Political Crossfire Forums

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

Pelagius wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: THE ANSWER IS A CATEGORICAL NO!
UNLESS ISRAEL IS PREPARED TO COMMIT
WAR-CRIMES OF GENOCIDAL PROPORTIONS,
NOT A F**KING CHANCE IN HELL!

When it comes to defeating terror that's entirely justified. When the population supports terror they make themselves a legitimate target for collective punishment.

It's replies like that what makes me question the merits of democracy. :roll: To actually think you have the vote makes me shudder in horror. Sometimes people are so shortsighted and to be quite frank, stupid, that I sometimes wonder if one's I.Q falls below a certain threshold, they should be denied the vote.
Jokes aside Pelagius, what you have just said, is testament that you need help, of the kind you wont get on Political Crossfire, but at a clinic.

Freedom of thought and speech are one of the cornerstones of democracy, and everybody no matter the views they hold must have their say. But what you just said disappoints me to the point that i'm stunned and shocked. To think that you would advocate and sanction your government for such misguided action, shows an example of why there is no peace in that region.

Di · Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1110 Location: Northern Calif

TrussenDK wrote: Due to the recent middle east crisis, i ask you. Is it possible to defeat a militia who is deeply rooted in and backed by the civilian population surrounding it.

The operative phrase being "...and backed by the civilian population surrounding it."

In my opinion, no, such a militia cannot be effectively defeated. I point to VietNam, the insurgency in Iraq, and decades of same-old, same-old in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict along with the Israeli/Lebanese conflict. If the civilian population supports the militia's goals and methods, and if they as a people are willing to suffer the result of those goals and methods without wavering in their support, then I see of no logical outcome in which said militia could ever be defeated.

That's not to say that the targets of said militia should therefore sit back and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked with impugnity. It's just a lose-lose situation for the entire region, that's all, with no legitimate end in sight.

SpartanPhalanx · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2157 Location: 3rd rock

Plato & Socrates wrote: Pelagius wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: THE ANSWER IS A CATEGORICAL NO!
UNLESS ISRAEL IS PREPARED TO COMMIT
WAR-CRIMES OF GENOCIDAL PROPORTIONS,
NOT A F**KING CHANCE IN HELL!

When it comes to defeating terror that's entirely justified. When the population supports terror they make themselves a legitimate target for collective punishment.

It's replies like that what makes me question the merits of democracy. :roll: To actually think you have the vote makes me shudder in horror. Sometimes people are so shortsighted and to be quite frank, stupid, that I sometimes wonder if one's I.Q falls below a certain threshold, they should be denied the vote.
Jokes aside Pelagius, what you have just said, is testament that you need help, of the kind you wont get on Political Crossfire, but at a clinic.

Freedom of thought and speech are one of the cornerstones of democracy, and everybody no matter the views they hold must have their say. But what you just said disappoints me to the point that i'm stunned and shocked. To think that you would advocate and sanction your government for such misguided action, shows an example of why there is no peace in that region.

Nazi Germany stated its reasons for invading its neighbours quite clearly as well..........to fight terror.

There is something very sick in the collective American/Israeli administrations psyche, that hundreds, and possibly thousands of innocent people HAVE to die because Hezbollah is responisble for the abduction of two Israeli soldiers and um......well....they're a terrorist group so we (Israel, U.S) are justified in murdering men, women and children, no matter how high that number goes, until Hezbollah is destroyed.

Todays flattening of those buildings in Qana, Lebanon, killing 54 civilians sadly will be just one example of the complete moral bankruptcy of America and its proxy Israel and is GUARANTEED to radicalise local and world opinion even more. If ANYONE could stop this insanity it is the United States, yet they continue to be complicit in the crimes being perpetrated by Israel.

And the world watches......

programmusic · Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 1186

SpartanPhalanx wrote:
Nazi Germany stated its reasons for invading its neighbours quite clearly as well..........to fight terror.

