Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

This:

Unfortunately, Black Dog has slowly atrophied into what is commonly known as a troll. If you're looking for logic and reason, you'll find none. If you're looking for a legitimate discussion of ideas, you'll find none. And if you're looking for some kind of consistency, you'll definitely find none. Alas, Black Dog has become Black Troll. The transformation is complete.

And this:

Maybe some of you Hezbollah toadies will read and learn.

Have been reported to the mod.

Moving on, now...

AG:

It was not deliberate targeting of the UN post, but rather of Tactical necessity meaning the hezbullah have strong postions around the UN OP, suggesting that the Hezbullah was in fact using it as a form of shield.

Here's the question: if Hizbullah were using the UN post as a sheild, then why not say so? Why screw around with opaque jargon? Furthermore: that was nine days ago. The fact that the outpost made numerous requests for an abeyance in the bombardement suggests that the tactical situation changed in the meantime. There's another factor: Israel has suggested that they were targeting a "Hizbullah outpost": is it possible they mistook the UN position for said outpost?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would say that Israel disagrees with your asessment of things, and that this has probably done a lot to stiffen the spines of non-shiites, at least, to take away Hezbollah's pretty toys after the fighting stops.

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February.

More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Thus we see the problem with any campaign intended to "send a message." Basically it relies on the assumption that the message sent will be interpreted in the way it is intended, which seldom happens. Also, parties on opposite sides of such a conflict tend to assume the worst of each other and each will interpret the actions of the other in the most negative possible light. . Thus, the message from Israel may be that its up to the people of Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah and thus bring about the end of Israel's campaign, but that is not how it is being interpreted by the receivers.

More....

That message of defiance, flying above buildings flattened by Israeli air strikes, is enhancing the standing of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, among his Shiite Muslim followers at home and Islamic radicals elsewhere.

They don't blame Nasrallah for instigating fighting that has cost 400 Lebanese lives and forced 800,000 people to flee their homes. Instead, they see him as someone who deserves credit for making Israel end its 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon while suffering personal loss -- a son's death in a 1997 attack on Israeli forces -- in the struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hezbullah is offering aid to Lebanon people, no one else is. Their popularity is rising in Lebanon as a result of this "war".

Hezbullah is active in evacuating citizens from southern areas of Lebanon and is providing them with camps and refugess centres.

New numbers out of Lebanon state over 1000 dead and over 1/3 of those are children.

For decades Lebanon and Israel has exchanged prisoners. This time Israel changed the rules. Maybe the soldiers were "bait" for the Hezbullah with this whole assault the original intent.

Lebanon has historical, cultural and religious ties with Iran. Syria is more or less just the conduit between the two of them.

The US wants to stir things up with Iran and has been itching to do so for a very long time.

The US sends billions in aid and weapons to Israel every year.

The US says it wont push for peace or a truce fire unless Iran stops sending aid to Lebanon, no mention of US stopping aid to Israel.

US is STILL flying weapons and bombs into Israel, see contraversy over plane landing in England loaded with bombs for Israel.

Political analysts are saying this is about Iran and the US, and it isnt over yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if they are merely incidental to the attacks on Hezbollah.

You're being disingenous. You have said quite explicitly that the Shiites should "suffer" for their support of Hizbullah. That's about as close as you can get to suggesting thety are legitimate targets. The collateral damage line is merely a cover.

No, that's me showing a lack of sympathy for stupid people. And the Lebanese are a supremely stupid people. They already had Israel trash their country once, not that long ago, because they let the Palestinians use southern Lebanon as a base to attack Israel. Now they do it again. Do I sympathise? Not really.

Look, this is a war between societies, as all wars inevitably are. The days when kings and their nobles fought it out and ignored the peasants are long, long gone. Societies fight one another now. Lebanon picked a fight with Israel. The Lebanese people collectively stood around snickering and high fiving one another and patting Hezbollah on the back while it attacked Israel. All the southern Lebanon MPs are Hezbollah. The speaker of the Lebanese parliament is Hezbollah. The Lebanese President speaks respectfully of Hezbollah, and CBC says that polls take in Lebanon show a great deal of admiration and respect for Hezbollah among the Lebanese.

