Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: oldskewlphool on July 30, 2006, 10:54:02 AM

Title: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on July 30, 2006, 10:54:02 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LEBANON_ISRAEL?SITE=AZTUS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LEBANON_ISRAEL?SITE=AZTUS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME)
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: iSalute on July 30, 2006, 12:01:32 PM
Unfortunately, innocent lives being taken is a common casualty of war. Lebanon should have previously pushed hezbuhla out of their country before they waged war on Isreal. The backing of hezbuhla by syria and iran could prove rather costly to the way the world looks at them.
Venezula's Chavez is making a huge mistake by allying with iran this past week. It is inevitable that he will cause many of his fellow countrymen death in the future with his hatred of the civilized west.
Now, if I were in charge, I would send Isreal our nuclear armorment, and tell them to go to town. The middle east is making this world a very dangerous place. It is quite unnerving to know that millions of muslims have such a deep hatred for Americans and the rest of the West for no solid reasons. Nuke the middle east, bring the world peace.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on July 30, 2006, 12:20:53 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

Go kill yourself, terrorist.

whoa, calm down dude. I know those 34 children were a serious threat.

are you calling me a terrorist?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 12:28:33 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

Go kill yourself, terrorist.

This kind of diplomacy will do wonders for your cause, Trollik.  Israel must take responsibility, apologize for this tragic error, and agree (at minimum) to guard passage of humanitarian and evacuation missions through southern Lebanon.  (I heard Olmert taking responsibility this morning; if he can do it, you should be able to.)
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 01:11:49 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

Go kill yourself, terrorist.

This kind of diplomacy will do wonders for your cause, Trollik.  Israel must take responsibility, apologize for this tragic error, and agree (at minimum) to guard passage of humanitarian and evacuation missions through southern Lebanon.  (I heard Olmert taking responsibility this morning; if he can do it, you should be able to.)

a 1mi flatland around any long range hezbollah missle launch site should be expected.  period.  no apologies.

Heh, I guess I should be happy that you've moderated your stance from a 78 sq. mile range to a 3 sq. mile range.  Still, this is insane.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: iSalute on July 30, 2006, 01:51:49 PM
When a terrorist group starts a war in a country (with any other country), they should be held responsible for all deaths incured in that country.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 01:57:47 PM
When a terrorist group starts a war in a country (with any other country), they should be held responsible for all deaths incured in that country.

bingo.

This just strikes me as a bizarre moral accounting that would completely remove any responsibility from the unoccupied country to do things like minimizing civilian deaths or abide by the rules of war.  We generally give parties with agency (like Israel) greater, not lesser, responsibility for their actions.  To borrow an example from another thread about this, if you had a terrorist group occupying Toronto and bombing Buffalo, do you think the terrorist group would then be responsible if the US retaliated by bombing Victoria, BC?  I would hold the US responsible for having such an irrational and disproportionate response.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: iSalute on July 30, 2006, 02:06:45 PM
Lebanon is 4/5th the size of Conneticut (ha, I can't even spell a US state. guess that really erases my credibility). With that being said, nearly every hit on Lebanon is within the "kill zone". It is ridiculous to make an analogy with Canada and Lebanon, when one is speaking about distance.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 02:13:06 PM
Lebanon is 4/5th the size of Conneticut (ha, I can't even spell a US state. guess that really erases my credibility). With that being said, nearly every hit on Lebanon is within the "kill zone". It is ridiculous to make an analogy with Canada and Lebanon, when one is speaking about distance.

Well, the rule you laid out seemed to be about nations, not about geographical area, so I was just borrowing an example that others (on your side, I'll add) had used in another thread about the same topic.  So what do you think are the fair parameters, since it doesn't actually seem to be about national boundaries?

I'm also (more) interested in your thoughts about the obligation of the unoccupied nation's army to use force responsibly. 
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: iSalute on July 30, 2006, 02:18:30 PM

[/quote]
I'm also (more) interested in your thoughts about the obligation of the unoccupied nation's to use force responsibly. 
[/quote]

Force used responsibly? The terrorists should pay for what they have done. Force is not an issue. If you have murdered a person in the US; and when the police break down your door, throw you on the ground, punch you in the back of the neck (for not cooperating), then toss you into jail...is that a misuse of force? Should no force be used? How responsible should the officers be?

If the suspect is a murderer, they should be shot on site. That is it.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 02:25:10 PM
Quote
I'm also (more) interested in your thoughts about the obligation of the unoccupied nation's to use force responsibly. 

Force used responsibly? The terrorists should pay for what they have done. Force is not an issue. If you have murdered a person in the US; and when the police break down your door, throw you on the ground, punch you in the back of the neck (for not cooperating), then toss you into jail...is that a misuse of force? Should no force be used? How responsible should the officers be?

If the suspect is a murderer, they should be shot on site. That is it.

This is not exactly the American way, kid.  Read your Constitution lately?  I'm assuming you think of yourself as a patriot. 

In any case, I wasn't even talking about using force responsibly against the "murderer" in your example or against terrorists.  I was talking about using force responsibly against civilians.  If you have no interest in this, I question your morality.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: iSalute on July 30, 2006, 02:29:41 PM
Quote
I'm also (more) interested in your thoughts about the obligation of the unoccupied nation's to use force responsibly. 

Force used responsibly? The terrorists should pay for what they have done. Force is not an issue. If you have murdered a person in the US; and when the police break down your door, throw you on the ground, punch you in the back of the neck (for not cooperating), then toss you into jail...is that a misuse of force? Should no force be used? How responsible should the officers be?

If the suspect is a murderer, they should be shot on site. That is it.

This is not exactly the American way, kid.  Read your Constitution lately?  I'm assuming you think of yourself as a patriot. 

In any case, I wasn't even talking about using force responsibly against the "murderer" in your example or against terrorists.  I was talking about using force responsibly against civilians.  If you have no interest in this, I question your morality.

The world was once based on morals. However, today, it seems as though they have been thrown out the window. And I will attribute this to a group of blood-thirsty people who would like nothing more than to kill every white man on this planet.

Given the chance, I would like to physically show them what hate they have fueled in me.

Seriously, F them. They are irrational, irresponsible, and deserve to die a most painful death for their sins.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 02:33:30 PM
The world was once based on morals. However, today, it seems as though they have been thrown out the window. And I will attribute this to a group of blood-thirsty people who would like nothing more than to kill every white man on this planet.

Given the chance, I would like to physically show them what hate they have fueled in me.

Seriously, F them. They are irrational, irresponsible, and deserve to die a most painful death for their sins.

Yes, that's the problem with our world: white guys suffering and in danger.

