Political Crossfire Forums

[the sane voice]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Pebble wrote: the sane voice wrote: hezbollah "won" this war.from now on the terror group hezbollah will resort to more violence. waht should israel do now?

Recognise that, yet again, massive military response has failed to solve the issue?

Recognize that it wasn't massive enough... oh wait... that's right, Israel should be bent over a chair and be happy Hezbollah uses


its nice of you to share with us your personal experience on anal sex.
if you say idf didnt feel anything than ill conclude you know what your talking about.

[Varyag]

Ali stop lying, that square can in no way hold 1.5 million people, there were a few hundred thousand at best, many shipped in from Syria and almost all were muslim.

[ALi*]

lebanese security forces (pro sanyora's government) wich means its not in their best interrests to annouce a big number have said....
it is estimated 1.6 million people participated in the fest....

now stuff u say abt shipping from syria and ..and... well lol no comment it shows that u dont wana believe so ur making excuses.

[the sane voice]

ALi* wrote: lebanese security forces (pro sanyora's government) wich means its not in their best interrests to annouce a big number have said....
it is estimated 1.6 million people participated in the fest....

now stuff u say abt shipping from syria and ..and... well lol no comment it shows that u dont wana believe so ur making excuses.
hes right ali 1.6 milion?thats absurd.

[Varyag]

the sane voice wrote: ALi* wrote: lebanese security forces (pro sanyora's government) wich means its not in their best interrests to annouce a big number have said....
it is estimated 1.6 million people participated in the fest....

now stuff u say abt shipping from syria and ..and... well lol no comment it shows that u dont wana believe so ur making excuses.
hes right ali 1.6 milion?thats absurd.

All the respectable news outlets reported somewhere in the vacinity of 150000.

[ALi*]

Varyag wrote: the sane voice wrote: ALi* wrote: lebanese security forces (pro sanyora's government) wich means its not in their best interrests to annouce a big number have said....
it is estimated 1.6 million people participated in the fest....

now stuff u say abt shipping from syria and ..and... well lol no comment it shows that u dont wana believe so ur making excuses.
hes right ali 1.6 milion?thats absurd.

All the respectable news outlets reported somewhere in the vacinity of 150000.

looooool varyag.... ur post should run for post of the week competition and will have a good chance in post of the month...

lets say sum media sources said there were 150 000 would u belive it??? hahahahaahahha

[superskippy]

As I recall the BBC placed it at a 150,000-200,000 in that ballpark. I havent seen any tip it past 300,000, the Christian and Sunni counter protest was at what 40,000-50,000 the following day?

[Pebble]

the sane voice wrote: Pebble wrote:
Dresden was a war crime by modern standards.

What is your point here in any case? If I changed the little flag below my avatar would you adjust your insults accordingly? They do not lessen my point in any way.


you call dresden an insult?i think its one of the reasons you won ww2.

It's entirely possible, however there was a hideous loss of civilian life. Besides, Dresden is not the issue of debate here.

Quote: Quote:
Yes, but realistically you cannot simply destroy the building and claim to be minding civilian casualties - though we can see many examples of this in the recent conflict.

i never said i want to mind civilians casualties.in my view it is moral to do what you can to insure your safety and your life.

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you proposing liscencing the armed forces to purposefully shoot civilians?

Quote: Quote:
I dont understand what you mean when you say " war crime according to them is everything the idf can do to ensure the safety of its civilians".


i mean they are corrupted and care for Palestinians more then the isreali they serve.

Can you provide any evidence of that? Say, specific rulings? I'm not familiar with much of their work.

Quote: Quote:
That is simply one anecdote, it is not evidence enough to claim that effectiveness was reduced. Incidently, despite the loss of your comrade, did you succeed in your objective that day?

no we didnt achieve it.one anecdote?there are many more of this.
one is the recent war.

The recent conflict is not an anecdote, an anecdote is an example of personal experience.

Quote: Quote: Iran and Syria are not loved inside Lebanon, as demostrated by the 2005 Cedar Revolution. They do not have any infleunce with which to 'make sure'.

so the Lebanese president isnt pro syrian is he.