But even if that were not true, the society we call Lebanon is responsible for policing its own. If many members of that society choose to attack a neighbouring society then all of Lebanon will suffer. That is not a big surprise, or shouldn't be. But apparently the Lebanese are outraged. They don't see why they should suffer because Hezbollah attacked Isreal. That's how stupid the Lebanese are. Hezbollah is attacking other countries from Lebanon and has been doing so for months. You either approve it or stop it. Or you suffer the consequences. Either you exercise control over southern Lebanon or foresake it and tell the world that what happens there has nothing to do with you because the people no longer belong to your nation, your society. You can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that Israel disagrees with your asessment of things, and that this has probably done a lot to stiffen the spines of non-shiites, at least, to take away Hezbollah's pretty toys after the fighting stops.

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February.

More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Well then, in that case, they really have nothing to complain about, do they? Let the festivities continue!

Thus we see the problem with any campaign intended to "send a message." Basically it relies on the assumption that the message sent will be interpreted in the way it is intended, which seldom happens.

Well, I alluded to this in an earlier post you might remember. Taking into consideration how ignorant and fanatical so many people are over there, I said they would either learn to stop attacking Israel, or they would sit in the rubble of their broken homes eating grass and chanting "Allah akbar" as their children die.

I don't particularly care which.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Well then, in that case, they really have nothing to complain about, do they? Let the festivities continue!

Funny how their election didn't show that. 90% of the people voted against Hezbollah for moderates, sounds like support is skyrocketing!!

Maybe it has somethign to do with losing 90% of their bridges (Hezbollah hides under them apparently) and 80% of their roads so the average Joe can't even get to work that made them mad? Support for Hezbollah was in the basement before the ridiculous bombings of ambulances and apartment buildings, ect. ect. If Israel had gone only for Hezbollah, they'd be ok. But what your suggesting is that the Lebanese should just bend over and take it and that's a load of crap. I'd be a little pissed too.

Especially since only 1 in 10 voted for Hezbollah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Well then, in that case, they really have nothing to complain about, do they? Let the festivities continue!

Funny how their election didn't show that. 90% of the people voted against Hezbollah for moderates, sounds like support is skyrocketing!!

Maybe it has somethign to do with losing 90% of their bridges (Hezbollah hides under them apparently) and 80% of their roads so the average Joe can't even get to work that made them mad? Support for Hezbollah was in the basement before

Do you have any evidence of this? I mean, given all 23 southern ridings went to Hezbollah?

. But what your suggesting is that the Lebanese should just bend over and take it and that's a load of crap.

Well, gee, you've been suggesting the Israelis bend over and take it, and they've got the power. So that's even dumber.

Especially since only 1 in 10 voted for Hezbollah.

Do you have any evidence of that either?

In any case, either the Lebanese will stop allowing their territory to be used to attack Israel, or they will stop owning that territory. I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.
That is a very dangerous way to do things, and preventing territorial gains by conquest was the prime reason for the creation of the UN. Basically, 'Balls to the wall anarchy' (as someone here previously said).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, in that case, they really have nothing to complain about, do they? Let the festivities continue!

Funny how their election didn't show that. 90% of the people voted against Hezbollah for moderates, sounds like support is skyrocketing!!

Maybe it has somethign to do with losing 90% of their bridges (Hezbollah hides under them apparently) and 80% of their roads so the average Joe can't even get to work that made them mad? Support for Hezbollah was in the basement before

Do you have any evidence of this? I mean, given all 23 southern ridings went to Hezbollah?

Why do you constantly just make stuff up Argus? Do you look anything up before you speak?

Hezbollah in the real world (sorry that your fantasy isn't true) won only 14 seats of 128 in the last election. Where as the rest of the country (93 seats, there were other pro-Syria parties besides Hezbollah) went to anti-Syrian/Lebanon based parties.

Sure the South states voted for Syrian control of Lebanon, but not for Hezbollah. If the bombing was only in the South I'd be marginally more ok with it. But it's not, 90% of bridges are gone, north and south. What the hell is that going to do? What about bombing Beruit. Every single seat their went to the Rafik Hariri Martyr List, an anti-Syria/anti-Hezbollah group. Why bomb them?

