Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Dear Argus,

killing terrorists is what causes "moderates" to become terrorists.
Perhaps to some few. I would expect that the loss of livelihood to some that were not in support of Hizbollah may sway some. Perhaps they should be blaming Hizbollah, but usually they would simply blame the ones who blew up their business/roads and bridges first. Perhaps some will blame both.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why don't you help me out. You can start by explaining your own great sympathy for terrorists, and why their deaths make you angry.

My own great sympathy for terrorists. :blink:

You say kill them all -- I say find out why they've become terrorists.

Why?

Well, according to what you wrote earlier, killing terrorists is what causes "moderates" to become terrorists.

That is correct.

If you kill a man's brother, no matter what he has done, the man will be angry (and possibly kill you) at you, not at his brother the bad guy.

I dunno. If my brother was firing rockets into Israel and they killed him it would be kind of hard for me to be all that angry at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Argus,
killing terrorists is what causes "moderates" to become terrorists.
Perhaps to some few. I would expect that the loss of livelihood to some that were not in support of Hizbollah may sway some. Perhaps they should be blaming Hizbollah, but usually they would simply blame the ones who blew up their business/roads and bridges first. Perhaps some will blame both.

If some of my neighbours wheeld over a rocket launcher, parked it next to my garage and started firing rockets into Israel, and then drove it away before the Israelis responded by dropping a load of artillery on my house I would blame my neighbours, not Israel. Honestly. I would hunt them down and kill them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are outdoors in a car. You WILL BE TARGETED. This shows blatent disregard for the general population of Lebanon. Bombed back to the stone age indeed.

At least they have been given fair warning. Terrorists give no warning.

We who sit here safely thousands of miles from the conflict. We who have never been threatened by anything in our lives are so pious when it comes to criticizing those who have.

I for one am willing to admit that if I was spending half my days in bomb shelters not knowing if I still had a home when I came out, not knowing if I would wake up if I spent a night in my own bed, not knowing if my kids were going to be blown up in their school because of rockets being fired into my country by those who have no motive other than to kill civilians, I might find myself changing my opinion of what constitutes a measured response similar to that of the Israelis. A full measure.

"The Egyptians could run to Egypt, the Syrians into Syria. The only place we could run was into the sea, and before we did that we might as well fight."

Golda Meir

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one am willing to admit that if I was spending half my days in bomb shelters not knowing if I still had a home when I came out, not knowing if I would wake up if I spent a night in my own bed, not knowing if my kids were going to be blown up in their school because of rockets being fired into my country by those who have no motive other than to kill civilians, I might find myself changing my opinion of what constitutes a measured response similar to that of the Israelis. A full measure.

Be serious. How many Israelis were running around in fear of Hizbuallah rockets before Israel launched its offensive? Do you know how many Israeli civilians Hizbullah killed since Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in Lebanon in 2000? Very few.

So not only does Hizbullah not pose a existensial threat to Israel, they barely posed a threat to individual Israeli's lives until Israel started launching its strikes. That makes Israel's massive response even more puzzling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one am willing to admit that if I was spending half my days in bomb shelters not knowing if I still had a home when I came out, not knowing if I would wake up if I spent a night in my own bed, not knowing if my kids were going to be blown up in their school because of rockets being fired into my country by those who have no motive other than to kill civilians, I might find myself changing my opinion of what constitutes a measured response similar to that of the Israelis. A full measure.

Be serious. How many Israelis were running around in fear of Hizbuallah rockets before Israel launched its offensive? Do you know how many Israeli civilians Hizbullah killed since Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in Lebanon in 2000? Very few.

So not only does Hizbullah not pose a existensial threat to Israel, they barely posed a threat to individual Israeli's lives until Israel started launching its strikes. That makes Israel's massive response even more puzzling.