Lahoud is pro-Syrian, but I don't see him lasting that much longer - he is illegally in an extended term opposed by a large parliamentary majority that opposes him and his Syrian backers are out of the picture. Besides, it's not, I believe, the President that holds the significant power in Lebanon.

Quote: Quote:
It is in Israel's interests to ensure that Hezbollah does not have support inside Lebanon, do you believe that Israeli would lose to Hezbollah, a terrorist group, in a PR battle if they did not use military intervention as a response?


israel interest is to make sure no terror group like hezbollah threaten it.
if hezbollah has weapons and use terror on israel israel have to responde.
if they care so much for lebanon then they shouldnt attack.

Precisely. By attacking Lebanon you gave Hezbollah more support, therefore they have more power, therefore it was not in your best interests.

Quote: Quote:

Precisely, you cannot prove it. You simply cannot prove that even all of Hezbollah's supporters want Israel's destruction let alone the whole of Lebanon.


i never said all lebanon-and you cany prove otherwise.
which you claimed you are certain of it.but you can hear what they are saying.

You implied it, but i'll let the point drop.

What do you mean "you can hear what they are saying" ?

Quote: Quote:
Yes you did, you stated that the IDF did not win.

and?that doesnt mean hezbollah won.

Okay, lets run though this once more:

Hezbollah achieved its objective of survival, whilst the IDF failed most if not all of its major objectives. Hezbollah clearly won.

Quote: Quote:
That was the objective of the kidnapping sure, but once Israel went into Lebanon the objectives changed. They became survival and Hezbollah has come out of this whole encounted looking very well.
no it was always hezbollah goal.read nasrallah speeches.

Okay, show me some speeches from the recent conflict where Nasrallah states that it was the goal during the conflict "to kidnap soldiers".

Hezbollah's long term goals may well have been different, but during the conflict; survival and an Israeli 'defeat' was quite enough.

Rankor and Pissing wrote:
Recognize that it wasn't massive enough... oh wait... that's right, Israel should be bent over a chair and be happy Hezbollah uses [lube]

How would more military strikes have solved anything?

[the sane voice]

Pebble wrote:
It's entirely possible, however there was a hideous loss of civilian life. Besides, Dresden is not the issue of debate here.


why not?history isnt relivent?

Quote:

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you proposing liscencing the armed forces to purposefully shoot civilians?


of course not.i dont idf soldiers risking their lifes to protect non israeli civilians.

Quote:

Can you provide any evidence of that? Say, specific rulings? I'm not familiar with much of their work.


it will be hard to find in english
Quote:
The recent conflict is not an anecdote, an anecdote is an example of personal experience.

i meant it has many anecdotes

Quote:

Lahoud is pro-Syrian, but I don't see him lasting that much longer - he is illegally in an extended term opposed by a large parliamentary majority that opposes him and his Syrian backers are out of the picture. Besides, it's not, I believe, the President that holds the significant power in Lebanon.


and you cant deny the syrian influence on this can you?
Quote:

Precisely. By attacking Lebanon you gave Hezbollah more support, therefore they have more power, therefore it was not in your best interests.



the only way to beat them is to attack and disarm them de facto.other wise they will be strong enough to use their weapons.you dont defeat such people by talking to them "put your guns down please".
Quote:

You implied it, but i'll let the point drop.

i never implied anything

Quote:
What do you mean "you can hear what they are saying" ?


idsekly what it means.check the internet that is what they are saying.
Quote:
Okay, lets run though this once more:

Hezbollah achieved its objective of survival, whilst the IDF failed most if not all of its major objectives. Hezbollah clearly won.


hezbollah will remain in lebanon whether israel would want it or not.
to hezbollah to win it had to achive something.idf not achieveing its goals doesnt make hezbollah a winner.

Quote:
Okay, show me some speeches from the recent conflict where Nasrallah states that it was the goal during the conflict "to kidnap soldiers".