Go ahead, stroke your moral conscience again, make up facts even when it argues that you might be wrong.

. But what your suggesting is that the Lebanese should just bend over and take it and that's a load of crap.

Well, gee, you've been suggesting the Israelis bend over and take it, and they've got the power. So that's even dumber.

If that is what I was suggesting then sure. I personally don't see how punishing uninvolved civilians and blowing up their means of existance destroys Hezbollah, but hey, why not? That attack on the UN with the Canadian or on that family of Canadians hiding in their house sure took out alot of terrorists too. They've caught 2 Hezbollah among approx. 600 dead. Everyone will be dead in Lebanon before they eliminate Hezbollah that way.

Especially since only 1 in 10 voted for Hezbollah.

Do you have any evidence of that either?

In any case, either the Lebanese will stop allowing their territory to be used to attack Israel, or they will stop owning that territory. I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_gene...lection%2C_2005 lots of info there for you. The results can be verified with some leg work if you don't like wiki.

Lebanon doesn't have the military might to take out Hezbollah. The IDF is more powerful and they have caught 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Argus,
I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.
That is a very dangerous way to do things, and preventing territorial gains by conquest was the prime reason for the creation of the UN. Basically, 'Balls to the wall anarchy' (as someone here previously said).

The United Nations lost what effectiveness it had when it allowed membership to every variety of brutal, thuggish, banana replubic dictatorship from around the world. There are 192 members of the United Nations. How many are responsible nations whose people have a say in their government? A few dozen, perhaps. You cannot expect an organization largely made up of murderers and criminals to police the world. If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand. Then we would not now be seeing the nasty scenes on our televisions which some people find so traumatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The United Nations lost what effectiveness it had when it allowed membership to every variety of brutal, thuggish, banana replubic dictatorship from around the world. There are 192 members of the United Nations. How many are responsible nations whose people have a say in their government? A few dozen, perhaps. You cannot expect an organization largely made up of murderers and criminals to police the world. If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand. Then we would not now be seeing the nasty scenes on our televisions which some people find so traumatic.

What alternatives are there to this world body?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any evidence of this? I mean, given all 23 southern ridings went to Hezbollah?

Why do you constantly just make stuff up Argus? Do you look anything up before you speak?

Hezbollah in the real world (sorry that your fantasy isn't true) won only 14 seats of 128 in the last election.

I never make stuff up, and I never give people cites to back up what I self-righteously say without actually reading them to see if they make me look like a fool. From your own cite:

The Resistance and Development Bloc, a joint ticket by the two main Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah, in addition to Bahiya Al-Hariri, the sister of the assassinated late Prime Minister Rafic Al-Hariri and Oussama Saad from Sidon, won all 23 seats. Official tallies showed the Resistance and Development Bloc receiving more than 80% of the vote. The head of Amal, Nabih Berri, said in a news conference held in Mosseileh: "The South has declared clearly and before international observers its backing for the resistance as a path for the past, present and future." Berri said the elected MPs would not let Hezbollah be disarmed.

You're picking nits and frankly, being dishonest by suggesting Hezbollah, and the group allied to it, Amal, didn't have overwhelming support in the south when they clearly did.

Sure the South states voted for Syrian control of Lebanon, but not for Hezbollah.

Even though they voted for Hezbollah? Right. Sure.

If the bombing was only in the South I'd be marginally more ok with it. But it's not

It is mostly in the south, with some bombing in Beirut's southern suburbs which are heavily shiite and heavily supportive of Hezbollah, and where Hezbollah has offices and headquarters. Did I not post a BBC report not that long ago from a Christian area of Beirut where people were strolling in the streets eating ice cream and sitting at cafes because there had been no attacks there?

90% of bridges are gone, north and south. What the hell is that going to do?

Maybe stop big trucks loaded with Iranian missiles from moving around freely?

Go ahead, stroke your moral conscience again, make up facts even when it argues that you might be wrong.
I have made up no facts, and you have not been able to show that I've done so.
If that is what I was suggesting then sure. I personally don't see how punishing uninvolved civilians and blowing up their means of existance destroys Hezbollah, but hey, why not?

