Random scenario

[Somebody Else]

Let us say, there is a tower block. In which, is the headquarters of an organisation. This tower block lies within an area where if not direct support of said organisation, local sympathies are at the least neutral. The tower block is also home to an indeterminate number of civilians.

This organisation has been staging attacks on your state. Bombings, kidnappings, etc.

What do you do?

Bomb the building? Send in troops to target only the HQ? Ignore them and let them get on with their merry bomb-making?

Completely unrelated to anything going on at the moment... honest. :juggle2:

[Papewaio]

You really hate the UN don't you ~;)

[Somebody Else]

You really hate the UN don't you ~;)

Just it's ineffectiveness. If it were an organisation capable of scaring anyone, even the US, into toeing the line, on the other hand...

Addendum - I would however, whole-heartedly support a proper attempt at a true world government. Nation-states tend to bicker pointlessly.

[Divinus Arma]

.

Addendum - I would however, whole-heartedly support a proper attempt at a true world government. Nation-states tend to bicker pointlessly.

Only a volunteer world government. I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be (at least from what little I know of it). Before the anti EU people jump on me and my ignorance, let me at least express what I like:

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.
A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.
Voluntary Military Contributions.

Basically, I like that it is based on volunteerims in every aspect rather than compulsary membership. The United States, for example, is entirely compulsary. This is not something I agree with. I much prefer a confederation of sovereign states unified in economic and political policy by choice.

A huge all-powerful federal government is baaaaaaad. Why? Because the leadership is too far removed from the electorate. The people lose all power. At least in a confederation, power is distributed.

[InsaneApache]

Only a volunteer world government. I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be (at least from what little I know of it). Before the anti EU people jump on me and my ignorance, let me at least express what I like:

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.[i]
A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.[ii]
Voluntary Military Contributions.

Basically, I like that it is based on volunteerims in every aspect rather than compulsary membership. The United States, for example, is entirely compulsary. This is not something I agree with. I much prefer a confederation of sovereign states unified in economic and political policy by choice.

A huge all-powerful federal government is baaaaaaad. Why? Because the leadership is too far removed from the electorate. The people lose all power. At least in a confederation, power is distributed.

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.

Voluntary yes, but only as far as the politicians being duplicitous with the electorate. The EU was [I]never sold to the UK electorate as a political union. It was always touted as being an economic entity. More like the NAFTA. It is almost impossible to leave as well. All laws drafted in Bruxelles have to be implemented in the member states, whether they like it or not. Sovereign Parliaments elected by the member states have no choice than to rubber stamp these laws, even though they are conjured up by unelected bureaucrats.

A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.

[ii]Sorry my fellow Orgah, the Pound Sterling is alive and well and doing fine thankyou very much.

I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to my post in the EU constitution thread where I covered the Euro issue.

[Fragony]

What do you do?

Cut of the food supply and allow civilians to leave. Easy.


I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be

Hold it right there, who are you and what have you done to Divinus Arma?? I am starting to get worried about you mia muca :hippie:

[Somebody Else]

Cut of the food supply and allow civilians to leave. Easy.

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

[Fragony]

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

Hmmmm good one. Apprarently I am not the machiavelli I thought I was, let's just kill them all just for kicks and giggles, let god decide who was guilty.

A more human aproach would be to fill the building with sleeping gas!

and then kill them all

[R'as al Ghul]

A more human aproach would be to fill the building with sleeping gas!

Done! :wink:

[Husar]

Yeah, so we can have more and smaller wars.:dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Historical scenario
I was reading last night about a group in a refugee area who were supplied with enough weapons from outside groups to successfully resist deportation by attacking from rooftops, cellars and attics. In trying to remove them, 20 government soldiers were killed. The government responded with attacks by tanks and artillery, versus the refugees armed with smuggled in pistols, rifles, a few machine guns, grenades and Molotov cocktails. The first attack was repulsed, leaving another 12 government soldiers dead. The soldiers found it very difficult to kill or capture the small battle groups, who would fight, then retreat through a maze of cellars, sewers and other hidden passageways to escape capture, disappearing into the noncombatant areas. Air strikes were ordered, setting apartment buildings from which resistance occurred on fire, in an effort to kill those hiding among the noncombatants (who were almost certainly aware of their presence and may have in fact assisted them.) But of course this is all justified, as a necessary government response to the attacks.
So was the government justified ?

[Somebody Else]

Incidentally - my question was in part inspired by something I heard about a US training exercise. 50 men playing enemy, holed up in an apartment block. Best part of 2000 marines 'died' to take the building. Now, I haven't verified this - but I've had a brush with some FIBUA, and it seems believable.

[Vladimir]

Screw world government. We need to split into more and smaller states. :shame:

Hello? The Balkans?

[Tribesman]

We need to split into more and smaller states
Interesting .
What? How dare you. The Balkans are insane, like the Middle-East and Africa. You just can't compare the rest of the world to those nations.
So would you care to guess how many of the current nations in the world do not have international territorial disputes ? Or alternately domestic seperatist issues ?
So I suppose you wouldn't have any objection if the radical mexican groups got their independant country down south , which states is it they are claiming are their homeland? And of course you can give the white supremacists the 5 northwestern states they want for their new country , but of course you cannot compare them to other groups in other countries can you , as the other groups are crazy aren't they .:inquisitive:

[Justiciar]

Yeah, so we can have more and smaller wars.
As opposed to colossal all-encompassing global wars with the threat of a nuclear holocaust and whole generations shot to pieces? Deal. :2thumbsup:

[Somebody Else]

As opposed to colossal all-encompassing global wars with the threat of a nuclear holocaust and whole generations shot to pieces? Deal. :2thumbsup:

I suppose it'd give all those ex-army chaps plenty of work... Time to go get myself a commission then.

[Divinus Arma]

What? How dare you. The Balkans are insane, like the Middle-East and Africa. You just can't compare the rest of the world to those nations.

I happen to be doing a fairly sizeable analysis of Eastern Europe and the Balkans right now. I'm giving a teleconference presentation on the subject this Monday.

It's actually not quite as bad as one might expect and is showing much improvement. As a matter of fact, I am recommending the former Yugoslav republic of Slovenia as the target market to install a regional headquarters, over Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. I still need to check some tax info, but Slovenia is doing great. The real probs still remain in the ethnic conflicts between Serbs, Albanians, Croats, and Bosniaks. I wouldn't do business in Serbis or Bosnia right now. However, the region as a whole is showing great promise for multi-national corporate market opportunities.