Hezbollah's long term goals may well have been different, but during the conflict; survival and an Israeli 'defeat' was quite enough.


hes goal during the war was to go to a cease fire and prisoners exchange.

[

[Pebble]

the sane voice wrote: Pebble wrote:
It's entirely possible, however there was a hideous loss of civilian life. Besides, Dresden is not the issue of debate here.


why not?history isnt relivent?

Dresden is not the issue at debate here.

Quote: Quote:

Can you explain what you mean here? Are you proposing liscencing the armed forces to purposefully shoot civilians?


of course not.i dont idf soldiers risking their lifes to protect non israeli civilians.



Quote: Quote:

Can you provide any evidence of that? Say, specific rulings? I'm not familiar with much of their work.


it will be hard to find in english


Fair enough, though it weakens your argument.

Quote: Quote: The recent conflict is not an anecdote, an anecdote is an example of personal experience.

i meant it has many anecdotes



Quote: Quote:

Lahoud is pro-Syrian, but I don't see him lasting that much longer - he is illegally in an extended term opposed by a large parliamentary majority that opposes him and his Syrian backers are out of the picture. Besides, it's not, I believe, the President that holds the significant power in Lebanon.


and you cant deny the syrian influence on this can you?


Yes...Syria has no meaningful influence anymore, Lahoud is a spent force. They have no means to ensure that it Hezbollah continues to have support as you claimed.

Quote: Quote: Precisely. By attacking Lebanon you gave Hezbollah more support, therefore they have more power, therefore it was not in your best interests.



the only way to beat them is to attack and disarm them de facto.other wise they will be strong enough to use their weapons.you dont defeat such people by talking to them "put your guns down please".


You don't talk to the militants, you remove their support base by appealing to the average people of the area.

Quote: Quote: You implied it, but i'll let the point drop.

i never implied anything



That was the inference I got, whether you intended it or not. I did however say i'd let the point drop.

Quote: Quote: What do you mean "you can hear what they are saying" ?


idsekly what it means.check the internet that is what they are saying.


You really need to explain what you are trying to say here...

Quote: Quote: Okay, lets run though this once more:

Hezbollah achieved its objective of survival, whilst the IDF failed most if not all of its major objectives. Hezbollah clearly won.


hezbollah will remain in lebanon whether israel would want it or not.
to hezbollah to win it had to achive something.idf not achieveing its goals doesnt make hezbollah a winner.

Hezbollah has achieved massive increases in support and has embarassed the IDF, i'd say that achieving something all right...

Quote: Quote:
Okay, show me some speeches from the recent conflict where Nasrallah states that it was the goal during the conflict "to kidnap soldiers".

Hezbollah's long term goals may well have been different, but during the conflict; survival and an Israeli 'defeat' was quite enough.


hes goal during the war was to go to a cease fire and prisoners exchange.



Achieving those ends required the survival of Hezbollah as a credible force, hence he did achieve his goals during the conflict.

[the sane voice]

Pebble wrote:

Dresden is not the issue at debate here.

Dresden was one of the reason the nazis lost.it has everything to do in this debate.

Quote:
Fair enough, though it weakens your argument.

how come?it doesnt proof or disprove it.you were just curious of my opinion.

Quote:


Yes...Syria has no meaningful influence anymore, Lahoud is a spent force. They have no means to ensure that it Hezbollah continues to have support as you claimed.

based on what?how did they manage to put pressure in lebanon?
they support hezbollah thats a lot of infulence.

Quote:
You don't talk to the militants, you remove their support base by appealing to the average people of the area.

hu?who do you think the militants are?


Quote:
You really need to explain what you are trying to say here...


im trying to say if you are so interested you can find it yourself on the internet not have mo do the job for you



Quote:

Hezbollah has achieved massive increases in support and has embarrassed the IDF, i'd say that achieving something all right...


support from who?based on what polls?how idf got embarrassed?
Quote:

Achieving those ends required the survival of Hezbollah as a credible force, hence he did achieve his goals during the conflict.

what is a credible force?he got prisoners exchange?
in my view he needed a cease fire in order to build hezbollah capability thus suffering a major blow.