Um, no, they invaded to conquer Europe. There were no terror attacks agains the Germans.

:roll:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292036218&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Speaking to reporters, Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village, showing a video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches.

Olmert said that the area was a focal point for the firing of Katyusha rockets on Kiryat Shmona and Afula. He said that from the outset of the conflict, "hundreds of rockets have been fired from the Qana area."

Defense Minister Amir Peretz was also profoundly repentant for the fatal strike, saying, "this is a tragic incident that is a result of war. Hizbullah operates in the heart of populated centers with the full knowledge of endangering the lives of innocent civilians."

The defense minister ordered the IDF to conduct a full investigation into the incident

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz also expressed sorrow over the loss of innocent life. "We were operating in a place from where Katyushas are being fired and we distributed notices to residents. Unfortunately, people who assembled in the area, whom we were unaware of, were harmed," said Halutz.

Nevertheless, the chief of staff said that the IDF would continue to fight in order to defend northern residents and to bring calm to the region, adding, "the terrorist organizations are taking cover among populated areas. We will continue to operate, causing the minimum harm to civilians."

Di · Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1110 Location: Northern Calif

To those who who condemn Israel, do you believe it's okay for Hezbollah to set up rocket launchers on the roofs of schools and apartment buildings, in the parking lots of hospitals, beside mosques and UN outposts? If you do believe that's okay, then why do you believe that it's not okay for those launchers, which are currently lobbing over a hundred rockets a day into civilian areas of Israel, to be targeted for destruction? I'm seriously curious about this, because there truly seems to be a paradox that I really have difficulty comprehending.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8293 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: Well, OK skippy. Militias have failed in the past, but in terms of Israel in Lebanon, do you think that the current state of things are counterproductive to a more peace-full future for northern Israel. You said that in order to defeat a militia you would have to commit to a long and gritty campaign. Do you think that anyone in the Israeli government has such a campaign in mind, or do you think as i do that Hezbollah will come out of this stronger then going in, and the fragile Lebanese government weakened. I doubt that Hezbollah will lay down there weapons anytime soon. What positive outcome do you predict this conflict ending with?

No I dont think we have that kind of campaign in mind, what we do have in mind is to deal enough damage to destroy a lot of Hezbollah's capabilities. Namely the destruction of their rocket stockpiles, their officer cadres, manpower along the border and the bases and towns there, etc. We can do a good deal of damage to Hezbollah, but we dont plan on destroying them.

Quote: No no my friend, you let amnesia boy Skippy off to lightly. You should ask him what was Israels 18 year occupation and military campaign against Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon? "A long and gritty campaign" and a complete waste of time, money and dead Israeli soldiers, who should have been alive today. Enjoying life, family and a future, instead of buried in a cemetery, due to the utterly failed policies of there countrys leaders.

Pardoning the insult I'll indulge a reply. Their was no 18 year occupation of South Lebanon, it was the deployment of troops to a 20km Security Zone extending from the Israeli border. We were not waging a grinding campaign, we were forming a security force in the area to defend our border to and counter Hezbollah attempts. We left the bulk of Lebanon by 1985.

FreedomSpeech · Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 80

Di wrote: To those who who condemn Israel, do you believe it's okay for Hezbollah to set up rocket launchers on the roofs of schools and apartment buildings, in the parking lots of hospitals, beside mosques and UN outposts? If you do believe that's okay, then why do you believe that it's not okay for those launchers, which are currently lobbing over a hundred rockets a day into civilian areas of Israel, to be targeted for destruction? I'm seriously curious about this, because there truly seems to be a paradox that I really have difficulty comprehending.
Do you actually believe everything they say to you ? Please please for once guys try to use your brains, Israel has and still targetting every single civilian building in Lebanon, its impossible to set rocket launchers on all these civilians buildings, Israel's objective is so clear, they want to make a terror inside Lebanon to put Hezbollah in pressure by local parties. I'm really sick of this lame execuse "Hezbollah hides behind civilians", this is so stupid. Hezbollah are the ones who built those hospitals and schools, they provided Lebanese a lot of social services, why would they for god's sake give Israel execuses to damage what they have built in years.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