To say Hezbollah is not a threat is just ridiculous. They took over an entire chunk of Lebanon and are being funded and equipped by Syria and Iran. Today they launched 140 rockets into northern Israel and UNLIKE Israel, those were for the purpose of random death and destruction.

Where is your disgust for these actions? How come you're not denouncing these militants for just randomly firing off rockets into Israel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To say Hezbollah is not a threat is just ridiculous. They took over an entire chunk of Lebanon and are being funded and equipped by Syria and Iran. Today they launched 140 rockets into northern Israel and UNLIKE Israel, those were for the purpose of random death and destruction.

And how is this a threat to Israel, the state? Look at the link I provided: from 2000 to three weeks ago, Hizbullah limited itself to small cross border raids on IDF outposts and convoys. It wasn't until Israel began pounding the hell out of Beirut that Hizbullah let the rockets go. The only time there was a lull in rocket fire was when Israel put a temporary halt to the bombing after Qana.

Where is your disgust for these actions? How come you're not denouncing these militants for just randomly firing off rockets into Israel?

Targeting innocent civilians is a war crime and, as such, the immorality of such is self-evident. I'm more interested in the discovery that the narrative which depicts Israel as being pushed to the brink by Hizbullah's persistant rocket attacks is factually incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To say Hezbollah is not a threat is just ridiculous. They took over an entire chunk of Lebanon and are being funded and equipped by Syria and Iran. Today they launched 140 rockets into northern Israel and UNLIKE Israel, those were for the purpose of random death and destruction.

And how is this a threat to Israel, the state? Look at the link I provided: from 2000 to three weeks ago, Hizbullah limited itself to small cross border raids on IDF outposts and convoys. It wasn't until Israel began pounding the hell out of Beirut that Hizbullah let the rockets go. The only time there was a lull in rocket fire was when Israel put a temporary halt to the bombing after Qana.

Where is your disgust for these actions? How come you're not denouncing these militants for just randomly firing off rockets into Israel?

Targeting innocent civilians is a war crime and, as such, the immorality of such is self-evident. I'm more interested in the discovery that the narrative which depicts Israel as being pushed to the brink by Hizbullah's persistant rocket attacks is factually incorrect.

It goes way beyond current rocket attacks that are aimed at killing civilians. Hezbollah has been terrorising Israel since it began in 1982. They hold 2 seats in the Lebanese government and their organizations constitution does not recognize Israel as a state. Political power and the fact that they cannot be controlled by the government of the country they operate in is why they are a threat to Israel's independance. They believe in wiping out any non-Islamic groups in the middle east, whereas Israel has never advocated wiping out Muslim groups.

You see, there are two sides to this war....one side wants everyone who does not fall in line and agree with their radical views to be killed, the other side wants everyone to be able to live freely and practice whatever faith they want.

Now you can sit here and point the finger at Israel and blame them for occupying Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian territories, but I tell you this...until those groups stop murdering innocent civilians to try and get their political message across, there will never be (nor should there be) peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Be serious. How many Israelis were running around in fear of Hizbuallah rockets before Israel launched its offensive? Do you know how many Israeli civilians Hizbullah killed since Israel withdrew from the "security zone" in Lebanon in 2000? Very few.

I am serious. How many is too many? At what point do you retaliate? Should the Israelis reply in kind? One bomb for one rocket. One shell for one shell. Because Hezbollah targets civilians with their rockets and shells, should the Israelis only target civilians with their bombs and shells? How many rockets and shells does someone fire into your country before you reply? Give us a clue. Hezbollah started this round and if the response was more than they bargained for they have no cause for complaint.

Governments who go to war without every intention of winning are idiots. Not only are they idiots but they are criminal idiots because they are getting people killed for nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Governments who go to war without every intention of winning are idiots. Not only are they idiots but they are criminal idiots because they are getting people killed for nothing.