Here's the first draft of the brief history component (Still requires quite a bit of clean-up and source referencing):


Regional History

Eastern Europe is defined by many similarities in history. Nearly all of these similarities are shared in ethnic conflict and communist control. Without exception, each nation in modern Eastern Europe is of former communist control and all are taking strides, with varying degrees of success, towards greater democratization.
It is fair to note that Eastern Europe can be divided based on one shared allegiance: that of Yugoslavia. Where Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Hungary each share their own independent history, the former republics of Yugoslavia all share a fairly common recent past. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary all have benefited from a lack of ethnic conflict. The national boundaries have existed for some time, and all have homogeneity in ethnicity, religion, and language. This is not the case in the former republics of Yugoslavia, where ethnicity and religion have played a predominant role in shaping the conflicts and challenges of post-communist governance. Perhaps unique from its counterpart former Yugoslav republics, is Slovenia. Slovenia has largely been spared the ethnic and religious conflicts due in part to its homogeneity. Slovenia rapidly separated from Yugoslavia and has been, by far, the most successful of the post-Yugoslav states to implement democracy and economic prosperity.

Poland: Modernly defined by the end of WWII and Communist control thereafter until 1990. The country had several large groups of ethnic minorities prior to WWII but is now essentially homogenous with Poles. Communist rule supported by the Soviet Union dominated the economic and political spectrum following Polish re-assertion of independence after World War II. Communism collapsed in Poland in the 1990’s, and the first free parliamentary elections were held in 1991. Since then, Poland has made steady progress in reforming towards a modern market economy. Poland abandoned the Warsaw Pact in 1991 and was officially accepted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1999. Poland acceded into the European Union in 2004, and is required by treaty to eventually accept the Euro as its official currency.

Czech Republic and Slovakia: Prior to the end of WWI, Czech and Slovak lands were part of the Austrian Empire. The Czech Republic existed as the western half of Czechoslovakia from the end of WWI at its creation until 1993. During WWII, portions of Czechoslovakia with large German minorities were obtained by Germany through concessions from France and the UK as well as through German invasion. Around the same time during WWII, Slovakia declared independence and became a client state of Germany. Czechoslovakia was reunited following WWII and most Germans were forced to leave. In 1946, elections were held, but communist elements backed by the Soviet Union quickly gained prominence and took power in 1948. Throughout the 1960s, internal pressure for change and Slovak demands for greater independence resulted in a series of economic and social reforms that angered the Soviet Union. Warsaw Pact forces invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 and replaced the reformers with new leadership. The 1970s and 1980s saw a period of Soviet conservatism with little active resistance. This period of conservatism ended in 1989 with broad popular demands for reform and the eventual collapse of communism in Czechoslovakia in 1990, when the first free elections were held since those in 1946. In 1991, Czechoslovakia abandoned the Warsaw Pact and immediately thereafter in 1992, Slovaks pressured for autonomy, culminating in the split which formed the current Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czech Republic and Slovakia both were members of the Central European Free Trade Agreement as a preliminary agreement to formal acceptance into the European Union, which both countries are now part. The Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999 and Slovakia followed in 2004. Both countries are required by treaty to eventually accept the Euro as national currency.

Hungary: At the end of the World War I, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was defeated and Hungary was split into its own nation. During World War II, Hungary sided with Germany until 1944, where it unsuccessfully attempted to switch sides and was consequently occupied by German forces. Following WW II, Hungary was supported by a provisional government of American, British, and Soviet representatives. In 1945, the provisional government was replaced by a national government, which itself was soon undermined by communist elements with Soviet backing. Major industries, banking, and natural resources were nationalized and by 1949, Hungary was under a communist dictatorship with all opposition parties forced to join the Hungarian Worker’s Party. In 1953, Hungary joined the Warsaw Pact. That same year, serious economic difficulties arose from forced nationalization and collectivization. National leadership attempted a brief and unsuccessful attempt at reform which was quickly disrupted by hard-core Soviet-stylized conservatives. However, the desire for reform was not to be underestimated and revolution broke out in 1956. Liberal leadership attempted to reinstate economic and social reforms, and withdrew from the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union responded with a massive invasion and subsequent reinstatement of Communist dictatorship. The liberal leadership was executed and roughly 200,000 Hungarians fled the country. In the 1960s, the communist government began to very slowly implement economic and social reform which contributed to 20 years of reasonable political quiet in Hungary. In the mid to late 1980s, reform efforts stepped up in intensity, culminating in a gradual transition to democracy in 1989 and the Soviet Union agreeing to withdraw its forces by 1991. Hungary was admitted to NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004. Hungary is required by treaty to eventually adopt the Euro as its currency.

Slovenia: Following World War I, Slovenia was the very northern republic united under what is now the former Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia fell to Germany and its allies during World War II and succumbed to communism shortly thereafter. During the Yugoslav era of communism, Slovenia thrived under its own liberal policies. Finally, in 1990, Slovenia declared independence from Yugoslavia. As an emerging democracy, the leaders of Slovenia pursued further economic and social liberalization. Slovenia became a member of NATO and the European Union in 2004 and is expected to adopt the Euro as its currency in 2007, making it the first of the eastern European regional EU members to do so. (U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3407.htm)

Croatia: Croatia was one of the several countries to unite within Yugoslavia after World War I. Croatia was held under communist Yugoslavia without great incident until after the death of Marshall Tito, when Yugoslavia began to break apart. Croatia declared its independence in 1991, and conflicts between ethnic Serbs and Croats quickly escalated into civil war. A series of cease-fires and corresponding resumptions of hostilities took place until 1995, where Croatia committed itself to a lasting peace with the Dayton Peace Accords. Not long after, Croatia progressed through regional cooperation, democratization, and other various national reconciliation efforts. Currently, the leadership of Croatia has dedicated itself to accession to the EU and NATO. To further these aims of stability and economic prosperity, Croatia is a member of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, a member of CEFTA, and in negotiations for EU membership.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: The relations of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina deserve a brief explanation prior to World War I, as it directly relates to modern challenges. Ottoman Turks controlled Bosnia from 1463 to 1878, and during this time many Christians converted to Islam. These religious influences play a large part in the conflicts today. Bosnia became a colony of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until the end of World War I, and it was Bosnia where the sparks of World War I were lit with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist who supported a southern Slav state. After World War I, Bosnia became part of Yugoslavia which fell to communism after World War II. Slobodan Milosevic’s rise to prominence in 1986 accelerated the break up of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. Bosnia declared independence in 1992, though opposed by Bosnian Serbs. Serbia and Bosnian Serbs engaged in a violent offensive in an attempt to include eastern Bosnia as a component of a greater ethnically defined Serbia. During this same time, Bosnian Muslims and Croats also sought independence from Bosnia. Just prior to the Dayton Peace accords in 1995, Muslims and Croats agreed to a unified federal government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Dayton Peace Accords created a two-tiered government comprised of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republica Srpska, both being divided primarily along the ethnic religious lines of Croats & Muslim Bosniaks and Christian Serbs. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a member of the Stability pact for Southeastern Europe and a prospective member for the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). European Union peacekeeping troops are currently deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina to prevent renewed hostilities. (U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm)