You obviously don't have any specific knowledge about Lebanon and Israel or any interest in a rational discussion about the rules of war, so I think I'll just leave things here.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 04:05:31 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,68214.0.html

Why'd you quote my post?  I don't get it.  Anyway, yeah, I saw that, but didn't we already discuss that column to death in the main thread?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 04:42:38 PM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,68214.0.html

Why'd you quote my post?  I don't get it.  Anyway, yeah, I saw that, but didn't we already discuss that column to death in the main thread?

arguing is pointless.  anything Israel does to attempt to take out Hezbollah is justified.  that's my POV.  so as long as they don't bomb clearly Christian neighborhoods of Beirut, for example, I think they have a full right to bombard.

I agree that arguing about it is pointless (not that anyone ever really responded to my arguments about it in the main thread, but whatever). 

In any case, there have been plenty of bombings in Ashrafiyeh, the main Christian enclave in Beirut.  Most have been precision attacks on vehicles reportedly carrying munitions, but there have been some casualties there.  I don't know if there are casualties in Zahleh and other Christian towns.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 04:49:23 PM
that makes it ok.  but I'd say you gotta be a lot more careful there than in south lebanon where the population actively supports their role as human shields for hezbollah.

Trollik, either they're being exploited as human shields or they are active Hezbollah supporters.  Human shields are not Hezbollah supporters by virtue of their exploitation.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on July 30, 2006, 04:55:47 PM
that makes it ok.  but I'd say you gotta be a lot more careful there than in south lebanon where the population actively supports their role as human shields for hezbollah.

Trollik, either they're being exploited as human shields or they are active Hezbollah supporters.  Human shields are not Hezbollah supporters by virtue of their exploitation.

not necessarily.  a human shield can revel in this position, as many hezbollah supporters do.  if they die, they become martyrs, don't you see?

No, I don't see.  You have such a picture-book understanding of Islam and martyrdom.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on July 31, 2006, 01:07:44 PM
No matter what Israel does to protect itself, it will involve the death of civilians.  So, under your theory, Israel shoudl do nothing because they will kill innocents.  This result eventhough Israel has all the capability in the world. 

Israel shoudl stop because what they are doing is turning opinion against them? Opinion was already againt them, israel is backed into a corner, none of the options are enticing, and you want them to do nothing.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 12:54:39 PM
if hezbollah hit an Israeli home killing civilians, I wonder if they'd halt their operations or apologize.

double standard.

It's not a double standard to expect more from a sovereign, democratic nation than the performance of a rogue militia.  But whatever floats your boat.  If you want to view Hezbollah and the IDF on the same moral plane, I don't think that will really suit your purposes very well.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 01:02:45 PM
how long do they get that pass for?  And besides, it's Iran with the blood on their hands.  So Iran is allowed to kill civilians at will but Israel isn't?

No one is "allowed" to kill civilians.  What are you talking about?  Hezbollah has been roundly condemned all over these boards, with very few exceptions.  The question is whether the fact that Hezbollah is immoral means that Israel should lower its moral standards.
 
And I agree that Hezbollah's primary sources of support -- at least before the IDF operation -- were not within Lebanon.  I think this makes the full-scale assault on Lebanon even harder to justify.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 01:11:03 PM
you know what I'm talking about.  Blame the sovereign state for every  miscalculation, but if it's terrorists.....nothing but sympathy.

If you condemn Hezbollah, then I assume you would admit that Israel is justified in attacking them.  Well, it follows that civilians are always killed during war.

So what's the problem exactly?  And I eagerly await an emphatic outcry next time a rocket slams into an israeli bldg.

Where is all this sympathy for the Hezbollah fighters?  I've been reading these threads, but I think I've only seen one ridiculous post that expresses any such thing.

No, my condemning Hezbollah doesn't mean that I think Israel should attack Lebanon.  I think Israel is justified in self-defense, and should attack Hezbollah if that is necessary to ensure the safety of the Israei people.  My problem is that this assault is not localized to Southern Lebanon, is hurting too many civilians, and is destabilizing the government.  Further, from here it looks as if it will empower, and not destroy, Hezbollah -- though I do hope I am wrong about this.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 01:28:19 PM
Empower?  perhaps in the short term.  This world war will continue until the West and Israel come to terms with the fact that these groups must be wiped out completely...at all cost.

as for sympathy....it doesn't need to be expressed outright.  the very fact that Israel is held to a different standard is enough.

Israel is not held to a different standard.  It's unacceptable for Hezbollah to target civilians.  It's also unacceptable for Israel to target civilians (which I don't believe it has intentionally done, by the way).  I have no sympathy for Hezbollah militants.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 01:36:28 PM
I Agree with you...so we don't seem to be arguing.  But I'm sure you are aware that there is a double standard out there.

No, I don't think there is a double standard, but we can leave it. 
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2006, 01:38:05 PM
dam phanny, i though you and I would never agree on anything

the double standard is clear.  Hezbollah is a group of savages so they dont have to play by rules, Israel is civilized so they do.

Even still, Israel is givign plenty of warning that they are about to attack and are 100% justified in responding to rockets launched from civilian areas. 

Either that, or Hezbollah gets a free pass to run roughshod over Israeli security.

Miss P, you are a moderate and seem to have your heart in the right place. But many people believe Israel is not justified no matter what they do unless they let the savages win.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 01, 2006, 01:45:13 PM
dam phanny, i though you and I would never agree on anything

the double standard is clear.  Hezbollah is a group of savages so they dont have to play by rules, Israel is civilized so they do.

Even still, Israel is givign plenty of warning that they are about to attack and are 100% justified in responding to rockets launched from civilian areas. 

Either that, or Hezbollah gets a free pass to run roughshod over Israeli security.

Miss P, you are a moderate and seem to have your heart in the right place. But many people believe Israel is not justified no matter what they do unless they let the savages win.

I just don't think anyone is saying that Hezbollah doesn't have to play by the rules.  Who's saying that?  The reason people aren't jumping up and down about the fact that Hezbollah is not playing by the rules is that we all know that it is an organization with the express purpose of breaking the rules and almost none of us disagree that this is terribly wrong.  There's no point in discussing it.

Thanks for the kind words about being a moderate or whatnot.  I am not really a moderate in any sense of the word, but I do try to be fair and reasonable, and I think this is a complex situation more fit more for the scalpel than for the sledgehammer.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2006, 02:06:58 PM
dam phanny, i though you and I would never agree on anything

the double standard is clear.  Hezbollah is a group of savages so they dont have to play by rules, Israel is civilized so they do.

Even still, Israel is givign plenty of warning that they are about to attack and are 100% justified in responding to rockets launched from civilian areas. 

Either that, or Hezbollah gets a free pass to run roughshod over Israeli security.

Miss P, you are a moderate and seem to have your heart in the right place. But many people believe Israel is not justified no matter what they do unless they let the savages win.