You might be right about a fuller response.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...i-campaign.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Wilber,

Should the Israelis reply in kind? One bomb for one rocket. One shell for one shell. Because Hezbollah targets civilians with their rockets and shells, should the Israelis only target civilians with their bombs and shells?
Traditionally, Israel likes the ratio to be about 10 Arabs to one Israeli, civilians or not.
Hezbollah started this round and if the response was more than they bargained for they have no cause for complaint.
The question Black Dog seems to be asking is: "Will this response be effective at curbing the power of, or eliminating Hizbollah?" I think the obvious answer is...no. They will likely have a larger membership when the smoke clears.

Mind you, Lebanon might be the best chance Israel has in the region, as it is pretty much the least 'hard-line Muslim' nation in the region. There has been some overtures of 'self-policing' by the Lebanese gov't concerning Hizbollah, which is a step in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It goes way beyond current rocket attacks that are aimed at killing civilians. Hezbollah has been terrorising Israel since it began in 1982.

Um...no. Hizbullah began as a national resistance movement aimed at ending foreign occupation, including the French, the U.S. and, later, Israel.

They hold 2 seats in the Lebanese government and their organizations constitution does not recognize Israel as a state. Political power and the fact that they cannot be controlled by the government of the country they operate in is why they are a threat to Israel's independance. They believe in wiping out any non-Islamic groups in the middle east, whereas Israel has never advocated wiping out Muslim groups.

And? That doesn't make them a threat to Israel's existence. Political power and even the psupport of Iran and Syria will not give Hizbulah the means to carry out its stated objectives (btw: anybody got a link to a copy of the Hiz charter?). Hizbullah has also stated it's purpose is to defend Lebanon. The fact that most, if not all, of its activities since 2000 took place in the contested region around Sheeba Farms seems to indicate they were not interested in taking the fight inside Israel.

You see, there are two sides to this war....one side wants everyone who does not fall in line and agree with their radical views to be killed, the other side wants everyone to be able to live freely and practice whatever faith they want.

Blah. An oversimplification best suited for a Hollywood screenplay.

Now you can sit here and point the finger at Israel and blame them for occupying Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian territories, but I tell you this...until those groups stop murdering innocent civilians to try and get their political message across, there will never be (nor should there be) peace.

So now you're justifying occupation on the basis of the post facto behaviour of those occupied? Anyway, that's a digression (I'll also let slide the fact that the vast majority of Israelis killed by Hezbollah prior to the latest round of hostilities were IDF personnel: legitimate targets.) Like it or not, peace requires dialogue. And really, a country where many of its political leaders have been terrorists and murderers is not in any position to quibble about the company its forced to keep.

I am serious. How many is too many? At what point do you retaliate? Should the Israelis reply in kind? One bomb for one rocket. One shell for one shell. Because Hezbollah targets civilians with their rockets and shells, should the Israelis only target civilians with their bombs and shells? How many rockets and shells does someone fire into your country before you reply? Give us a clue. Hezbollah started this round and if the response was more than they bargained for they have no cause for complaint.

But...they didn't. The Israeli government site I linked to shows 20 cross-border incidents between 2000 and 2006, most being military clashes. Israel took what was a localized low-level border conflict and, literally, blew it up into something much bigger (personally I think that was due to the humiliation of having two soldiers snatched from under their nose.) Now, Israel, it seems has bitten off more than it can chew: it's unwilling to occupy Lebanon again, but unable to return to the status quo ante.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question Black Dog seems to be asking is: "Will this response be effective at curbing the power of, or eliminating Hizbollah?" I think the obvious answer is...no. They will likely have a larger membership when the smoke clears.

I wouldn't say it is obvious but it is quite possible. It doesn't really matter, Hezbollah has demonstrated what kind of a threat it can be. They are not a legitimate government of a country and don't have to take the responsibility that goes with being one. They are a terrorist organization backed by Syria and Iran and the only reason they are where they are is no one has the power to confront them except Israel.