superskippy wrote: Quote: Well, OK skippy. Militias have failed in the past, but in terms of Israel in Lebanon, do you think that the current state of things are counterproductive to a more peace-full future for northern Israel. You said that in order to defeat a militia you would have to commit to a long and gritty campaign. Do you think that anyone in the Israeli government has such a campaign in mind, or do you think as i do that Hezbollah will come out of this stronger then going in, and the fragile Lebanese government weakened. I doubt that Hezbollah will lay down there weapons anytime soon. What positive outcome do you predict this conflict ending with?

No I dont think we have that kind of campaign in mind, what we do have in mind is to deal enough damage to destroy a lot of Hezbollah's capabilities. Namely the destruction of their rocket stockpiles, their officer cadres, manpower along the border and the bases and towns there, etc. We can do a good deal of damage to Hezbollah, but we dont plan on destroying them.

Quote: No no my friend, you let amnesia boy Skippy off to lightly. You should ask him what was Israels 18 year occupation and military campaign against Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon? "A long and gritty campaign" and a complete waste of time, money and dead Israeli soldiers, who should have been alive today. Enjoying life, family and a future, instead of buried in a cemetery, due to the utterly failed policies of there countrys leaders.

Pardoning the insult I'll indulge a reply. Their was no 18 year occupation of South Lebanon, it was the deployment of troops to a 20km Security Zone extending from the Israeli border. We were not waging a grinding campaign, we were forming a security force in the area to defend our border to and counter Hezbollah attempts. We left the bulk of Lebanon by 1985.

Is that what you call it? Israeli forces systematically went over the 20km zone to engage Hizbollah and to send in your snatch squads to abduct people you wanted. The kidnapping of your two soldiers was exactly because Hizbollah wanted some of those people back.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8293 Location: Petah Tikva

It's not what I call it, it's what it was. It wasnt an occupation of Lebanon it was a security zone that went at maximum 18-20km in and was manned to prevent rocket batteries from being able to hit deep into Israel.

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

superskippy wrote: It's not what I call it, it's what it was. It wasnt an occupation of Lebanon it was a security zone that went at maximum 18-20km in and was manned to prevent rocket batteries from being able to hit deep into Israel.

Your either naive, misinformed or a revisionist.

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10608 Location: Auckland

double

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10608 Location: Auckland

Pelagius wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: THE ANSWER IS A CATEGORICAL NO!
UNLESS ISRAEL IS PREPARED TO COMMIT
WAR-CRIMES OF GENOCIDAL PROPORTIONS,
NOT A F**KING CHANCE IN HELL!

When it comes to defeating terror that's entirely justified. When the population supports terror they make themselves a legitimate target for collective punishment.

genocide is never justified. the second you go down that path you just sell your right to be a human.

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10608 Location: Auckland

Di wrote: To those who who condemn Israel, do you believe it's okay for Hezbollah to set up rocket launchers on the roofs of schools and apartment buildings, in the parking lots of hospitals, beside mosques and UN outposts? If you do believe that's okay, then why do you believe that it's not okay for those launchers, which are currently lobbing over a hundred rockets a day into civilian areas of Israel, to be targeted for destruction? I'm seriously curious about this, because there truly seems to be a paradox that I really have difficulty comprehending.

The fact that hezbollah fires from built up areas, is part of logistics that you have to contend with. There is no right or wrong when a geurilla force fights a large force as far as they are concerned. We have no say other than to condemn the tactic. It is yours to overcome it in a way that doesn't defeat your own long term aims.

hezbollah is a known: they fire rockets at civilians, and so far 18 Israeli civilians have been killed. they don't however pretend to be doing anything else. Much like the british and Americans bombed civilians in WW2, there is no unsaid agenda. We can detest them without reserve.
Israel has killed swathes more lebanese, but we are always asked to suspend our disbelief and take it as read that they always do it by accident. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians, a huge proportion women and children. All accidents. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry; 400 times

Now I don't doubt that Israel would rather there were no dead lebanese civilians, but it doesn't seem to be overly concerned at the shocking proportion it is hitting.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8293 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: Your either naive, misinformed or a revisionist.

