michael. Very true. Paix, mon ami.


You know Dr. G, that makes you a criminal to want to talk with Hezbollah...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Maybe so, AS. However, at some point those in Hezbollah would have to decide if they love their children and grandchildren more than they hate me because I was Jewish. At that point, we will talk. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*Why Harper backs Israel, no matter what*

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626796



> To many, including former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, as well as the leaders of Amnesty International, Israel's massive bombardment was anything but measured.
> 
> Amnesty has called Israel's actions war crimes. Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, has warned that both Hezbollah and Israel may be held culpable for crimes against humanity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Maybe so, AS. However, at some point those in Hezbollah would have to decide if they love their children and grandchildren more than they hate me because I was Jewish. At that point, we will talk. Paix, mon ami.


 I think you are more of an optimist than me, Dr.G. I think it may be a very long wait.

Voyager


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sad, but all too true, Voyager. Still, if the alternative is war, I choose to work for peace in any way I am able to each day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The moment you have in your heart this extra-ordinary thing called love and feel the depth, the delight, the ecstacy of it, you will discover that for you the world is tranformed." J. Krishnamuriti


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Working for peace can at times be the hardest and easiest of things to do. It's very tempting to just give up and join into the anger that is war and hatred.

Two wolves. I'll never forget that story.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Working for peace can at times be the hardest and easiest of things to do. It's very tempting to just give up and join into the anger that is war and hatred.
> 
> Two wolves. I'll never forget that story.


I had never heard of that story and a little googling found;



> A Grandfather from the Cherokee Nation was talking with his grandson.
> 
> "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Interesting article by Ike Seamans of NBC, especially the last paragraph.
http://www.nbc6.net/ikesinsights/9646351/detail.html?taf=ami

Voyager


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Yes it is interesting voyager - we should extend it to embedded journalist and other conflicts also...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes it is interesting voyager - we should extend it to embedded journalist and other conflicts also...


But at least with embedded reporters, the slant is there in the open. In this last war, you had photo shopped and staged pictures being passed off as legitimate coverage.

Reuters had to pull 920 photos when it was pointed out that pictures they were publishing were photo shopped, and rather badly at that. Also pictures of the same woman morning the loss of her home, in at least three different locations, on different days appeared main stream like BBC, to give just a couple of examples.

The problem is that warring factions have learned the value of controlling the press, and some have become masters of it, and the press, as a group, seem to be too stupid to have figured it out yet. Their only interest seems to be getting the sensational story and damn the facts.

Voyager


----------