I just don't think anyone is saying that Hezbollah doesn't have to play by the rules.  Who's saying that?  The reason people aren't jumping up and down about the fact that Hezbollah is not playing by the rules is that we all know that it is an organization with the express purpose of breaking the rules and almost none of us disagree that this is terribly wrong.  There's no point in discussing it.

Thanks for the kind words about being a moderate or whatnot.  I am not really a moderate in any sense of the word, but I do try to be fair and reasonable, and I think this is a complex situation more fit more for the scalpel than for the sledgehammer.

But to the extent that people criticize Israel, they should first criticize Hezbollah.  I understand that you do not approve of Hezbollah, but many people here and in teh ME do approve of them.

The international criticism should rest upon Hezbollah, not Israel.  At least, people should give Israel credit for the steps they do take to minimize casualties.  Instead, people point out every mistake Israel makes and none of the attrocities that Hezbollah commits.

Hezbollah "is an organization with the express purpose of breaking the rules and almost none of us disagree that this is terribly wrong."  I think that it is terribly wrong and that Hezbollah is responsible for the deaths of every civilian that has died.  If it werent for their adventurism, we would not be having this conversation right now.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: rising2l on August 01, 2006, 02:34:55 PM
if hezbollah hit an Israeli home killing civilians, I wonder if they'd halt their operations or apologize.

double standard.

It's not a double standard to expect more from a sovereign, democratic nation than the performance of a rogue militia.  But whatever floats your boat.  If you want to view Hezbollah and the IDF on the same moral plane, I don't think that will really suit your purposes very well.

That's right. Israel makes an enormous effort not to kill civilians and the Hizbullah doesn't.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2006, 09:14:16 PM
Iseal and Hezbollah are not viewed the same way becasue they are totally diffrent things. Isreal is a nation with the 2nd highest military spending (per capita) in the world and Hezbollah is a small band of rebels with some fireworks.

So i guess Israel should pull punches until Hezbollah catches up?  would you have the same response if guerillas were attacking the us at the southern border?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 01, 2006, 09:41:36 PM
Iseal and Hezbollah are not viewed the same way becasue they are totally diffrent things. Isreal is a nation with the 2nd highest military spending (per capita) in the world and Hezbollah is a small band of rebels with some fireworks.

So i guess Israel should pull punches until Hezbollah catches up?  would you have the same response if guerillas were attacking the us at the southern border?

If a small group of mexicans committed some crimes in the US I would not be in favor of bombing the entire population of mexico to try to get thoes individuals.

Lest say about 5 thousand Mexican guerillas decide that they want to "liberate" california and decide to conduct cross border raids, captureing and killin US servicemen.  The UN is apathetic and the Mexican government is inept.  Further, it turns out that Hugo Chavez is funding the guerillas and calls for the destruction of the US/CA.  The US, with no options left, would be 100% justified in bombing the infrastructure of Mexico to inhibit the resupply efforts of the guerillas.  ALSO, from wherever the guerillas fired rockets, the US would be justified in launching air strikes upon them.  Now, consider the fact that the guerillas have unreasonable demands, and believe their conflict i justified by their religious beliefs, and you have a situation in which the US could not negotiate out of.  the US would be 100% justified in bombing hte hell out of the guerilla positions and infrastructure.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: lp4law on August 01, 2006, 09:47:27 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

This is dead on.  As a former (and well-educated) Marine, it disappoints me that such a high percentage of fellow-Americans delude themselves into believing that, with enough peaceful diplomacy, all cultures can eventually co-exist with all other cultures.  This is a fallacy which ignores the nature of our enemies, and, in a broader sense, our nature as human beings.  The enemy and its allies have committed to their position, which is NOT one of peaceful diplomacy.  It would be advisable for us to do the same while our strategic military capability can still overwhelm theirs.  This enemy is to be admired in one sense:  In life, they fear nothing but the hand of God.   To protect the future of our nation and our way of life, we must be prepared to deliver the hand of God to the enemy once diplomacy proves futile.  Perhaps that time draws near.  Welcome to the human race folks.

Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 02, 2006, 07:14:28 AM
oldskeewl, i don't mean to sound harsh...but you have a very shallow understanding of all this.  I think you are out of your league here.



Oh, no, this is definitely the right league for people with very shallow understandings of the situation.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: likewise on August 02, 2006, 07:37:26 AM
It is quite unnerving to know that millions of muslims have such a deep hatred for Americans and the rest of the West for no solid reasons.

That's funny.   ::)
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 02, 2006, 12:26:56 PM
Iseal and Hezbollah are not viewed the same way becasue they are totally diffrent things. Isreal is a nation with the 2nd highest military spending (per capita) in the world and Hezbollah is a small band of rebels with some fireworks.

So i guess Israel should pull punches until Hezbollah catches up?  would you have the same response if guerillas were attacking the us at the southern border?

If a small group of mexicans committed some crimes in the US I would not be in favor of bombing the entire population of mexico to try to get thoes individuals.

Lest say about 5 thousand Mexican guerillas decide that they want to "liberate" california and decide to conduct cross border raids, captureing and killin US servicemen.  The UN is apathetic and the Mexican government is inept.  Further, it turns out that Hugo Chavez is funding the guerillas and calls for the destruction of the US/CA.  The US, with no options left, would be 100% justified in bombing the infrastructure of Mexico to inhibit the resupply efforts of the guerillas.  ALSO, from wherever the guerillas fired rockets, the US would be justified in launching air strikes upon them.  Now, consider the fact that the guerillas have unreasonable demands, and believe their conflict i justified by their religious beliefs, and you have a situation in which the US could not negotiate out of.  the US would be 100% justified in bombing hte hell out of the guerilla positions and infrastructure.

Even if the figure of 5000 guerillas was correct, this would still be wrong. Firstly, the US would not be in this situation, becuase unlike Isreal, we did'nt kick people out of their holy land after randomly picking this as a location for our country. But even if we were, the US would never (hopefully) bomb the entire country of Mexico, a country of 107 million people, to get at only 5000 select individuals with primitive weapons.

When you translate your video game talk of 'gurilla positions' and 'infrastructure' into real life it means thousands of civilian deaths(like the kids in the OP).

But really, this gets into an endless argument becuase it highlights the real diffrence bettween conservatives and liberals, to conservatives the world is a big video game that the US is trying to 'win'. For Liberals, the world is filled with real people whose lives actually matter to them just as much as our lives matter to us.

Oh yeah, this brings me to a question for you guys. What is the goal? Like what is the ultimate goal of this strike by Isreal, is it really to Eliminate Hezbollah? If so, can you explain how this course of action will eliminate them?
Ahem. The US did take California from Mexico.