People get killed during war. That's a fact of life. When the Allies attacked Germany they had no way of just killing the members of the Nazi party, no way at all. And the Israelis have no way to avoid civilian casualties when going after an enemy which runs right into the heavily built up shiiite slums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The United Nations lost what effectiveness it had when it allowed membership to every variety of brutal, thuggish, banana replubic dictatorship from around the world. There are 192 members of the United Nations. How many are responsible nations whose people have a say in their government? A few dozen, perhaps. You cannot expect an organization largely made up of murderers and criminals to police the world. If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand. Then we would not now be seeing the nasty scenes on our televisions which some people find so traumatic.

What alternatives are there to this world body?

The alternative is rapidly becoming NATO, simply because it is not so big and unwieldy, and is made up of most of the principal democracies. I would expand NATO, taking in the rest of the democracies. It would have the money, the muscle, and be less beset by game-playing and vote buying than the UN. The major players who are not democracies, like Russia, Egypt, China Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, could have observer status, would be allowed to speak, but would not vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The alternative is rapidly becoming NATO, simply because it is not so big and unwieldy, and is made up of most of the principal democracies. I would expand NATO, taking in the rest of the democracies. It would have the money, the muscle, and be less beset by game-playing and vote buying than the UN. The major players who are not democracies, like Russia, Egypt, China Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, could have observer status, would be allowed to speak, but would not vote.

NATO doesn't have agencies for refugees and world health. Should those U.N. agencies be disbanded or continue to operate?

Should Harper pull Canada out of the U.N. unilaterally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative is rapidly becoming NATO, simply because it is not so big and unwieldy, and is made up of most of the principal democracies. I would expand NATO, taking in the rest of the democracies. It would have the money, the muscle, and be less beset by game-playing and vote buying than the UN. The major players who are not democracies, like Russia, Egypt, China Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, could have observer status, would be allowed to speak, but would not vote.

NATO doesn't have agencies for refugees and world health. Should those U.N. agencies be disbanded or continue to operate?

Should Harper pull Canada out of the U.N. unilaterally?

I'd have to look at the individual agencies and see just how effective they are. From what I've seen - admittedly not paying close attention - a lot of UN agencies are ineffective and corrupt, beset by internal politics and administered by people out to line their own pockets. I'd say the UN should be downsized considerably, at the very least. What fraction of its huge budget actually goes to something worhtwhile, like refugee and health? I'm betting very little.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd have to look at the individual agencies and see just how effective they are. From what I've seen - admittedly not paying close attention - a lot of UN agencies are ineffective and corrupt, beset by internal politics and administered by people out to line their own pockets. I'd say the UN should be downsized considerably, at the very least. What fraction of its huge budget actually goes to something worhtwhile, like refugee and health? I'm betting very little.

It would probably be hard to get rid of the World Health Organization. They actually already get a lot of funding privately and have several semi-autonomous regional offices. They defeated smallpox with a staff of less than 3,500 people. They track diseases better than any one nation could do on their own. They've had their missteps from time to time but it is likley that if this organization didn't exist, it would have to be invented.

It is like several organizations we never think about, things like the UNHCR, UNICEF agencies that regulate world airline traffic and the like. If they didn't exist in the U.N., they'd probably have to be invented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you constantly just make stuff up Argus?

Why do others bother to respond to the posts? Ignore them.

There is a lot of comments that make no sense and have no facts or logic to back them up. It appears most of them are just to get people all riled up and start a fight. <_<

Don't get suckered into these games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.
That is a very dangerous way to do things, and preventing territorial gains by conquest was the prime reason for the creation of the UN. Basically, 'Balls to the wall anarchy' (as someone here previously said).

The United Nations lost what effectiveness it had when it allowed membership to every variety of brutal, thuggish, banana replubic dictatorship from around the world. There are 192 members of the United Nations. How many are responsible nations whose people have a say in their government? A few dozen, perhaps. You cannot expect an organization largely made up of murderers and criminals to police the world. If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand. Then we would not now be seeing the nasty scenes on our televisions which some people find so traumatic.