Serbia and Montenegro: Following World War II, the formation of Yugoslavia saw Serbia as the dominant partner in the alliance of various ethnicities and religions under one banner. A large contributing factor towards the success of this unity was the protection of smaller republics under Serbian leadership. Following World War II, Serbia played the leading role within communist Yugoslavia. During the break up which began in the 1980s, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic sought to exercise greater control over provinces which previously enjoyed greater autonomy. In 1999, NATO exacted an air campaign over Serbia in response to Slobodan Milosevic violent acts against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Milosevic eventually ceased his actions and NATO forces moved in to Kosovo as a peacekeeping and security force. After Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia announced independence for their respective states, Serbia and Montenegro became the successor to the Yugoslav state as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The name was changed in 2003 to Serbia and Montenegro by Constitutional Charter. A provision of this charter allowed for the secession of Montenegro in 2006, which occurred in June of 2006. Both Serbia and Montenegro are members of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe and are prospective members for CEFTA. (U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5388.htm)

Albania: Albania’s independence was established following World War I after hundreds of years of rule by the Ottoman Empire. Albania was occupied by Axis powers during World War II, and after the war, suffered under the brutal isolated communist regime of Enver Hoxha for several decades. In 1991, after the general fall of communism in Europe and six years after the death of Enver Hoxha, Albanian leaders sought democratization and closer ties to the West. Multi-party democracy and the liberalization of economic policy preceded the elections of the Albanian Democratic Party and more sweeping reforms. Unfortunately, Albania almost immediately suffered under a series of fraudulent investment schemes that resulted in armed revolts that nearly overtook the fragile emerging democratic government. The United Nations sent in a multinational Protection Force to help restore order, and the Democratic Party was replaced by more socialist elements. Since 1997, Albania has progressed slowly and suffered many setbacks due to political infighting. The Democratic Party was returned to power in 2005 on an anti-crime and anti-corruption ticket. Albania is a member of the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe and is a prospective member for CEFTA. (U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3235.htm)


Macedonia: Prior to World War I, the territory of Macedonia fell under Turkish rule in the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, the territory was divided amongst Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Greece, and Bulgaria. After World War II, the territory of modern day Macedonia was established as a republic within communist Yugoslavia. When communism fell throughout Eastern Europe in 1991, Macedonia joined its Yugoslavian contemporaries in declaring independence. Macedonian managed to avoid ethnic conflicts until 2000, when Ethnic Albanians near Kosovo seized land and attacked government forces. The fighting ended in 2001 with the implementation of greater civil rights for ethnic Albanians as broker by international mediators. Macedonia continues to make strides towards greater relations with regional and European partners, though not without challenges. Macedonia is a member of CEFTA, a member of the Stability Pact, and a candidate for the European Union.

[Vladimir]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Aren't you an MP?

[Husar]

Historical scenario
I was reading last night about a group in a refugee area who were supplied with enough weapons from outside groups to successfully resist deportation by attacking from rooftops, cellars and attics. In trying to remove them, 20 government soldiers were killed. The government responded with attacks by tanks and artillery, versus the refugees armed with smuggled in pistols, rifles, a few machine guns, grenades and Molotov cocktails. The first attack was repulsed, leaving another 12 government soldiers dead. The soldiers found it very difficult to kill or capture the small battle groups, who would fight, then retreat through a maze of cellars, sewers and other hidden passageways to escape capture, disappearing into the noncombatant areas. Air strikes were ordered, setting apartment buildings from which resistance occurred on fire, in an effort to kill those hiding among the noncombatants (who were almost certainly aware of their presence and may have in fact assisted them.) But of course this is all justified, as a necessary government response to the attacks.
So was the government justified ?
Sounds a lot like what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto.

I think the whole idea of justification is very difficult as well as very individual depending on one´s views.
If you could ask a deer whether it was justified to shoot deer so a hunter can make a living, what might the deer respond?
Usually justification is explained by needs, aims and values of a person or group, but another group has a very different view.
The one who has the losses will almost never say it´s justified, the one who wins will often say. The stronger makes the rules usually. And the stronger also dictates what is justified and what is not, who could oppose his views?:inquisitive: :juggle2:

[Divinus Arma]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Aren't you an MP?

:laugh4: Read my Orgah "Summation". ~;)

I also have an undergraduate degree in Management and am currently pursuing a Master of Business Administration in International Business. :2thumbsup:

As soon as I finish, I plan on pursuing a secondary career as a Business Instructor.

(I'll only be a Marine for another 2 weeks. Then I'll be a firefighter.)

[PanzerJaeger]

The stronger makes the rules usually. And the stronger also dictates what is justified and what is not.

Thats the smartest thing I have read here in a while. :2thumbsup:

[Ironside]

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

Almost better. You can then take out the stash and equipment unopposed. Monitor the area to prevent any quick re-establishments in the area and identify all that has left the area. Destroy all secret passages and notice thier exits.
Try then to continue the pressure on the group. If you can keep this up it will cripple the organisation as it will constantly loose equipment and people that shows up on several places will either be very unlucky or members. And learning thier secret retreat habits can be useful...

Striking the headquaters will often wond them, possibly cripple them for a while, but you're damn lucky if you can take out the head of the beast in one strike this way. They're usually prepared for that situation.

[Somebody Else]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?

Plus, as far as I know, stockpiling all equipment in one place is rather foolish, compared to having multiple hidden caches. I would assume anyone who's capable of organising a terrorist group will have at least that amount of sense...

[Husar]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?
That´s human stupidity, according to Darwin only the strong or those who can adapt will survive, well, they obviously can´t adapt...

[Somebody Else]

That´s human stupidity, according to Darwin only the strong or those who can adapt will survive, well, they obviously can´t adapt...

Well... the Israelis are dropping leaflets saying exactly that. Carte blanche then, huh?