The US would certainly not call in the UN to kee the peace, nor would it just sit back and wait for the guerillas with their primitive weapons to get better weapons.  The US would strategically bomb sites from which the guerillas operated and the infrastructure the guerillas used and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. No one would expect the US to tie their hands behind their back to fight an enemy that doesnt care about civilian death.  If Mexico couldnt do anything about it, the responsibility falls on the US to protect its security.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 02, 2006, 11:58:24 PM
is your name mel......mel gibson perhaps?

relax....it's a joke.

My last name is JACOBS. Half my family is Jewish.

f-ing traitor.  the arabs kill your likes on a daily basis...

"The Arabs," trollik?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 02, 2006, 11:59:12 PM
Your icon is a picture of a gun with the word "drool" under it.

This is your best point so far, OSP.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 03, 2006, 02:00:45 AM
Your icon is a picture of a gun with the word "drool" under it.

This is your best point so far, OSP.

I just started posting on message boards a lot recently, what does OSP mean?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 03, 2006, 09:54:04 AM
I just started posting on message boards a lot recently, what does OSP mean?

It's an abbreviation of your name.  :P
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 03, 2006, 10:00:55 AM
I just started posting on message boards a lot recently, what does OSP mean?

It's an abbreviation of your name.  :P

haha, oh I see.  :)
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 03, 2006, 10:23:37 AM
Isreal has killed three times more civilians than Hezbollah so it is pretty clear which side cares less about civilian deaths.

And the US may have taken CA from Mexico but the situation is hardley analagous to Isreal taking Palestine from the Palestinians. Isreal, just 60ish years ago randomly killed thousands of people and displaced millions of others in order to found their "country" and even today they continue the brutal occupation of palestinian territory.

Today, Isreal continues to use it's superpowerful(US Funded) military to destroy anybody who stands in there way(All muslims)

America's continued support of Isreal is the worst foriegn policy blunder that we have ever made. Trying to establish good relations with Arab states while supporting isreal is like trying to swim with an anchor tied to your ankle.

Isreal is wrong, the whole world has realized this but the US is just a little behind the curve.
Nasrallah is that you?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 03, 2006, 12:24:10 PM
So you admit Nasrallah is a terrorist?

The fact that Israel has killed more people does not refute the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians and hides amongst civilian populations because it believes civilian deaths advance their cause.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 03, 2006, 05:54:53 PM
So you admit Nasrallah is a terrorist?

The fact that Israel has killed more people does not refute the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians and hides amongst civilian populations because it believes civilian deaths advance their cause.

And the fact that Hezbollah believes (alas, correctly) that civilian deaths advance its cause does not refute the fact that Israel is responsible for some of these deaths -- whether or not you think that's acceptable.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 12:28:53 AM
So you admit Nasrallah is a terrorist?

The fact that Israel has killed more people does not refute the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians and hides amongst civilian populations because it believes civilian deaths advance their cause.

And the fact that Hezbollah believes (alas, correctly) that civilian deaths advance its cause does not refute the fact that Israel is responsible for some of these deaths -- whether or not you think that's acceptable.

no it is NOT.  had Hezbollah not kidnapped Israeli soldiers by invading Israel, there would be no lebanese deaths.  hezbollah, Iran, and the entire Arab world that funds it are responsible.  but hey, what are a few dead lebanese to the savages, in the long term goal of destroying Israel, as the godfather of terrorism Arafat had so delicately stated when he was still killing Jews whenever he could?

Trollik, you are arguing, essentially, that any action Israel takes in response to Hezbollah's transgression -- a hideous, criminal act -- would be on Hezbollah's hands?  This is actually a genuine question; I am trying to push the limits of the underlying argument.  If so, if Israel did do something irrational and very dangerous, such as dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran, this, too, would be solely attributable to Hezbollah?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 12:41:33 AM
it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 12:46:59 AM
it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.


By the way, as an aside, I really hate this usage of "existential."  Would you consider using "existing," "existent," or "extant" in the future?  I scare-quoted it once before when you used it, but I'm sure that was too subtle. 
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 01:48:37 AM
it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.

the difference, you see, is that the death of 1 Israeli soldier by the hands of Islamist fanatics, to Israel, is the same as the deaths of any number of Israelis.  Thus, "punching" is very much not an apt analogy.  Israel will protect every last citizen to its fullest capability.  Period.

and I'd say al-Faqr missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, as soon as Hezbollah expressed an intent, obviously from a green light from puppet masters in Tehran to use them, pose an existential threat.  if Iran gets close to acquiring nukes which the current Iranian administration would have no qualms of deploying as a means of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa when developed, and the only way to take them out is a nuclear strike on Tehran, than that is Israel's moral imperative.  i hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, of course, I hope it doesn't come to that, too.  I think that in retrospect, we will look back on the war in Iraq as being a very dangerous move, allowing Iran to rise unchecked.  It's terrifying.

You're missing the boat on the punching analogy, however.  Let's say we're talking all-out destruction: I know of your "existential" plan to kill me and everyone I love -- savages, you know.  Now, in order to stop you, depending on the situation, I might have to kill you.  If I do, we can agree that you bear the responsibility for that.  But if I choose to torture you first, or if I choose also to kill your family, or if I let you go but kill people you love, that's not on you, is it?  These acts would be the products of my own recklessness or violent instincts or very irrational calculations, not of your threats.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 02:02:06 AM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 08:58:34 AM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?

this depends on whether you're looking from the eyes of current and future Israelis or current and future lebanese.  so we can never agree.  i answer yes to all three.

I'm not sure that's the variable.  There are plenty of current Israelis who agree with me on at least one if not all three of those tests.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 04, 2006, 08:59:36 AM
Also, aren't you supposed to be all anti-relativist?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 04, 2006, 10:37:34 AM
it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.

the difference, you see, is that the death of 1 Israeli soldier by the hands of Islamist fanatics, to Israel, is the same as the deaths of any number of Israelis.  Thus, "punching" is very much not an apt analogy.  Israel will protect every last citizen to its fullest capability.  Period.

and I'd say al-Faqr missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, as soon as Hezbollah expressed an intent, obviously from a green light from puppet masters in Tehran to use them, pose an existential threat.  if Iran gets close to acquiring nukes which the current Iranian administration would have no qualms of deploying as a means of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa when developed, and the only way to take them out is a nuclear strike on Tehran, than that is Israel's moral imperative.  i hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, of course, I hope it doesn't come to that, too.  I think that in retrospect, we will look back on the war in Iraq as being a very dangerous move, allowing Iran to rise unchecked.  It's terrifying.