Their whole reason for being is to eliminate Israel so there has to be a reckoning some time. Is this the time, that's the only question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Dog

I never said Israel shouldn't defend itself. Quite the opposite. What I'm asking for is realistic solutions. You need to show that there is some way in which Israel could actually root out Hezbollah. If they can't, then you need another option other than a course of action that does not root out Hezbollah, but that does kill hundreds of people, send hundreds of thousands fleeing for their lives, inflict billions of dollars in damage, and risk toppling a very fragile democracy.

Lebanon will quickly realize that having Hezbollah around is a liability and possibly root them out themselves. Your solutions to Israel's problem of protecting it's citizens (which is the prime responsibility of every government) have been nil so, your proposals at protecting israelis who are targeted are far less effective than any action Israel has taken so far instead citing how this does no good but, have no solution which will stop terrorist actions againt them. Isreal is not liked by many nations and certainly not many Arab nations and therefore has nothing to lose by pushing back Hezbollah, making a buffer zone out of southern Lebanon and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lebanon will quickly realize that having Hezbollah around is a liability and possibly root them out themselves.

I doubt it. No one in Lebanon wants another civil war and, given that all the factions in Lebanon save Hizbullah disarmed after the last civil war, I doubt anyone save the government (with its largely Shiite armed froces) has the power to do the job. Certainly few have the inclination. Hizbullah is well established in Lebanese Shiite society and Israel's actions to date have brought even formerly hostile factions into Hizbullah's orbit. Anyone who thought Israel's actions would fracture lebanese society forgot the old Arab proverb: "my brother and me against my cousins, my cousins and me against my village, my village and me against my tribe, my tribe and me against the world."

Your solutions to Israel's problem of protecting it's citizens (which is the prime responsibility of every government) have been nil so, your proposals at protecting israelis who are targeted are far less effective than any action Israel has taken so far instead citing how this does no good but, have no solution which will stop terrorist actions againt them.

First, given that Israelis are in greater danger now than they were three wwek's ago, I'd dispute the idea that Israel's "solution" has been effective at protecting its citizens. There weren't 200 rockets falling on Israel every day before they took the fight to Beirut.

My solution would have been the status quo. Hizbullah didn't threaten Israel before. The small cross-border raids and exchanges were acceptable compared to the curent alternative (which will, at the end of the day, will likely strengthen, not weaken, hizbullah). In the meantime, an actual political solution to the various outstanding issues-Sheeba Farms, for example-should have been pursued vigourously. But that's all gone to shit now.

Isreal is not liked by many nations and certainly not many Arab nations and therefore has nothing to lose by pushing back Hezbollah, making a buffer zone out of southern Lebanon and so on.

I don't understand this "well they already hate them, how much worse can it get?" line of thinking. It can always get worse. I would think, given the strategic value of that particular part of the world to the rest of us (how you liking those gas prices, folks?), people would be a little less cavalier about the consequenses of such rash actions. The last time Israel pushed intop Lebanon, it took them 20 years to get out. They succeded in shoving back the PLO, but wound up with Hizbullah. Who knows what another occupation will bring out? (Not that Israel has the stomach for an invasion and occupation.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
And how many Civilians?? Lebanese or Israeli ?

As of Wednesday, Israeli casualties in the conflict stand at 105 dead, including 38 civilians, and more than 700 wounded, according to the IDF.

Lebanese security forces said that 827 people have died, most of them civilians, and more than 3,200 have been wounded.

The fighting is becoming more relentless today and there are a lot more people at risk due to lack of supplies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who thought Israel's actions would fracture lebanese society forgot the old Arab proverb: "my brother and me against my cousins, my cousins and me against my village, my village and me against my tribe, my tribe and me against the world."

So then is could be surmised by many that israel is targeting those who harbor terrorists. No loss there.

First, given that Israelis are in greater danger now than they were three wwek's ago, I'd dispute the idea that Israel's "solution" has been effective at protecting its citizens. There weren't 200 rockets falling on Israel every day before they took the fight to Beirut.