So all you are putting forth to rebute is an insult?

MoscowMatt · Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 1635 Location: UK / Hungary

Plato & Socrates wrote: superskippy wrote: It's not what I call it, it's what it was. It wasnt an occupation of Lebanon it was a security zone that went at maximum 18-20km in and was manned to prevent rocket batteries from being able to hit deep into Israel.

Your either naive, misinformed or a revisionist.

Fuuny I could of sworn those were your hallmarks!!! :lol: :lol:

theshield · Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 350

Nico wrote: Di wrote: To those who who condemn Israel, do you believe it's okay for Hezbollah to set up rocket launchers on the roofs of schools and apartment buildings, in the parking lots of hospitals, beside mosques and UN outposts? If you do believe that's okay, then why do you believe that it's not okay for those launchers, which are currently lobbing over a hundred rockets a day into civilian areas of Israel, to be targeted for destruction? I'm seriously curious about this, because there truly seems to be a paradox that I really have difficulty comprehending.

The fact that Hezbollah fires from built up areas, is part of logistics that you have to contend with. There is no right or wrong when a geurilla force fights a large force as far as they are concerned. We have no say other than to condemn the tactic. It is yours to overcome it in a way that doesn't defeat your own long term aims.

hezbollah is a known: they fire rockets at civilians, and so far 18 Israeli civilians have been killed. they don't however pretend to be doing anything else. Much like the british and Americans bombed civilians in WW2, there is no unsaid agenda.

You should not go back all the way to WW2.Just go back to 99 and see:

Quote: This triggered a 78-day NATO campaign in 1999. At first limited to military targets in Kosovo proper, the bombing campaign was soon extended to cover targets all over Yugoslavia, including bridges, power stations, factories, broadcasting stations, post offices, and various government buildings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Kosovo_War

Quote: We can detest them without reserve.
Israel has killed swathes more lebanese, but we are always asked to suspend our disbelief and take it as read that they always do it by accident. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians, a huge proportion women and children. All accidents. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry; 400 times

You are not asked to believe in anything.To be quite honest i don't think Israel care about what you or the EU believe in.The Israeli public believe in that.Not because of biased media who doesn't tell the whole story but because these soldiers in the air force,tanks,paratroopers etc.. are our sons and daughters.They are not mercenaries.All of us were/are in the army and we know for a fact what it teach its soldiers.

Your fellow Brits didn't like it when i pointed it out but Israel is facing a terrible dilemma.Hobson's choice if you like.We are fighting people who hide behind civilians aim at civilians and supported by civilians.As said before, there is no weapon in the world that can distinguish between innocent and terrorist.If the options that Israel have are to send leaflet and ask civilians to leave and then bombarded or make a phone calls and ask a family who hide in its house loads of weapons to leave and then hit the target OR to risk face to face combat in which we will have much more casualties than f**k them.I prefer the former than the later even if there is a chance that those who decided to stay will get hit.

You may also want to read this article:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744436.html

Plato & Socrates · Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 1745 Location: London

superskippy wrote: Quote: Your either naive, misinformed or a revisionist.

So all you are putting forth to rebute is an insult?

That was a tempered reply skippy. Naive, is deduced via your reply. Misinformed, because your answer is in incorrect and a revisionist, because what Israel done in Lebanon, was well documented so the likely hood of you knowing the facts is high. Where is the insult?