You're missing the boat on the punching analogy, however.  Let's say we're talking all-out destruction: I know of your "existential" plan to kill me and everyone I love -- savages, you know.  Now, in order to stop you, depending on the situation, I might have to kill you.  If I do, we can agree that you bear the responsibility for that.  But if I choose to torture you first, or if I choose also to kill your family, or if I let you go but kill people you love, that's not on you, is it?  These acts would be the products of my own recklessness or violent instincts or very irrational calculations, not of your threats.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

I don't think the phrase "Religion of Peace" is trademarked. I looked it up on the Patent Office's website and could'nt find it, could you post a link to it? thanks.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 04, 2006, 11:44:51 AM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 07, 2006, 12:03:48 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 07, 2006, 12:13:43 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely.  if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.
B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties.  Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.
C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel.  It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 07, 2006, 12:54:08 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely.  if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.
B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties.  Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.
C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel.  It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 07, 2006, 02:11:45 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely.  if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.
B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties.  Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.
C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel.  It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.
A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate. ::)

B)  You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas.  That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas.  Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law.  Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law.  Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel.  Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land.  Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too.  The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did).  What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 07, 2006, 04:29:53 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely.  if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.
B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties.  Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.
C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel.  It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.
A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate. ::)

B)  You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas.  That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas.  Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law.  Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law.  Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel.  Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land.  Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too.  The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did).  What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?

A) Nazis Vs Hizballah -----> A Terrible Comparison. Nazis fought wars, wars can be won/lost thus destryoing Nazis. Hizballah is a militia that fights skirmishes, gets hurt, melts back, reinforces, re-emerges. If the "Cause" dies, a militia dies. Let Hizballah Proliferate ?!?! Did i say that? Israel has only one weapon in its arsenal of diplomacy, i.e. a hammer. Unfortunately that ain't working...

B) The whole discussion falls apart if "Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law..." Then why discuss conflicts, death tolls on either side? Let people die because people will die anyway and lets happily watch the bloodshed because "hey its a war dude."

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/dailyUpdate.html

C) Terrorists in Afghanistan keep rearming, hence lets keep carpet bombing its cities, towns and mountains. Terrorists and militias keep on rearming in Iraq so lets keep bombing Baghdad. We wouldn't be living in this world today if there was not a concept of "cease-fire." Talking i believe is more important that shelling. Listening is more important than killing. Sitting on the table with a clean intent to solve the conflict is better than engaging in outright war and destruction. Tom Friedman, U'S's leading foreign policy journalist recently has acknowledged that the US policy in the middle east is flawed. Essentially that means U.S's indescriminate support for Israel and outright rejection of Arab opinion is hurting US reputation in a fragile world while at the same time hurting Israel.   

NOTE: You might feel i am supporting Hizballah. I am not. I am however supporting a FREE and FAIR DISCUSSION which is lacking in our media today. Fortunately the world sees our TV Channels and gets to see our views firsthand. Unfortunately we are not able to see what the world media has to say about us and most importantly our policies. Why are we not able to see Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya and other channels - yes those channels show images we might not like but lets face it we need to understand the other party, their grievances to really know how they feel and what they feel. Israel must defend itself, so should Hizballah. Capturing soldiers was not a smart tactic. And finally true diplomacy does work....if given a chance.   


Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 07, 2006, 05:52:02 PM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,67335.msg1605111.html#msg1605111) I posted in the other thread?
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?
What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?
 
C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely.  if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.
B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties.  Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.
C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel.  It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.
A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate. ::)

B)  You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas.  That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas.  Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law.  Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law.  Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel.  Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land.  Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too.  The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did).  What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?

A) Nazis Vs Hizballah -----> A Terrible Comparison. Nazis fought wars, wars can be won/lost thus destryoing Nazis. Hizballah is a militia that fights skirmishes, gets hurt, melts back, reinforces, re-emerges. If the "Cause" dies, a militia dies. Let Hizballah Proliferate ?!?! Did i say that? Israel has only one weapon in its arsenal of diplomacy, i.e. a hammer. Unfortunately that ain't working...

B) The whole discussion falls apart if "Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law..." Then why discuss conflicts, death tolls on either side? Let people die because people will die anyway and lets happily watch the bloodshed because "hey its a war dude."

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/dailyUpdate.html

C) Terrorists in Afghanistan keep rearming, hence lets keep carpet bombing its cities, towns and mountains. Terrorists and militias keep on rearming in Iraq so lets keep bombing Baghdad. We wouldn't be living in this world today if there was not a concept of "cease-fire." Talking i believe is more important that shelling. Listening is more important than killing. Sitting on the table with a clean intent to solve the conflict is better than engaging in outright war and destruction. Tom Friedman, U'S's leading foreign policy journalist recently has acknowledged that the US policy in the middle east is flawed. Essentially that means U.S's indescriminate support for Israel and outright rejection of Arab opinion is hurting US reputation in a fragile world while at the same time hurting Israel.   

NOTE: You might feel i am supporting Hizballah. I am not. I am however supporting a FREE and FAIR DISCUSSION which is lacking in our media today. Fortunately the world sees our TV Channels and gets to see our views firsthand. Unfortunately we are not able to see what the world media has to say about us and most importantly our policies. Why are we not able to see Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya and other channels - yes those channels show images we might not like but lets face it we need to understand the other party, their grievances to really know how they feel and what they feel. Israel must defend itself, so should Hizballah. Capturing soldiers was not a smart tactic. And finally true diplomacy does work....if given a chance.   




You act as if hezbollah is a rational organization with a desire to live side by side with Israel.  This is patently untrue.  Not only is their stated goal to destory Israel, they constantly raid the border to provoke Israel.  The reason Israel responds with a hammer is because the other side refuses rational compromise and negotiation. 

Israel gave up Gaza and what did that get them?  Explain that.

Israel is not indiscriminately bombing civilians, Hezbollah is indiscriminately bombing Israeli civilians.  Israel sees Hezbollah firing from cities, rooftops, hospitals and they fire back.  Is Israel supposed to sit back and let Hezbollah flaunt international law, bomb Israel, kidnap soldiers, and lobby for Israel's destruction?  No way.  The civilian casualties in Lebanon are tragic, but such is war.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Julie Fern on August 08, 2006, 09:24:57 AM
kill!  kill!  kill!  kill!
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Miss P on August 09, 2006, 03:23:47 AM
now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.
I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

You've already taken the LSAT, right?  In any case, I hope you don't have to do too much logical reasoning from here out.

(a) I agree with you that the goal should be minimizing Hezbollah's threat.  However, as LSATguy points out, this is probably increasing Hezbollah's threat, isn't it?  You say that this is why we must destroy Hezbollah completely, but that's a job much more suited for diplomacy, border patrols, and a multinational ground offensive than it is for unilateral airstrikes.  The airstrikes -- and particularly the attacks on Christian areas and on Lebanese civilian infrastructure -- are emboldening Hezbollah's supporters, and seem to have done nothing to weaken the armed militants in the south.  Meanwhile, Israel is losing international support and neutral organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross have accused it of violating the Geneva Conventions.