Huh? What were those rockets stockpiled for? Israel has always been in danger, this is merely confronting the inevitable.

My solution would have been the status quo. Hizbullah didn't threaten Israel before.

Oh no, not a bit. Those stockpiled rockets were for friendly usage. Those kidnapped people were merely muppets and, the continual terrorism against Israeli citizens didn't challenge the government a bit.

The small cross-border raids and exchanges were acceptable compared to the curent alternative (which will, at the end of the day, will likely strengthen, not weaken, hizbullah). In the meantime, an actual political solution to the various outstanding issues-Sheeba Farms, for example-should have been pursued vigourously. But that's all gone to shit now.

Acceptable? Why yes, if having your citizens targeted continually by terrorists is in any way considered a normal way of life. Your political solution I don't believe has ever been considered by anybody other than Israeli people. For example, land returened used to launch attacks from etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So then is could be surmised by many that israel is targeting those who harbor terrorists. No loss there.

Eh. No. See here's how it is: Lebanese society is fracticious: 40 per cent Shiite, around 30 per cent Christian, 25 per cent Sunni and various others (ie Maronites) thrown in. None of these groups have gotten along particularily well and there is plenty of lingering hostility from the civil war. However: Israel has managed to proved al these groups wih a common nemesis and Hizbullah has rather skillfully cast itself as a Lebanese nationalist organization. But there's a world of difference between tacitly or even vocally siding with Hizbullah and "harboring terrorists." Big time difference.

Huh? What were those rockets stockpiled for? Israel has always been in danger, this is merely confronting the inevitable.

Obviously, Israel is going to use this as a springboard for its conquest of the entire Middle East. After all, what is that huge army for? :rolleyes:

Oh no, not a bit. Those stockpiled rockets were for friendly usage. Those kidnapped people were merely muppets and, the continual terrorism against Israeli citizens didn't challenge the government a bit.

Why is it so hard for people to make the distinction between threatening lives and threateing the state? Saying Hizbullah's border raids threatened Israel is like saying the Hell's Angels operatrions threaten Canada's existence. I'm sure there's thousands of Israelis in bomb shelters across the north who happily return to the good old days of cross border raids.

Acceptable? Why yes, if having your citizens targeted continually by terrorists is in any way considered a normal way of life.

Normal is relative. Not for us Canadians, obviously, but I think it's a predictable state of affairs when your dealing with a territorial/border dispute between belligerent parties. It was acceptable in the sense that the price paid in the status quo is far les sthen the price of the alternative chosen.

Your political solution I don't believe has ever been considered by anybody other than Israeli people. For example, land returened used to launch attacks from etc.

Israel has never "returned" land. Abandoned, yes. "Returned" implies some kind of prearranged transition or handover. That's not happened. Israel bears a measure of responsibility for the vacumn that ensued which allowed Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza the opportunity to consolodate themselves in territory unilaterally vacated by Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a measure of responsibility for all parties involved. The thing to keep in mind is that this must be resolved by the combatants there is no solution in an enforced peace or imposed ceasefire. We need to take a step back here folks, the brink and the short step to it will result in a long fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will respond to Black Dog's latest comments.

" Eh. No. See here's how it is: Lebanese society is fracticious: 40 per cent Shiite, around 30 per cent Christian, 25 per cent Sunni and various others (ie Maronites) thrown in. None of these groups have gotten along particularily well and there is plenty of lingering hostility from the civil war. However: Israel has managed to proved al these groups wih a common nemesis and Hizbullah has rather skillfully cast itself as a Lebanese nationalist organization. But there's a world of difference between tacitly or even vocally siding with Hizbullah and "harboring terrorists." Big time difference. "

Maronites are in fact Christians. They are not two distinct groups. Black Dog's comments that Israel has provided them all with a common nemesis, namely Israel is defective. The fact is whether Israel engaged in its counter-strike or not, the majority of the country was being held hostage by the Surians, Iranians and their proxy terrorist force, Hezbollah. That is the point. If Black Dog chooses to make Israel a scape-goat for what ails Lebanon he should be reminded not all Lebanese think like him so he should not project his simplistic scaep-goating concepts on Lebanese many of who are sophisticated enough to know who their real enemies are.