[Crazed Rabbit]

To the original scenario:
Bomb the tower into smithereens when most of the enemy are in it.


So was the government justified ?

No, the Nazis weren't. Context counts.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ironside]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?

Plus, as far as I know, stockpiling all equipment in one place is rather foolish, compared to having multiple hidden caches. I would assume anyone who's capable of organising a terrorist group will have at least that amount of sense...

Well you are cutting of thier food supplies... So simply wait and take your time to check for any secret exits. Offer to deploy troops inside to prevent looting, but make it known that they'll withdraw if attacked... And withdraw them if it happens.

As I said, you can only be really effective if you constantly take out thier bases and stashes. Or is doing an extremly good operation (that would require insane amounts of very good intel though, and strikes agaisnt several places at once).


Well... the Israelis are dropping leaflets saying exactly that. Carte blanche then, huh?

Airstrikes are quite different compared to sieging an area.

[Somebody Else]

Well you are cutting of thier food supplies... So simply wait and take your time to check for any secret exits. Offer to deploy troops inside to prevent looting, but make it known that they'll withdraw if attacked... And withdraw them if it happens.

As I said, you can only be really effective if you constantly take out thier bases and stashes. Or is doing an extremly good operation (that would require insane amounts of very good intel though, and strikes agaisnt several places at once).

And if other locations are identified as similar terrorist hideouts? Rather manpower intensive, no? Plus, time is not often something that people have - we have a results driven world...


Airstrikes are quite different compared to sieging an area.

Sieges nowadays are fairly different to how they used to be. Cutting off supplies and resticting movement used to require encirclement by ground troops. These days, we can bomb bridges, convoys, power stations etc. to achieve the same effect, but without putting soldiers at risk - quite an attractive option, given decreasing front-line troop numbers...

[Tribesman]

No, the Nazis weren't. Context counts.

Well said Rabbit , so how does that balance with some of the comments here like........
The stronger makes the rules usually. And the stronger also dictates what is justified and what is not
At that time in that place they were the strongest weren't they , so their rules are OK .

[Husar]

Now, what if the civilians in the area secretly support the bad guys and stay in the area because they know that the government cannot shoot while they are there?:juggle2:
They can simply be afraid and claim this or that, but they will stay there only to "guard" the bad guys. The governement and media cannot read their minds, so what should be done? How can anyone know?

What will PETA do if they hide behind furry sheep?:inquisitive:

and last but not least: What would Jesus do?:inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

What would Jesus do?
Turn the other cheek and end up getting nailed .

[Ironside]

And if other locations are identified as similar terrorist hideouts? Rather manpower intensive, no? Plus, time is not often something that people have - we have a results driven world...

Considering that driving out a strong terroist organisation can take years, if not decades, whatever an operation will take a few days more or not will not matter (if people rather starve to death, then you're pretty much screwed anyway).


Sieges nowadays are fairly different to how they used to be. Cutting off supplies and resticting movement used to require encirclement by ground troops. These days, we can bomb bridges, convoys, power stations etc. to achieve the same effect, but without putting soldiers at risk - quite an attractive option, given decreasing front-line troop numbers...

Airstrikes limits armies, not individuals. And those who is good at escaping isn't usually civilians...
And hitting induvidual houses with airstrikes because important persons might be there isn't usually good for the hearts and minds conversion.
You cannot aviod civilian casualities either as people will hope that it isn't thier house that is going to be attacked, and destroying the entire block is a slight overkill.
The principle is to be nice enough that your presence is clear and annoying, but not hated (well if you can get your presence to be liked, then you're close to winning anyway). And if you're predictable enough with your counter-reactions from terrorist attacks, the population won't support the terrorists after a while.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, the Nazis weren't. Context counts.

Well said Rabbit , so how does that balance with some of the comments here like........
The stronger makes the rules usually. And the stronger also dictates what is justified and what is not
At that time in that place they were the strongest weren't they , so their rules are OK .

You'll have to talk to Husar about that, though I suspect he wasn't being completely serious.

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

You'll have to talk to Husar about that, though I suspect he wasn't being completely serious.

Crazed Rabbit
I was being very serious.
But I only tried to point out the obvious, I didn´t say I like it that way.
If you don´t believe me, you can look for some people who tried to tell some Nazi officer that he was wrong...

[GoreBag]

The choice to bomb the tower and kill the combatants is beyond justification. You want the combatants dead? Well, how badly? Anyone around when the bombs fall..well, sucks to their ass-mar. You're toast and that's the way the cookie crumbles.


What would Jesus do?

Conjure fish? I really don't understand why you said that.

[Don Corleone]

Hezbollah's was launching rockets for weeks prior to Israel returning fire, yet people describe it as "Israel attacking Lebanon".

Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed, by UN decree, yet Kofi Annan had to wait until Israel returned fire to raise concern about the area.

Why didn't Annan, the Pope, and all the rest of the anti-Israel crowd "call for peace", or "seek alternate solutions" when it was Hezbollah shelling Israel unilaterally?

To answer the premise of this thread... if you choose to stay next to a tower that's attacking me and you get hurt when I retaliate against the tower, sorry but we warned you... stop harboring terrorists and you won't have anything to fear.

[Reenk Roink]

Israel did attack Lebanon, that's why people describe it that way.

Hezbollah's attack on the soldiers was also an attack on Israel.

But we can take it much farther than that...

One of Hezbollah's cases against Israel is the fact that Israel holds many members of Hezbollah, as well as other organizations, as well as many women.

And of course, we can go all the way back to the displacement of Arabs...

That's the nature of Middle East conflicts...

[Don Corleone]

First, Reenk, retaliating is not an attack. If you punch me in the nose, and I punch you back, I didn't 'attack' you. Israel retaliated against Hezbollah who had been launching rockets at Israel for weeks prior to the first shell lobbed by Israel.

Not sure what your second statement means...that because the kidnapped soldiers were Israeli, Hezbollah was justified?

Third, if you get caught and imprisoned for terrorist actions, Hezbollah does not have the right to bomb Israel or kidnap Israeli soliders, IN ISRAEL, to demand your release. Terrorists belong in jail or in a grave.

Fourth, the Israelis were displaced before the Arabs. Before them, there were the Canannites, neither Jew, nor Arab, nor Palestinian. How far back do we go to determine ownership? By your logic, Britain is the rightful property of the Brittains. Every Celt, Angle, Saxon, Norman or anyone of another bloodline that has arrived since deserves to be bombed out of the UK?