Argus also reported me to the mods for calling him a 'shoddy excuse for a human being'.

What an authoritarian fruitcake. There is nothing but rhetoric to all your posts...you sycophantically recite everything you think you know and refuse to consider any kind of logical argument.

If that's an insult, too bad - its also the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand.

From the UN site, Resolution 1686 (2006)

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06...pdf?OpenElement

The UN does condemn terrorist attacks, but they are quite powerless to enforce demands, suggestions, or anything else of the sort. The UN is dependent on it's member nations to supply troops to be it's 'coppers'. The trouble is, pretty much every country refuses, for one reason or another. Mostly ''We can't afford it", or 'we are previously committed elsewhere', or even, " based on an 'off the record' evaluation, we rate one of our soldier's lives to be roughly equal to 80,000+ lives of the "po' folk".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

I'd think Israel has every right to simply take southern Lebanon as a war prize and expell the present inhabitants.
That is a very dangerous way to do things, and preventing territorial gains by conquest was the prime reason for the creation of the UN. Basically, 'Balls to the wall anarchy' (as someone here previously said).

The United Nations lost what effectiveness it had when it allowed membership to every variety of brutal, thuggish, banana replubic dictatorship from around the world. There are 192 members of the United Nations. How many are responsible nations whose people have a say in their government? A few dozen, perhaps. You cannot expect an organization largely made up of murderers and criminals to police the world. If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand. Then we would not now be seeing the nasty scenes on our televisions which some people find so traumatic.

Argus also reported me to the mods for calling him a 'shoddy excuse for a human being'.

What an authoritarian fruitcake. There is nothing but rhetoric to all your posts...you sycophantically recite everything you think you know and refuse to consider any kind of logical argument.

If that's an insult, too bad - its also the truth.

Reported to moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Argus,
If the UN actually had any real degree of functionality it would have insisted on halts to the rocket attacks on Israel months ago and then enforced that demand.

From the UN site, Resolution 1686 (2006)

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06...pdf?OpenElement

The UN does condemn terrorist attacks, but they are quite powerless to enforce demands, suggestions, or anything else of the sort. The UN is dependent on it's member nations to supply troops to be it's 'coppers'. The trouble is, pretty much every country refuses, for one reason or another. Mostly ''We can't afford it", or 'we are previously committed elsewhere', or even, " based on an 'off the record' evaluation, we rate one of our soldier's lives to be roughly equal to 80,000+ lives of the "po' folk".

There's more to it than that. There's a lack of respect for the United Nations. And in the middle east, due to the fact the Muslim nations use their numbers and oil wealth to make Israel the UN's favorite whipping boy they really don't have any credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Admin
If that's an insult, too bad - its also the truth.

Nope, it was an insult and you failed to heed my repeated warnings.

Machinations, you are now banned from these forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
People get killed during war. That's a fact of life. When the Allies attacked Germany they had no way of just killing the members of the Nazi party, no way at all. And the Israelis have no way to avoid civilian casualties when going after an enemy which runs right into the heavily built up shiiite slums.

I don't think anyone is disputing that civilian casualties are inevitable (ironically moreso now in the age of high tech weaponry than in other eras). However, the question to me is: are civilian casualties avoidable? It's not enough to shrug one's shoulders and say, well these things happen. Such a blasé attitude is a license for atrocities. he problem with the curent situation is that Israel is killing a large number of civilians without affecting any change in the military situation. Hizbullah's ability to rocket Israeli cities appears undiminished (140 rockets fell on northern Israel yesterday, the highest number since July 12.) So it appears that Israel's efforts so far have not acheived their military purpose, which makes the "regrettable" civilian casulaties look like a simple waste of human life. Add to that the inevitable boost to Hizbullah's stature and increase in its popular support, and it seems like Israel is actually taking two steps back for every step forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Blackdog you are right in that so far it seems that the military might of Israel has been ineffective at stopping the rockests. You also know the reason for this is that they are attempting to avoid non combatant casualties.

If they want to succeed they will have to santize the areas where the rockets are launched from. You also know that this is true. Does this now mean that you would say they were justified by santizing these positions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...