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8293 Location: Petah Tikva

Again Plato do you have anything constructive to put in as a response? If you feel so vehement about the subject than argue your point.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9506

Nico wrote:

The fact that hezbollah fires from built up areas, is part of logistics that you have to contend with. There is no right or wrong when a geurilla force fights a large force as far as they are concerned. We have no say other than to condemn the tactic. It is yours to overcome it in a way that doesn't defeat your own long term aims. Therefore the bombing in Qara was acceptable collateral damage. I'm fine with that. Since there's no right or wrong... why would a response to geurilla actions be condemned by a UN Emergency Security Council session (Not that the UN really means much).

Nico wrote: hezbollah is a known: they fire rockets at civilians, and so far 18 Israeli civilians have been killed. they don't however pretend to be doing anything else. Much like the british and Americans bombed civilians in WW2, there is no unsaid agenda.

Here's the issue: Geurilla's firing and killing civilians en masse is acceptable. Governments in today's world, the 21st century, it is not acceptable and causes world wide backlash, humanitarian issues, political issues, etc. Why is the response to geurilla warfare gauged so harshly, yet the geurilla's actions accepted so easily? I'm seeing a double standard.

If that is to be so, and there IS a double standard... why isn't it that governments like Israel, simply fight fire with fire. Have roving bands of hit / suicide squads go in and kill entire areas, plant booby-traps, sabotage, etc... wouldn't that be much more acceptable than using traditional military assets?

Nico wrote: Israel has killed swathes more lebanese, but we are always asked to suspend our disbelief and take it as read that they always do it by accident. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians, a huge proportion women and children. All accidents. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry; 400 times.

Sorry - that is the nature of warfare. Civilians die. How many on each side as part of a bean counting excercise is not militarily relevent unless of course it moves one side or the other towards the main goal, which in warfare is killing your enemy. What's interesting is that most people are too stupid to understand how Hezbollah is working it - they assist in killing their OWN people (by using them as sheilds, putting them near areas of pseudo-military operations) in hopes these civilians will be killed to further their own goals, which are generally political and humanitarian and NOT military.

The way to combat this is to remove the advantage this provides - not genocide, but certainly a scortched earth policy where everything is either bombed, burnt or leveled. Certainly not what Israel wants to get involved in at the moment.

Nico wrote: Now I don't doubt that Israel would rather there were no dead lebanese civilians, but it doesn't seem to be overly concerned at the shocking proportion it is hitting. Nor should they be given the tactics of their terrorist geurilla friends Hezbollah.

Nico · Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 10608 Location: Auckland

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Nico wrote:

The fact that hezbollah fires from built up areas, is part of logistics that you have to contend with. There is no right or wrong when a geurilla force fights a large force as far as they are concerned. We have no say other than to condemn the tactic. It is yours to overcome it in a way that doesn't defeat your own long term aims. Therefore the bombing in Qara was acceptable collateral damage. I'm fine with that. Since there's no right or wrong... why would a response to geurilla actions be condemned by a UN Emergency Security Council session (Not that the UN really means much).

I said: 'as far as they are concerned'. It's wrong to you and me, but that doesn't mean it is a problem without a smart solution. At the moment the 'solution' feeds the geurilla cause, so non-productive.

Quote:
Nico wrote: hezbollah is a known: they fire rockets at civilians, and so far 18 Israeli civilians have been killed. they don't however pretend to be doing anything else. Much like the british and Americans bombed civilians in WW2, there is no unsaid agenda.

Here's the issue: Geurilla's firing and killing civilians en masse is acceptable.

No, but there is no pretense that it is acceptable either.