"Huh? What were those rockets stockpiled for? Israel has always been in danger, this is merely confronting the inevitable."

In a previous response Black Dog stated Hezbollah posed no existential threat to Israel, now he says they have always been in danger. Which one is it? As well what does "merely confronting the inevitable" mean?

How does one "merely" confront the inevitable. See its these kind of statements that make me wonder, what is Black Dog really trying to say? I would suggest he is inferring that there is no point in Israel defending itself..so this either means they all do what? Collectively commit suicide? Move to Mel Gubson's house? What exactly?

"Obviously, Israel is going to use this as a springboard for its conquest of the entire Middle East. After all, what is that huge army for? :rolleyes: "

This is precisely the kind of baseless, sweeping generalization that has to be called out and exposed. On what basis is this conspiracy to take over the Middle East obvious? What magic powers does Black Dog have that can see through this elaborate pretense of Israel pretending to defend itself? A" After all what is the guge army for? Roll Eyes" . Does this sound like someone who is interested in trying to understand Israel's position or does it sound like someone who has closed his mind and is simply interested in calling names? Israel maintains a "alrge enemy" because it is surrounded by regimes and terrorist groups who have clearly stated it is their intention to destroy it. For Black Dog to suggest Israel only keeps a military force because this is attached to a conspiracy to take over the Middle East is past the point of absurdity. If it was Israel's intention to capture all of the Middle East, why hasn't it already?

The point is the above comment is not even absurd it is churlish and tries to pretend Israel is under no threat and does not need any armed forces to protect its existence.

"Why is it so hard for people to make the distinction between threatening lives and threateing the state? Saying Hizbullah's border raids threatened Israel is like saying the Hell's Angels operatrions threaten Canada's existence. I'm sure there's thousands of Israelis in bomb shelters across the north who happily return to the good old days of cross border raids."

Again this is the kind of iresponsible and churlish response that needs to be called out and exposed for what it is-Israeli baiting. To down-play and attempt to rationalize or intellectualzie terrorist attacks and depict them as a minor inconvenience is an insult to anyone who ahs ever suffered or will suffer from terrorist attacks. Comparing Hell's Angels to Hezbollah is absolutely idiotic. Hell's angels is a criminal organization with no political ideology. Hezbollah's criminal activities such as drug smuggling, engaging in the capture and trade of women and humans as slaves and prostitutes, stealing and selling stolen goods, engaging in charity and white collar crime, or only part of its motus opperendi. Engaging in violence and murder as a means to express its poltiical ideology is what sets it apart from Hell's angels. More to the point if Hell's Angels got to the point where it would be a significant existential threat to Canadian or American society because of wide spread missile attacks, you can bet its leaders and members would be hunted down and killed or incarcerated.

I also wish to make one thing clear. Black Dog may think he is being clever or witty but it is absolutely disdparaging and belittling to Israels to suggest they would love to return to the good old days of border raids. Again this is precisely the kind of response that should earn readers' contempt. Israelis are not playing a game. Cross border raids are not a joke or minor inconvenience. Stop and think what Black Dog ridicules and refers to like it is a joke. Samir Kuntar comes across the border and takes a 4 year old boy and bashes his head in with a brick while his father is forced to watch. The brain matter is then shoved in his father Danny's face. Danny is then slowly tortured and killed. danny's wife and daughter had to hide in a loft. She smothered her 2 year old daughter to death covering her mouth so she would not scream. Mr. Kuntar is now referred to by Hezbollah as a hero and martyr and this is the man Hezbollah commenced this latest conflict over and want released. This is what Black Dog talks about like it is some sort of joke or minonr inconvenience. He should be ashamed of himself and apologize for his comment.