(b) The "human shield" argument doesn't take you very far when you're talking about bombing areas with no Hezbollah presence (or previoius support for Hezbollah) and civilian infrastructure.  How, exactly, is this narrowly tailored?

(c) The existence of more destructive paths does not make this the least destructive path.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 09, 2006, 10:54:36 AM
A) Israel is killing Hezbollah, but neither of us konw whether Hezbollah has actually replaced their dead fighters.  Even if Hezbollah is replacing fighters faster than Israel can kill them, Israel has no other choice but to use force against Hezbollah and Lebanon.  The UN has been in Lebanon but has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from raiding the border.  When a country decides to use force, it must be of last resort and overwhelming force.

B)  Look, war is war and all targets are fair game.  In the old days, an army would kill every man woman and child.  That is Hezbollah's tactic but Israel is dropping fliers warning of destruction, making phone calls to warn people, and only destroying infrastructure.  The fact that Hezbollah uses airports, roads, trains and automobiles to receive thousands of rockets and other munitions, and would use the same to transport their hostage out of Lebanon makes those targets fair game.

You cant have it both ways and say Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but Israel should have used less force.  If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then Israel is entitled to use all the force necessary to defeat Hezbollah. 

Lebanon is either a rogue state or not a sovereign country.  Sovereignty precludes a rogue army from operating within your borders to attack neighbors. 

C) A country should use overwhelming force in a war.  Of the levels of overwhelming force, Israel is using the least destructive method because they are not deliberately attacking civilians and they are giving plenty of warning.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Julie Fern on August 09, 2006, 12:49:26 PM
kill!  hooray!
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Julie Fern on August 10, 2006, 06:30:48 AM
not you get it?  kill!
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 10, 2006, 09:19:07 AM
A) Israel is killing Hezbollah, but neither of us konw whether Hezbollah has actually replaced their dead fighters.  Even if Hezbollah is replacing fighters faster than Israel can kill them, Israel has no other choice but to use force against Hezbollah and Lebanon.  The UN has been in Lebanon but has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from raiding the border.  When a country decides to use force, it must be of last resort and overwhelming force.

B)  Look, war is war and all targets are fair game.  In the old days, an army would kill every man woman and child.  That is Hezbollah's tactic but Israel is dropping fliers warning of destruction, making phone calls to warn people, and only destroying infrastructure.  The fact that Hezbollah uses airports, roads, trains and automobiles to receive thousands of rockets and other munitions, and would use the same to transport their hostage out of Lebanon makes those targets fair game.

You cant have it both ways and say Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but Israel should have used less force.  If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then Israel is entitled to use all the force necessary to defeat Hezbollah. 

Lebanon is either a rogue state or not a sovereign country.  Sovereignty precludes a rogue army from operating within your borders to attack neighbors. 

C) A country should use overwhelming force in a war.   Of the levels of overwhelming force, Israel is using the least destructive method because they are not deliberately attacking civilians and they are giving plenty of warning.

We get it...using excessive force will help. I sooo wish that works but time will tell. I would reserve my comments and let the future events dictate your future opinions on this issue.

Julie you right...lets just kill!
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Julie Fern on August 10, 2006, 10:06:50 AM
well, julie just trying to go with flow.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 10, 2006, 10:12:53 AM
A) Israel is killing Hezbollah, but neither of us konw whether Hezbollah has actually replaced their dead fighters.  Even if Hezbollah is replacing fighters faster than Israel can kill them, Israel has no other choice but to use force against Hezbollah and Lebanon.  The UN has been in Lebanon but has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from raiding the border.  When a country decides to use force, it must be of last resort and overwhelming force.

B)  Look, war is war and all targets are fair game.  In the old days, an army would kill every man woman and child.  That is Hezbollah's tactic but Israel is dropping fliers warning of destruction, making phone calls to warn people, and only destroying infrastructure.  The fact that Hezbollah uses airports, roads, trains and automobiles to receive thousands of rockets and other munitions, and would use the same to transport their hostage out of Lebanon makes those targets fair game.

You cant have it both ways and say Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but Israel should have used less force.  If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then Israel is entitled to use all the force necessary to defeat Hezbollah. 

Lebanon is either a rogue state or not a sovereign country.  Sovereignty precludes a rogue army from operating within your borders to attack neighbors. 

C) A country should use overwhelming force in a war.   Of the levels of overwhelming force, Israel is using the least destructive method because they are not deliberately attacking civilians and they are giving plenty of warning.

We get it...using excessive force will help. I sooo wish that works but time will tell. I would reserve my comments and let the future events dictate your future opinions on this issue.

Julie you right...lets just kill!

It isnt excessive if there are no other options. Besides, Hezbollah doesnt want a cease fire for peace, they want it so they can reload and ready for their next attack.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 10, 2006, 10:50:02 AM
A) Israel is killing Hezbollah, but neither of us konw whether Hezbollah has actually replaced their dead fighters.  Even if Hezbollah is replacing fighters faster than Israel can kill them, Israel has no other choice but to use force against Hezbollah and Lebanon.  The UN has been in Lebanon but has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from raiding the border.  When a country decides to use force, it must be of last resort and overwhelming force.

B)  Look, war is war and all targets are fair game.  In the old days, an army would kill every man woman and child.  That is Hezbollah's tactic but Israel is dropping fliers warning of destruction, making phone calls to warn people, and only destroying infrastructure.  The fact that Hezbollah uses airports, roads, trains and automobiles to receive thousands of rockets and other munitions, and would use the same to transport their hostage out of Lebanon makes those targets fair game.

You cant have it both ways and say Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but Israel should have used less force.  If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then Israel is entitled to use all the force necessary to defeat Hezbollah. 

Lebanon is either a rogue state or not a sovereign country.  Sovereignty precludes a rogue army from operating within your borders to attack neighbors. 

C) A country should use overwhelming force in a war.   Of the levels of overwhelming force, Israel is using the least destructive method because they are not deliberately attacking civilians and they are giving plenty of warning.

We get it...using excessive force will help. I sooo wish that works but time will tell. I would reserve my comments and let the future events dictate your future opinions on this issue.

Julie you right...lets just kill!

It isnt excessive if there are no other options. Besides, Hezbollah doesnt want a cease fire for peace, they want it so they can reload and ready for their next attack.

...according to you.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 10, 2006, 01:03:32 PM
what other options are there?  before you say the UN, remember that the UN has been there and has done nothing.  Before you say negotiations, remember that a country that has been attacked generally doesnt want to negotiate with its attackers. 
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: LSATguy on August 10, 2006, 03:10:22 PM
what other options are there?  before you say the UN, remember that the UN has been there and has done nothing.  Before you say negotiations, remember that a country that has been attacked generally doesnt want to negotiate with its attackers. 