Quote:
Governments in today's world, the 21st century, it is not acceptable and causes world wide backlash, humanitarian issues, political issues, etc. Why is the response to geurilla warfare gauged so harshly, yet the geurilla's actions accepted so easily? I'm seeing a double standard.

because hezbollah are like any transparent military organisation; they claim their ill-deeds, and take the fall-out as it comes. They are the bad dog that just is what it looks like.
The IDF is like a lot of modern armies that don't accept that their bombs are what kills people. Rather the people, and some other circumstance made the people at the end of the bomb dead. I call it divorcing one's self from responsibility for actions. Words like collateral damage are nice ointment on our consciences to make up for an inability to gather acurate information. The aim seems always to preserve the life of the soldier, but the honourable soldier is ordained to die in the place of civilians. That is our lot [at the risk of starting a whole different debate]

Quote:
If that is to be so, and there IS a double standard... why isn't it that governments like Israel, simply fight fire with fire. Have roving bands of hit / suicide squads go in and kill entire areas, plant booby-traps, sabotage, etc... wouldn't that be much more acceptable than using traditional military assets?

What they are doing now is much more blunt. I would rather they had 'roving bands'. At least a soldier can discriminate between a kid and a guy with a gun.

Quote:
Nico wrote: Israel has killed swathes more lebanese, but we are always asked to suspend our disbelief and take it as read that they always do it by accident. Hundreds and hundreds of civilians, a huge proportion women and children. All accidents. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry; 400 times.

Sorry - that is the nature of warfare. Civilians die. How many on each side as part of a bean counting excercise is not militarily relevent unless of course it moves one side or the other towards the main goal, which in warfare is killing your enemy. What's interesting is that most people are too stupid to understand how Hezbollah is working it - they assist in killing their OWN people (by using them as sheilds, putting them near areas of pseudo-military operations) in hopes these civilians will be killed to further their own goals, which are generally political and humanitarian and NOT military.

Sure it helps Hezbollah's pr when civilians get killed, but you omit 2 things:
#1 While supported by outside interests, hezbollah are locals, thus they are fighting from their own soil, and defending the places they live. Villages aren't just homes either, but the communication nodes of the fight. They demarcate road junctures and represent area control. hezbollah to win the fight have to control these points, that is a given.

#2 Israel cut off the routes for mass civilian evacuation. lebanese members of this very board have been turned back by Israeli bombing while trying to vacate. civilian vehicles have been bombed by Israeli jets.

bean counting between sides is not my point when giving numbers in this instance btw. Rather the proportion of civilian casualties sustained by Lebanese civilians with respect to the aims of Israel vis a vis controlling southern lebanon. The civilian dead figure is glaringly askew, and this can not be attributed to hezbollah, but the people who pushed the buttons. If the numbers are bad, it's becasue the strategic theory is bad, unless of course the theory doesn't give a crap about civilians. If it doesn't then one has to question one's own morality. reverse the tables and ask if 300 dead Israeli women and children would be considered reasonable in the same circumstances. If no, then what makes one civilian worth more than another?

Quote:

The way to combat this is to remove the advantage this provides - not genocide, but certainly a scortched earth policy where everything is either bombed, burnt or leveled. Certainly not what Israel wants to get involved in at the moment.

They have put the lines of communication out of service, which means they have set the ground for what can only be a bloody outcome. bombing all the south to the ground won't take out hezbollah, just give them more cover and kill civilians. as the buildings come down, the cover becomes more stable. see monte casino
Scorched earth is a retreat policy to deny resources. In attack it's name is simply anihilation. Effectively Israel have created a loose seige, but can't control resources coming in or out. This is a modern over-reliance on air-power coupled with tentative infantry tactics, and the result will be indecisive if it continues this way.

Quote:
Nico wrote: Now I don't doubt that Israel would rather there were no dead lebanese civilians, but it doesn't seem to be overly concerned at the shocking proportion it is hitting. Nor should they be given the tactics of their terrorist geurilla friends Hezbollah.

I argue that Israel should, precisely because that is why people support them, as they are considered more honourable to many. Killing so many civillians steals that perception, and it's hard to win back.

edit: i'll throw in a quote from gdawg's sig which fits:

The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy, but this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies." John McCain

Also don't buy into the idea that hezbollah are some rag-tag bunch of cartoon villains. they may have ideas that you hate, but they are a very competent military force, and nowhere near as disorganised as people think.