And you never answered my other questions? Where were the Pope's/Kofi's calls for peace when it was just Jews dying?

Where was Kofi when he should have been enforcing his own proposition to disarm Hezbollah? He only comes out of the woodwork to do Iran's bidding. And you wonder why Americans don't trust him...

[Pannonian]

First, Reenk, retaliating is not an attack. If you punch me in the nose, and I punch you back, I didn't 'attack' you. Israel retaliated against Hezbollah who had been launching rockets at Israel for weeks prior to the first shell lobbed by Israel.

If you punch me in the nose, and in return I break your neck, kill every 10th member of your neighbourhood, burn your house down and destroy the civil infrastructure in your country, is it just retaliation?

Most of us think Israel had the right to retaliate against Hezbollah and Lebanon, up to a point. They passed that point long ago, and have since left it behind them, far beyond the horizon. This is no longer retaliation, but an old fashioned Roman punitive expedition verging on conquest. All we need now is for the IDF to march 30,000 slaves back to the Israeli markets to complete the picture.

[Big_John]

Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed, by UN decree, yet Kofi Annan had to wait until Israel returned fire to raise concern about the area.just remember that israel took 22 years to comply with UN resolution 425.. whereas israel apparently decided less than 2 years was too much time to allow lebanon to comply with resolution 1559.

the UN should be thankful israel hasn't hit their headquarters..

[Don Corleone]

If it's a question simply of degree, then yes, Pannonian, I can understand your argument much better, though I'm still not on board with that. Instead of demanding Israel stop firing, how about asking Hezbollah to cough up the soldiers, stop firing and asking the Lebanese to quit sheltering Hezbollah?

And by the way, I'm still waiting for an answer.... where were all the cries for ceasefire when it was just Hezbollah rocketing Israel? Why did it take Israel firing back for there to be a 'crisis'?

[Don Corleone]

just remember that israel took 22 years to comply with UN resolution 425.. whereas israel apparently decided less than 2 years was too much time to allow lebanon to comply with resolution 1559.

the UN should be thankful israel hasn't hit their headquarters..

Now THAT is a valid criticism. Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was wrong, and I agree, they took entirely too long getting out of Gaza, and should be stepping it up getting out of the West Bank. That doesn't address the fundamental question though of why it's okay for Hezbollah to rocket Israel, but it's not okay for Israel to hit them back to make them stop.

And, my point was Kofi was on his soap box the day Israel started shelling Hezbollah positions. The silence was deafening from him prior to that while Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel. Double standard out of the UN? :idea2: Couldn't be...

[Reenk Roink]

Your tone is best directed somewhere else... :smiley:


First, Reenk, retaliating is not an attack. If you punch me in the nose, and I punch you back, I didn't 'attack' you. Israel retaliated against Hezbollah who had been launching rockets at Israel for weeks prior to the first shell lobbed by Israel.

Yes it is. I don't know how you can say otherwise. It doesn't matter if I killed your family beforehand; if you punch me back, it's an attack...

We can also go on about how Lebanon is tied up in all of this, but it has been exhausted in previous threads.


Not sure what your second statement means...that because the kidnapped soldiers were Israeli, Hezbollah was justified?

Best not to guess when you are not sure. :wink:

No Don Corleone, that was not the meaning of my statement, as much as you would like to attribute it to me. I was going on to show that Israel "attacked" Lebanon, but Hezbollah had also "attacked" Israel. That's it.


Third, if you get caught and imprisoned for terrorist actions, Hezbollah does not have the right to bomb Israel or kidnap Israeli soliders, IN ISRAEL, to demand your release. Terrorists belong in jail or in a grave.

Do you know how many of these prisoners ended up in Israeli jails, or in graves? It was in the fighting during the 18 year Israeli occupation of Lebanon. In fact, isn't that why Hezbollah was created in the first place? Did Israel have the right to capture Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon? Does Israel have the right to bomb Lebanon?

Anyway, we can get into an argument on who is the terrorist (many Lebanese and Arabs seem to think that Israel is the terrorist in this conflict) and who isn't.

The fact is, Hezbollah fighters are in Israeli prisons, and Israeli fighters are in Hezbollah captivity (I don't think they have prisons). You can put any twist you want from here...


Fourth, the Israelis were displaced before the Arabs. Before them, there were the Canannites, neither Jew, nor Arab, nor Palestinian. How far back do we go to determine ownership? By your logic, Britain is the rightful property of the Brittains. Every Celt, Angle, Saxon, Norman or anything sense deserves to be bombed out of the UK?

Once again Don Corleone, you have extrapolated my statement, and put your own twist on my meaning, so that it does not bear any resemblance to what I was saying. Allow me to clarify:

I never ever stated, explicitly or implicitly, that the land belongs to the Arabs or that the Arabs should have it back. I don't believe that. It is hard to do that, because most nations are built on the conquest (and sometimes expulsion and genocide) of others, including my own. So I do believe in the right of conquest. I believe Israel can keep it if they can secure it. I also believe that the Arabs can have it back if they can take it… :wink:

However, what I stated is the fact that Arabs were forcibly expelled. Certainly, this is going to make those people, and the other Arabs, angry, willing to fight...

This is the root cause of the conflict today. Also, when the Arabs had first conquered the land now known as Israel, they did not expel the original inhabitants. When the British took over the land now known as Israel, they did not expel the inhabitants (overlooking the minor role they had in upcoming expulsion of Arabs). But the Jewish settlers and the newly formed state of Israel did...


And you never answered my other questions? Where were the Pope's/Kofi's calls for peace when it was just Jews dying?

These questions were never directly posed to me.

Also, you would be better of contacting the Pope or Kofi directly.


Where was Kofi when he should have been enforcing his own proposition to disarm Hezbollah? He only comes out of the woodwork to do Iran's bidding. And you wonder why Americans don't trust him...

Ok... Kofi has little to do with your discussion with me. Please take your accusations of him elsewhere.

[Don Corleone]

Reenk, if your point was that it's a mess over there and plenty of blame to go around, then you're right and I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your earlier post. I thought you were assessing blame for the situation to the Israelis, exclusively.

My point in raising those questions is I hear in a lot of quarters, including in the tone of posts here in the Backroom, that it's a crisis over there. Yes, it is. It was a crisis back in June when Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel, yet the cries around the globe, and here in the Backroom, were much, much more muted. You're obviously right, you're not Kofi Annan's spokesman, I just find myself wondering out loud why it took Israel's retaliation to bring Kofi Annan, or anyone for that matter, to start speaking up.Wasn't it a crisis when it was just the Jews getting fired on?