Hizballah has said it will cease firing rockets if Israel halts the offensive and retreats back. The UN's role in the region is limited but why is it limited? The 2 superpowers, US and Israel (in middle-east) dont give a s***t about UN and hence the UN is impotent as far as solving the crisis is concerned - this is not speculation - who attacked the UN outpost in Lebanon after being warned for 6 hours and after giving the co-ordinates of the UN location? Its easy to blame the UN for not being an active player in conflict resolution but remember why the UN behaves the way it does. Who has violated the most UN resolutions in its history? Is it Iraq, Iran, Cuba.... No! its Israel.

Negotiations are possible if the hot headed mentality is dropped. Do you really think this war was about the 2 soldiers? Why would a country sacrifice 40-50 soldiers to get back 2 soldiers which by the way it still has not achieved. If a solution is to be attained, Israel would need to have direct talk with the regional players Syria, Lebanon, Iran etc and NOT the US. Now please dont say that Iran wants the destruction of Israel and so does Hizballah - talking and listening can heal some of the most deepest wounds and if parties on both sides sit face to face with a true intent to solve this crisis they can achieve even more than ending this conflict. They can achieve peace - the road to peace might be rocky because both sides would need to compromise but that is exactly what negotiations are all about.

Try to understand this conflict and others with your own mind, stop blurting out things fed by the media. The media no longer reports, it speculates and speculation is not what we need in such fragile times.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: TrojanChispas on August 10, 2006, 04:59:21 PM
what other options are there?  before you say the UN, remember that the UN has been there and has done nothing.  Before you say negotiations, remember that a country that has been attacked generally doesnt want to negotiate with its attackers. 

Hizballah has said it will cease firing rockets if Israel halts the offensive and retreats back. The UN's role in the region is limited but why is it limited? The 2 superpowers, US and Israel (in middle-east) dont give a s***t about UN and hence the UN is impotent as far as solving the crisis is concerned - this is not speculation - who attacked the UN outpost in Lebanon after being warned for 6 hours and after giving the co-ordinates of the UN location? Its easy to blame the UN for not being an active player in conflict resolution but remember why the UN behaves the way it does. Who has violated the most UN resolutions in its history? Is it Iraq, Iran, Cuba.... No! its Israel.

Just because the UN general assembly is dominated by muslim and antiIsraeli countries, doesnt mean that their resolutions are valid against Israel.

Hezbollah will stop firing rockets if Israel retreats?  What kind of message does that send to Hezbollah?  What, so they can rearm and attack another day?  I think not.

As far as the ineptitude of the UN, it seems clear that in teh short run, Israel cannot depend on the UN for their safety.  Nor can it depend on Lebanon.  Maybe, and this is a big maybe considering Kosovo and Rwanda, maybe the UN can be given a bigger mandate and a more streamlined process for keeping the peace on the border.  But for now, Israel cannot wait for the cumbersome machinery of the UN to protect it.

Israel attacked the UN outpost after Hezbollah was launching rockets from that same area.  Again, Hezbollah is using other as shields so that when Israel attacks, they can call them savage murderers... and you are falling for it by placing so much blame on Israel.

Quote
Negotiations are possible if the hot headed mentality is dropped. Do you really think this war was about the 2 soldiers? Why would a country sacrifice 40-50 soldiers to get back 2 soldiers which by the way it still has not achieved. If a solution is to be attained, Israel would need to have direct talk with the regional players Syria, Lebanon, Iran etc and NOT the US. Now please dont say that Iran wants the destruction of Israel and so does Hizballah - talking and listening can heal some of the most deepest wounds and if parties on both sides sit face to face with a true intent to solve this crisis they can achieve even more than ending this conflict. They can achieve peace - the road to peace might be rocky because both sides would need to compromise but that is exactly what negotiations are all about.
Im not saying that Iran and Hezbollah want the destruction of Israel, THEY SAID IT AND CONTINUE TO SAY IT!!!!  Israel has already given some land to the Palestinians, but in return all the Israelis got was rockets from Gaza.  Explain how that fits into the negotiation matrix.

Quote
Try to understand this conflict and others with your own mind, stop blurting out things fed by the media. The media no longer reports, it speculates and speculation is not what we need in such fragile times.

Look at this objectively.  Israel has enemies on all sides.  Its enemies expressly call for the destruction of Israel.  Israel gave Gaza, but in return has been on the receiving end of rockets and kidnappings.  Israel's enemies hide amongst civilians and attack from civilians areas.  Israel's enemies have a deep rooted belief that Israel is evil, that belief is rooted in their religion, thus, to ask them to not destroy Israel is to ask them to renounce their faith.  These guys are savages and imposible to negotiate with.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: wannaB1L on August 10, 2006, 09:04:47 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

Go kill yourself, terrorist.

This kind of diplomacy will do wonders for your cause, Trollik.  Israel must take responsibility, apologize for this tragic error, and agree (at minimum) to guard passage of humanitarian and evacuation missions through southern Lebanon.  (I heard Olmert taking responsibility this morning; if he can do it, you should be able to.)

a 1mi flatland around any long range hezbollah missle launch site should be expected.  period.  no apologies.

Mabye they should do the same for Israeli Air Force bases....or American ones?

You should be thrown out of the country you little terd.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: wannaB1L on August 10, 2006, 11:44:28 PM
hey fuckwad, there were long range missles being launched into Israel from right around that building.  Israel unfortunately missed and hit a building.  But the rockets are being fired from a civilian area.  Israel's job is to take them out, accidents happen.  In Tyre they managed a direct score on the rocket launchers, here they didn't.  Too f-ing bad.

Go kill yourself, terrorist.

This kind of diplomacy will do wonders for your cause, Trollik.  Israel must take responsibility, apologize for this tragic error, and agree (at minimum) to guard passage of humanitarian and evacuation missions through southern Lebanon.  (I heard Olmert taking responsibility this morning; if he can do it, you should be able to.)

a 1mi flatland around any long range hezbollah missle launch site should be expected.  period.  no apologies.

Mabye they should do the same for Israeli Air Force bases....or American ones?

You should be thrown out of the country you little terd.

Haha, you conservatives are always so cordial. Great point.

ha ha treasonous language about blowing up American Airbases is funny, and it is cool too; Just ask any college kid! Great Point! You anti-American Leftists are off the charts- this is why you guys can't win elections, because you hate America. This country that has given us every opportunity, a country where we are relatively safe, that has given you the opportunity to go to university and law school. A country that is the first to rush aid to our enemies (Iran) when they have an earthquake. You should really limit your Hate (America) Speech, and not include statements about blowing up American Airbases.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: wannaB1L on August 11, 2006, 12:03:37 AM
All I know is that an American should NEVER state anything, in any way, under any terms or circumstances about blowing up an American Airbase. GOD BLESS OUR REPUBLIC! is what he should instead say.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 12:04:43 AM
All I know is that an American should NEVER state anything, in any way, under any terms or circumstances about blowing up an American Airbase. GOD BLESS OUR REPUBLIC!