"Acceptable? Why yes, if having your citizens targeted continually by terrorists is in any way considered a normal way of life."

Again this is a pointless and inane comment. Terrorism has become culturally acceptable as a means of expressing political views in the Middle East as has anti-semitism. That is the point.

"Normal is relative. Not for us Canadians, obviously, but I think it's a predictable state of affairs when your dealing with a territorial/border dispute between belligerent parties. It was acceptable in the sense that the price paid in the status quo is far les sthen the price of the alternative chosen."

The above comment is an example of someone who is talking for the sake of talking. Its meaningless.

It misses the very point of the discussion and that is, that there is always an alternative to violence when expressing political views or when trying to resolve conflicts. Tjhe above is simply hot air and again tries to indirectly infer terrorism is justifiable.

"our political solution I don't believe has ever been considered by anybody other than Israeli people. For example, land returened used to launch attacks from etc."

Again the above comment engages in a gross generalization speaking on behalf of the entire world other then Israeli people. What makes this response odious and less then geuine is that Israelis continually explore and consider the possibility of options for peaceful solutions without the use of their army. What Black Dog deliberately ignores is that the vast majority of Israelis want peace and would embrace peace but their vast and extensive network of peacemakers now all are in unamimous agreement with their government that they can't achieve peace with Hezbollah who have made it clear they will murder each and every Jew on the planet. That is the facts. Hezbollah is not just about having a minor disagreement with Israel. They are about exterminating all of Israel and all Jews whether they are Israeli or not. That is precisely defined in their charter and statements.

"Irael has never "returned" land. Abandoned, yes. "Returned" implies some kind of prearranged transition or handover. That's not happened."

Again the above comment is completely false and an example of someone trying to engage in semantics to conveniently ignore the truth and that is Israel invaded South Lebanon to protect itself from terrorist attacks, gave it back, only to watch as the UN failed to disarm Hezbollah in the South, and did nothing just as the Lebanese government did nothing as Hezbollah with the full support of Iran, Syria and military brokers from France. China, Korea, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Britain, the U.S. and Russia sold weapons

including missiles, drones, bombs, and countless body launched missiles and grenades and transported them through the infrastrusrure of Lebanon and assumed since Hezbollah set up its offices in schools, hosptials or in residential apartment buildings or next to UN observer posts, they could never be attacked and could launch continuous attacks without impunity and when it felt like kidnap soldiers or kill civilians not just in Israel but in Lebanon.

"Israel bears a measure of responsibility for the vacumn that ensued which allowed Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza the opportunity to consolodate themselves in territory unilaterally vacated by Israel."

Now the above is the most amusing and typical statements of Bl;ack Dog. he spends most of his time attacking Israel for "occupying" territory that does not belong to them, and then when they leave, he then blames them for leaving! If it wasn't so absurd it would be laughable but to me it typifies how Black Dog contradicts himself and at any opportunity blames Israel. Toa ssign culpability to Israel for terrorists choosing to take over Lebanon or the Gaza is past the point of being silly but I suppose if we take Black Dog's approach as evidenced above you simply blame anything and everything on Israel and do not worry about whether that makes any cohesive logical sense or has any context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Rue,

Some misunderstanding here, I think...

In a previous response Black Dog stated Hezbollah posed no existential threat to Israel, now he says they have always been in danger. Which one is it? As well what does "merely confronting the inevitable" mean?

How does one "merely" confront the inevitable.

This statement was from Krusty Kid, not Black Dog.
"Obviously, Israel is going to use this as a springboard for its conquest of the entire Middle East. After all, what is that huge army for? "
This, I am sure, was a 'tongue in cheek' response to Krusty's comment.
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...