[Pannonian]

Reenk, if your point was that it's a mess over there and plenty of blame to go around, then you're right and I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your earlier post. I thought you were assessing blame for the situation to the Israelis, exclusively.

My point in raising those questions is I hear in a lot of quarters, including in the tone of posts here in the Backroom, that it's a crisis over there. Yes, it is. It was a crisis back in June when Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel, yet the cries around the globe, and here in the Backroom, were much, much more muted. You're obviously right, you're not Kofi Annan's spokesman, I just find myself wondering out loud why it took Israel's retaliation to bring Kofi Annan, or anyone for that matter, to start speaking up.Wasn't it a crisis when it was just the Jews getting fired on?
Because skirmishes are frowned on, but no-one really cares about them? Whereas a full-blown invasion is something else altogether?

If someone's keeps flicking ink pellets at you, you're expected to take it or deal with it accordingly. If you deal with it by burning the miscreant's house down, it doesn't matter that the root cause was the kid flicking ink pellets at you, what you did was far disproportionate to the wrong did to you.

For example, Iraq complained about how Kuwait was drilling into its oilfields. No-one was inclined to take action, so Iraq invaded Kuwait. What was the original wrong? Kuwait's stealing of Iraqi oil. Who got the blame? Iraq, because what they did in response was disproportionate to the wrong they suffered.

Just because someone started it doesn't give you a free hand to do whatever you want in response. Israel has done far, far, far too much damage in this instance compared to what they originally suffered, and all the finger pointing about who started it doesn't change things.

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk, if your point was that it's a mess over there and plenty of blame to go around, then you're right and I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your earlier post. I thought you were assessing blame for the situation to the Israelis, exclusively.

:bow:


My point in raising those questions is I hear in a lot of quarters, including in the tone of posts here in the Backroom, that it's a crisis over there. Yes, it is. It was a crisis back in June when Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel, yet the cries around the globe, and here in the Backroom, were much, much more muted. You're obviously right, you're not Kofi Annan's spokesman, I just find myself wondering out loud why it took Israel's retaliation to bring Kofi Annan, or anyone for that matter, to start speaking up.Wasn't it a crisis when it was just the Jews getting fired on?

Well, I think it really has all to do with magnitude.

Hezbollah on one hand, is blindly firing their rockets over the border. Many of them going to waste, landing in open fields, and a few killing civilians...

How stupid. First, you are killing innocents, and in methodology no better off than the Israeli bombing of your people. Secondly, those rockets would be better off against the Israeli troops now in your borders... Hezbollah is being incredibly stupid and shortsighted, and evil in their killing of civilians.

Now for Israel. Wow. They really should have avoided that bombing campaign early on, that missed Hezbollah but killed hundreds of innocents. Now they are actually engaging Hezbollah in hand to hand combat, but the damage is done, Israel once again carries the scar of being at best heavy handed - at worst a state that practices terrorism from above.

Look at the casualty figures (these may be a bit dated):

Hezbollah has killed around 40-50 people, only 24 have been soldiers according to the IDF.

Israel has killed 400 people, 100 Hezbollah militants according to them, but according to most others, 20-some Hezbollah and 20 some Lebanese army...

[Don Corleone]

Because skirmishes are frowned on, but no-one really cares about them? Whereas a full-blown invasion is something else altogether?

If someone's keeps flicking ink pellets at you, you're expected to take it or deal with it accordingly. If you deal with it by burning the miscreant's house down, it doesn't matter that the root cause was the kid flicking ink pellets at you, what you did was far disproportionate to the wrong did to you.

For example, Iraq complained about how Kuwait was drilling into its oilfields. No-one was inclined to take action, so Iraq invaded Kuwait. What was the original wrong? Kuwait's stealing of Iraqi oil. Who got the blame? Iraq, because what they did in response was disproportionate to the wrong they suffered.

Just because someone started it doesn't give you a free hand to do whatever you want in response. Israel has done far, far, far too much damage in this instance compared to what they originally suffered, and all the finger pointing about who started it doesn't change things.

I would agree with you if the calls for Israel to stop began when they sent ground troops into Lebanon, or even after a few days of the shelling. But the calls for a 'cease-fire' began the moment Israel fired back. Coincidence? I think not.

[Big_John]

Now THAT is a valid criticism. Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank was wrong, and I agree, they took entirely too long getting out of Gaza, and should be stepping it up getting out of the West Bank. That doesn't address the fundamental question though of why it's okay for Hezbollah to rocket Israel, but it's not okay for Israel to hit them back to make them stop.

And, my point was Kofi was on his soap box the day Israel started shelling Hezbollah positions. The silence was deafening from him prior to that while Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel. Double standard out of the UN? :idea2: Couldn't be...of course it's not ok for hezbollah to launch rockets into israel, and of course israel has a right to retaliate. but is killing 100 lebanese civilians, many of which did not support hezbollah before this (but probably do now..), to every hezbollah "leader" or fighter retaliation or crime?

if hezbollah commits crimes against israel, is israel allowed to retaliate with crimes of their own? is israel allowed to commit consequent crimes against the non-hezbollah lebanese?

i haven't followed kofi's comments regarding this conflict or the previous hostilities, so i can't yet speak to your comment about "deafening silence". but what do you make of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1559

snipet:
On January 23, 2006 the UN Security Council called on the Government of Lebanon to make more progress in controlling its territory and disbanding militias, while also calling on Syria to cooperate with those efforts. In a statement read out by its January President, Augustine Mahiga of Tanzania, the Council also called on Syria to take measures to stop movements of arms and personnel into Lebanon.
here's an interesting blog by a lebanese man who fled beirut and kept up his blog while doing so. http://lebop.blogspot.com/ it's interesting to see how his feelings towards hezbollah and israel progress.

just after the kidnapping:Kidnapping Israelis

The Israelis overflew Syrian President Bashar Assad's palace in Latakia when Hamas killed two Israelis and kidnapped one. Now, Hezbollah kills Israeli soldiers and kidnaps them.

What will the Israelis do to Syria, now (not to mention Lebanon, the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza)?

What are the Syrians and Hezbollah thinking? Goad Israel into an attack? Prove that there isn't much that Israel can do without going into all out offensive war? Get Israel back for Israeli overflights and the 2003 bombing of the Damascus Palestinian refugee camp?

They definitely aren't winning any support in Lebanon, the West, or the rest of the world.