Yes, that would seem to be all you know.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: wannaB1L on August 11, 2006, 12:18:07 AM
All I know is that an American should NEVER state anything, in any way, under any terms or circumstances about blowing up an American Airbase. GOD BLESS OUR REPUBLIC!

Yes, that would seem to be all you know.
It is one of the few things on earth that I am sure of...and it is a great feeling to believe in something and to be proud. A feeling you will never know thanks to your college professors. But i don't blame you- who wouldn't be affected by indoctrination classes Monday through Thursday 10 AM through 330 PM by brilliant PhD's?
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 12:34:23 AM
if we followed your advice and didn't tap phones and bank accounts all over the world, the NSA wouldn't have been able to contribute to catching the Muslim fuckwads we caught today.  but you'd be happy, dipshit.  so yes, if you killed yourself, the world would be safer.

My advice? I don't remember saying anything about taping phones or following bank records around the world. Mabye you could quote it for me and refresh my memory.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: wannaB1L on August 11, 2006, 12:35:08 AM
well I am not saying that MTV, music and the media did not prep the soil.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 12:41:51 AM
well I am not saying that MTV, music and the media did not prep the soil.

You seem to know a lot about me for someone I met on a message board.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 12:47:34 AM
if we followed your advice and didn't tap phones and bank accounts all over the world, the NSA wouldn't have been able to contribute to catching the Muslim fuckwads we caught today.  but you'd be happy, dipshit.  so yes, if you killed yourself, the world would be safer.

My advice? I don't remember saying anything about taping phones or following bank records around the world. Mabye you could quote it for me and refresh my memory.

you got a photo with the chief terrorist appeaser, and anti-everything bush -- especially policies that include intelligence gathering -- in your avatar, you sniveling waste of existence.

Yeah, thats true. But I don't think a picture of Howard Dean in my avatar nessesarily means I support all of his policy positions or that I gave "advice" to not attempt counter terrorism activities as you suggested. Further, I'm not sure that the specific programs that Chairman Dean is against were involved in foiling this plot.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 12:53:46 AM
if we followed your advice and didn't tap phones and bank accounts all over the world, the NSA wouldn't have been able to contribute to catching the Muslim fuckwads we caught today.  but you'd be happy, dipshit.  so yes, if you killed yourself, the world would be safer.

My advice? I don't remember saying anything about taping phones or following bank records around the world. Mabye you could quote it for me and refresh my memory.

you got a photo with the chief terrorist appeaser, and anti-everything bush -- especially policies that include intelligence gathering -- in your avatar, you sniveling waste of existence.

Yeah, thats true. But I don't think a picture of Howard Dean in my avatar nessesarily means I support all of his policy positions or that I gave "advice" to not attempt counter terrorism activities as you suggested. Further, I'm not sure that the specific programs that Chairman Dean is against were involved in foiling this plot.

i'd rather Chairman Hu than Chairman Dean.  At least the Chinese communist leader doesn't thwart attempts to protect his citizenry.

Yeah, and I bet people living in China are a lot safer than people in America. If only our government could be so "vigilant".
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: oldskewlphool on August 11, 2006, 01:21:39 AM
if we followed your advice and didn't tap phones and bank accounts all over the world, the NSA wouldn't have been able to contribute to catching the Muslim fuckwads we caught today.  but you'd be happy, dipshit.  so yes, if you killed yourself, the world would be safer.

My advice? I don't remember saying anything about taping phones or following bank records around the world. Mabye you could quote it for me and refresh my memory.

you got a photo with the chief terrorist appeaser, and anti-everything bush -- especially policies that include intelligence gathering -- in your avatar, you sniveling waste of existence.

Yeah, thats true. But I don't think a picture of Howard Dean in my avatar nessesarily means I support all of his policy positions or that I gave "advice" to not attempt counter terrorism activities as you suggested. Further, I'm not sure that the specific programs that Chairman Dean is against were involved in foiling this plot.

i'd rather Chairman Hu than Chairman Dean.  At least the Chinese communist leader doesn't thwart attempts to protect his citizenry.

Yeah, and I bet people living in China are a lot safer than people in America. If only our government could be so "vigilant".

die in a terrorist attack.

Another good point Mr.157, you're on a role today. You have really forced me to reconsider my beliefs.
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Boughetto on August 12, 2006, 04:35:22 PM

I'm also (more) interested in your thoughts about the obligation of the unoccupied nation's to use force responsibly. 
[/quote]

Force used responsibly? The terrorists should pay for what they have done. Force is not an issue. If you have murdered a person in the US; and when the police break down your door, throw you on the ground, punch you in the back of the neck (for not cooperating), then toss you into jail...is that a misuse of force? Should no force be used? How responsible should the officers be?

If the suspect is a murderer, they should be shot on site. That is it.
[/quote]

you are laughably
A.stupid
B.ignorant
C.simple minded
D.ugly
E. all of the above.
[CR: E.]
nice 'chops, retard. enjoy life in your TTT

HTH
Title: Re: Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists
Post by: Boughetto on August 12, 2006, 04:49:35 PM
as far as how this conflict began, it did NOT begin with rockets fired by hezbollah. it started with hezbollah kidnapping TWO soldiers, as a bargaining chip to release lebanese and palestinian WOMEN AND CHILDREN from israeli prisons!
israel retaliated by essentially carpet bombing civilian residences whee hezbollah leaders were SUSPECTED of residing, thereby killing dozens of civilians in the process.
THEN,and only then did hezbollah launch rockets, not because they want to "kill as many israeli civilians possible", but bc they cant afford the hundreds of F-16s and cluster bombs that the US is selling to israel.

and the precedent for negotiating with "terrorists" was created by ariel sharon of all people, who agreed to a similar deal a few years earlier.

second, hezbollah is NOT a terrorist organization. it is a resistance movement created in response to israel occupying southern lebanon in the 1970s..

and now, they are proving their relevance and necessity. if it werent for them, israel would merely continue to bully and strongarm people (innocent and otherwise) who are barely capable of defending themselves.
Hezbollah is also responsible for much humanitarian and philanthropic work in lebanon.

if you look up the REAL definition of terrorism, it is easier to indict israel than hezbollah.

wake the f*ck up people. there is a reason why the ONLY broad based support for israels current actions lies in only 1.israel and 2. the united states.