[Varyag]

ALi* wrote: Varyag wrote: the sane voice wrote: ALi* wrote: lebanese security forces (pro sanyora's government) wich means its not in their best interrests to annouce a big number have said....
it is estimated 1.6 million people participated in the fest....

now stuff u say abt shipping from syria and ..and... well lol no comment it shows that u dont wana believe so ur making excuses.
hes right ali 1.6 milion?thats absurd.

All the respectable news outlets reported somewhere in the vacinity of 150000.

looooool varyag.... ur post should run for post of the week competition and will have a good chance in post of the month...

lets say sum media sources said there were 150 000 would u belive it??? hahahahaahahha

And where exactly did you get 1.5 million from Ali, what is it with muslims and lying, there were 150000 people there according to every non-hezbollah source that was there :lol:

And even that in itself is questionable, remember the last hezbollah rally?

[ALi*]

Quote: according to every non-hezbollah source that was there
of course it isnt in their interrest to say the real number... is it?
it will show hezbollah has massive support and... and....
let us say they only got 100 000 people....;)

[Varyag]

ALi* wrote: Quote: according to every non-hezbollah source that was there
of course it isnt in their interrest to say the real number... is it?
it will show hezbollah has massive support and... and....
let us say they only got 100 000 people....;)

Who's intrests? If anything outlets like the BBC and perhaps CNN would actually gain if the rally was larger, however they would never stake their own credibility on such a large differential (150000 vs 1.5million) There were 150000 people there, get over it.

[slitedeviance]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this one, but I need to point out that this...

the sane voice wrote: Dresden was one of the reason the nazis lost.it has everything to do in this debate.

...is wrong.

Dresden was a war crime and an act of revenge by Bomber Harris following the destruction of Coventry.

It was not one of the reasons the Nazi's lost. You want to know what the reason was?

Stalingrad, and the ability of the Red Army to send millions of it's troops to die and keep dying. Britain and the US stopped the allies from losing WW2, but Russian blood won the war in Europe.

[the sane voice]

slitedeviance wrote: I'm not going to get in the middle of this one, but I need to point out that this...

the sane voice wrote: Dresden was one of the reason the nazis lost.it has everything to do in this debate.

...is wrong.

Dresden was a war crime and an act of revenge by Bomber Harris following the destruction of Coventry.

It was not one of the reasons the Nazi's lost. You want to know what the reason was?

Stalingrad, and the ability of the Red Army to send millions of it's troops to die and keep dying. Britain and the US stopped the allies from losing WW2, but Russian blood won the war in Europe.
i dont have here exactly what churchil wrote but one of the reasons for the bombing of dresden was that he wanted the germans to know that britians can be as brutal as necessary.

[superskippy]

Both East and West were required to win World War II, had this been a no holds war only against Russia and not against the West the Soviets would have fallen. Likewise alone it would have taken decades if at all to liberate Europe without a Soviet eastern front.

As for Dresden or Hamburg I have no ill will for the bombings. You can call them warcrimes if you like it will not sway me. I have no sympathy for any loss or damage Germany suffered during the war and nothing can persuade me that there was any "excessive" attacks on Nazi Germany. If Dresden and Hamburg could have been done to every Germany city in 1939 then it would have saved the world so much blood and trouble. You can trumpet to me of the innocents who were killed and it will not persuade me, there comes a time when the difference between state and it's citizens is no longer discernable or neccessary. It was total war and if Nazi Germany could have been reduced to ash I would have wished it without a doubt. I have no sympathy for Nazi Germany, nor for Hamburg, nor for Dresden, nor for the Soviet actions in Prussia and Berlin, nor for the massacres of concentration camp guards and captured SS POW, nor for the razing of every major city, none. I only wish it was worse.

[slitedeviance]

superskippy wrote: I only wish it was worse.

....and at that point you lost me.