I've been asked a few times to attend rallies in support of the people of Gaza. There's no way I would go to one of those. If Gazans don't want to be attacked in a massive Israeli campaign, they'll return the kidnapped soldier. Nothing better illuminates Palestinian eliminationist ideology than independent Palestinians doing everything in their power to destroy Israel.

And Hezbollah? This militia is just ridiculous. Westerners are scared out of their minds of being kidnapped by Muslims after all the headchopping that's gone on in Pakistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Even domestically, Americans are vigilantly anti-kidnapping. Nothing sets Midwesterners more on edge than an Amber Alert. You'll never get anyone to have sympathy for you by behaving like criminals.

The interesting part is that Syria is powerful enough to call Israel's bluff. Assad's realized that, not only is the West incapable of taking out the Syrian regime, but that Israel can't either. That truly changes things.

Syria's alliance with Iran is really paying off.


Update: Just to make things a bit clearer. Israel's very capable of destroying a good portion of both Lebanon and Syria from the air. They're also capable of taking hundreds of Lebanese civilians hostage (or just killing them) to counter Hezbollah's stupid act.

Israeli blogger Yael K routinely comments on Lebanese blogs. She's a very moderate and normally peace-advocating blogger. This is her response (http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/f.html) to Hezbollah's attack: "I am not going to say anything more because right now I am having the very non-rational and certainly non-peaceful response of "go in and bomb the living F*** out of Lebanon. Bomb the living F*** out of Gaza. No holds barred" as a pretty minor statement of my feelings at the moment."

I don't want to be caught in an Israeli bombing campaign. I don't want to live without electricity and water. I don't want to live with the fear of war.

Most importantly, I want to watch Fairouz in Baalbak this weekend. She's not going to be singing if Israel is bombing Hezbollah and Palestinian positions in the Bekaa.
to this:The Grand Irony

Does Israel have a right to attack after the kidnapping? Yes.

Does Hezbollah have the hostages in a place Israel will never find them? Yes.

Can Lebanese - people who can't agree on anything else and see themselves in perpetual competition with each other - militantly rise up against Hezbollah? And would they want to restart a civil war after they finally got their country back for the first time in 30 years? No.

Would Syria and other regional actors immediately take advantage of the internal Lebanese conflict? Most definitely.

What does Israel hope to accomplish? The return of the soldiers? The disarmament of Hezbollah?

Neither of those things will happen with further military aggression.

Israel knows that it cannot overthrow the Lebanese government, which was democratically elected. I don't think it would want to because in doing so it would either have to take over the country Syria-style, or risk a permanent base of terror to its north.

What Israel is doing is taking all power away from that government. Since the Syrians withdrew, the Lebanese government was beginning to assert itself against incredible odds. The US and the West cut Lebanon a lot of slack. Israel did, too.

Israel needs to protect its citizens. We understand this.

Stop the bombs. Stop the blockade. It's time for a ceasefire based on negotiations. That would be your way of throwing the ball back in our court. We'd sit around and debate over whether we can talk to the Israelis. Hezbollah would go crazy, but the other parties would be willing to talk about it. If nothing happens, you will have proved your point. And the whole world will understand.

Give us a chance. (And don't say we already had one because 30 years of Syrian occupation, followed by a full year of political assassinations and regular bombings doesn't count. It was only in the last few months that Lebanese leaders could actually confront the big issues without the risk of assassination or civil war).
and later, this:To Everyone Who Thinks Israel's Campaign is Just Fine and Dandy

This is a rant I posted in a comment to Michael Totten's blog. Commenters on this site, and especially on his site have been mercilessly rude and ignorant. I shouldn't even have written it. I don't have the time, but I'm steaming mad. This was written for an American audience. Aside from being Lebanese, I'm an American citizen who believes strongly in the Constitution.

I'm having trouble not using profanity.

I guess we in Lebanon should throw away everything that the United States has taught us. I was taught in school about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I was taught to stand up to oppression and not use evil against my opponent.

I was taught to empathize with those in pain.

I was taught to do things, especially when a people had been particularly brutalized.

My friends and I have braved violence. We were beaten with batons and sprayed with water cannons by the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. We watched as our television stations were closed, all the while Hezbollah's remained opened.

Did Israel help us then? Did the United States or France?

We walked over Lebanese Army barbed wire to protest against the government and the Syrian regime.

We watched as our leaders, spokespeople, AND FRIENDS were assassinated on a monthly basis. Our neighborhoods were bombed. Our elected leaders were forced to live outside of the country in fear for their lives.

We kept pushing.

We pushed against Hezbollah to disarm the entire time. Some were bigots who made sectarian slurs. We kept our Hezbollah sympathetic friends and worked to changed their minds peacefully, as we know better than anyone outside of Lebanon the strange twists that sectarianism gives to every issue and how a terrorist organization can be the only hope for people who've suffered tremendously. The State Department and the White House understood this, too, which is why they cut the Lebanese government slack in disarming Hezbollah. They knew it was impossible to do immediately on multiple levels.

We watched as big countries with big arms and big international roles CHICKENED OUT (yeah, that's you America) about confronting Syria. We continued screaming against the terrorist regime, but no one would listen. Walid Jumblatt argued for the overthrow of Syria IN WASHINGTON!!! He gave a speech calling for Hezbollah to disarm and questioning the validity of one of Hezbollah's main issues: Lebanese sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms.

We had a National Dialogue in which we were trying to prevent war by making all parties amenable to change. This was after Hezbollah froze the government and kept the country in political limbo for months.

Is this not enough for you? What the hell more were we supposed to do? Honestly, what more?

It was only in the last few months that we were able to begin discussing the debates. The last assassination occurred on 12 Dec., 2005. After that the political leadership returned to Lebanon. But Hezbollah threw the government into crisis immediately thereafter. So, we've really had since May to seriously confront the issue. But we've got a hell of a lot of other issues to work through, too, that ignorant Westerners couldn't begin understanding.

Israel knew this and knows this. Condoleeza Rice admitted that Lebanon needed time to disarm Hezbollah. She knew that we had to solve this problem and that there was little any other country could do, which includes the US, France, the UN, and ISRAEL! They all knew that Syria and Iran were the targets, which is why they wrote UN Resolutions to these ends.

The entire time this was happening, we were reaching out through the internet to Israelis creating a human bond. Perpetual Refugee (http://perpetualrefugee.blogspot.com/) actually went to Israel and wrote quite passionately about his personal experiences there.