Personally I'm very glad it wasn't worse. What Europe has managed to acheive in 60 years is astounding, going from ruined countries and deep hatred to the strongest trading bloc in the world, re-unification of east and west Germany, common alliances and treaties. It's all down to the fact that people in general have put aside the view of "I wish it was worse".

WW2 happened, it was devastating and tore most of Europe apart, but it was 60 years ago. At what point do you turn round and accept that it is over.

Dresden itself was a warcrime in the same way that Coventry and Oradour were. Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant as you have clearly stated that you would be in favour of mass extermination.

[superskippy]

Quote: ....and at that point you lost me.

If I could have had a low yield nuclear device detonate in Kiel for example I would have willed it.

Quote: Personally I'm very glad it wasn't worse. What Europe has managed to acheive in 60 years is astounding, going from ruined countries and deep hatred to the strongest trading bloc in the world, re-unification of east and west Germany, common alliances and treaties. It's all down to the fact that people in general have put aside the view of "I wish it was worse".

It was greatly helped along the way and yes it rebounded from the war. Your point is irrelivent to mine.

Quote: Dresden itself was a warcrime in the same way that Coventry and Oradour were.

Fine. Then you can proclaim my support of war crimes if you like, the firestorm that consumed Dresden was no less than what Germany deserved.

Quote: Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant as you have clearly stated that you would be in favour of mass extermination.

Mass destruction of Nazi Germany, piling high their dead, and punishing them like no nation has been punished and beaten in the history of the world, if that is favoring mass extermination then you can call it what you like.

[Pebble]

the sane voice wrote: Pebble wrote:

Dresden is not the issue at debate here.

Dresden was one of the reason the nazis lost.it has everything to do in this debate.

This debate is not on World War 2...therefore Dresden is irrelavant in the context.

Quote: Quote:
Fair enough, though it weakens your argument.

how come?it doesnt proof or disprove it.you were just curious of my opinion.

You quoted it as a reason behind, not being able to provide any evidence of that weakens the point.

Quote: Quote:


Yes...Syria has no meaningful influence anymore, Lahoud is a spent force. They have no means to ensure that it Hezbollah continues to have support as you claimed.

based on what?how did they manage to put pressure in lebanon?
they support hezbollah thats a lot of infulence.

Their previous pressure was due to military occupation and theirbacking of a pro-Syrian government.

Erm, weren;t you trying to prove that Syria will ensure Hezbollah retains support? Saying that they'll use Hezbollah to achieve that end doesn't follow.

Quote: Quote:
You don't talk to the militants, you remove their support base by appealing to the average people of the area.

hu?who do you think the militants are?

Not every Hezbollah supporter or voter is going to be a militant. Their military strenght, according to recent estimates lies at 10,000 - they have far more supporters than militants.


Quote: Quote:
You really need to explain what you are trying to say here...


im trying to say if you are so interested you can find it yourself on the internet not have mo do the job for you

...what am I supposed to be looking for?

Quote: Quote:

Hezbollah has achieved massive increases in support and has embarrassed the IDF, i'd say that achieving something all right...


support from who?based on what polls?how idf got embarrassed?


Based on a variety of news coverage over the course of the conflict, plus upon simple logic.

The IDF was embarrased by not being able to defeat a smaller, poorer trained armed force despite massively outgunning them. That is an embarassment. However, probably the greatest example of the embarassment of the IDF would be the way that your people are now going for the heads of those in charge of the failed operation, i.e. Perez (?) and Olmert.

Quote: Quote: Achieving those ends required the survival of Hezbollah as a credible force, hence he did achieve his goals during the conflict.

what is a credible force?he got prisoners exchange?
in my view he needed a cease fire in order to build hezbollah capability thus suffering a major blow.

They're still very much a credible force in Lebanon, the IDF has not severely damanged them or their capabilities.


I neglected to reply to these points last time:

Quote: of course not.i dont idf soldiers risking their lifes to protect non israeli civilians.

That's your opinion. However, i'd ask you why?

Quote:
i meant it has many anecdotes


Very true, however I doubt that they all agree.