The whole time, we were being attacked by Hezbollah members and anti-semites. I argued with people on a daily basis. I argued with government officials. I argued with the Army. I argued with Islamists. But I guess that's not good enough. If the United States, France, and the UN Security Council are too afraid to do it, I'm supposed to.

So, Israel is doing it for us, eh? I thought they would impact on the local dynamic, at first. I thought Israel was going to help prove that they would not abide with Hezbollah's weapons and wouldn't let Hezbollah continue spreading the stupid myth that they can protect Lebanon. I thought this even after they bombed the airport. Okay, it's a major symbol. I don't like it getting bombed, but I get it. At first, they hit military targets and the airport.

But the devastation they have wreaked on us is truly horrendous. The US did not do this to the Iraqis. The US didn't do this to al Qaeda in Afghanistan, for crying out loud. Want to challenge me on this? Huh, you pale, pukish punks who've never done a damn thing in your lives for your armies and constitutions and who got everything handed to you; you punks sitting in your Pajamas (yeah, you there sitting in your Beverly Hills mansions writing movie scripts and worrying about the traffic on the way to Canyon Ranch); you who call liberals in the Middle East whiny for standing up for what we believe in at all times, including when it doesn't sound good to the Israelis and those whose lives are so pathetic they live vicariously through newspaper reports about the IDF and get their exercise for the day during when their adrenaline goes through the roof watching Bill O'Reilly scream at a child. Yeah, all you who want to challenge me, know that I've been to Iraq on multiple occassions. Friends have served and died there. The same goes for Afghanistan, where a good European friend is currently coordinating NATOs operations. I know well what the US did and does in those countries, and what Israel is doing here is far more merciless.

I've seen war in many places. I've studied when it is just and when it isn't. I take these things very, very seriously. This is not just.

I shouldn't even be telling you this. I shouldn't deign to your level of stupidity and ignorance. You people think you're well informed if you can name the leader of Hezbollah. You probably couldn't name the second in command if it would save your life. You probably can't even name the commanders serving YOU in Iraq. I know for a fact I know way more commanders, officers, and men on the ground in Afghanistan than any of you. You don't know war. I'm listening to bombs right now, as I write this. And by the way, my neighborhood was bombed earlier and I live on the top of my building. I shouldn't even be writing this because my bags aren't completely packed, my power is going in and out, my internet gives out every so often, and I can't make any phone calls. But I'm sure I'm just whining and that I couldn't possibly know how wonderful it is that Israel is liberating the world from terror.

Why debate someone who doesn't even know the facts? Well, because I believe in democracy. All of you vote, whether you deserve to or not, whether you've fought to or not. Just to vote, we braved assassination. Just to speak freely we braved more assassinations. Just to gather in large crowds we braved beating and water cannons. Just to live in our houses, we braved bombs and Hezbollah patsies rampaging through our streets hitting old men with wooden sticks. You brave any of that?

And you expect me to fight Hezbollah, when I've already done all of this? You expect me to immediately solve a problem I didn't create, even though I was doing a decent job of going about doing so with significantly less power. The US and France shied away, but I kept going. I tried to humanize the Israelis to my countrymen and stop anti-semitism.

Hezbollah learned from the United States. Ask Victor Davis Hansen or Mark Steyn. They'll tell you that the US should have never backed down when proto-Hezbollah destroyed the US Embassy. The US shouldn't have backed down after the Marine Corps barracks were destroyed. I agree with them. You shouldn't have. We wouldn't have all the problems with them today if they hadn't learned from you that their system works. They couldn't do any of this if you weren't bending over backwards to appease the Syrians and cuddle with the Iranians.

And you, of all people telling me to fight terror, expect Israel - tiny Israel - to fight Syria and Iran for you? I guess shouldn't be surprised you expect me to do the same, but to do even more than them with even less. Then, as I'm doing it, you poke fun at me, call me an Islamic fascist (which I'm pretty far from), say that I apologize for terror (even though it is my friends in New York, DC, London, Moscow, Beirut, Erbil, Baghdad, Jounieh, Naccache, and Beirut - some of which you couldn't point to on a map - who have all suffered directly from terror), and make my life miserable as I'm trying to evacuate a country.

You people are disgusting and completely ignorant. Sure, I'll whine. But let's see what you would be doing if you were seeing what I'm seeing from my balcony as I write this, if you were feeling the vibrations, if you were escorting refugees to safehavens. I read your comments to Michael (http://www.michaeltotten.com/) before I took him down to Hezbollah areas, "Don't go! They'll kill you and chop your head off. Democracy isn't worth you going there."

And you tell me to fight for democracy...

From experience, from my studies, and from my instinct as a human being, I can tell you that Israel's campaign in Lebanon has gone above and beyond any realm of acceptability.

On the bright side, it might have accomplished two very difficult things. Disarming Hezbollah, you say? Nope.

1. Truly uniting Lebanese. We were close before. Now, it seems we are even closer. Prime Minister Saniora is now a national hero, and will hopefully now have the support he needs to govern.

2. Racist Lebanese have stopped hating the Syrian people with all their hearts and souls. We still hate their political system, but before this Syrian workers had been murdered for the crime of their nationality. We know they didn't elect their government.
I still don't hate the Israeli people. But there is no way I'll ever be able to trust Israel, and there is no way I'll ever be able to feel comfortable with all of the rightwing, massacre apologists who pompously spout rhetoric at suffering people.
obviously not an objctive viewpoint, but an interesting read.

[Tribesman]

First, Reenk, retaliating is not an attack. If you punch me in the nose, and I punch you back, I didn't 'attack' you. Israel retaliated against Hezbollah who had been launching rockets at Israel for weeks prior to the first shell lobbed by Israel.

Rubbish don , both sides have been firing for years , both have been firing on and off all year , so where the hell are you getting your information from ?
You do know where to find reports of all violations by both sides don't you ? So it might be worth actually having a look before you decide to take a stance that is counterfactual .
Hezbollah was supposed to be disarmed, by UN decree, yet Kofi Annan had to wait until Israel returned fire to raise concern about the area.

Thats funny , I wonder what Kofi said in January .:idea2: it wouldn't have anything to do with getting the Lebanese army to deploy along the full border would it , it wouldn't have anything to do with disarming hezballah would it , it wouldn't have anything to do with getting hezballah to stop attacking would it, it wouldn't have anything with getting Isreal to comply with the conditions would it , it wouldn't have anything to do with geting Israel to stop shelling would it .
Nooooooo it can't be any of that as Kofi only speaks when you feel you want to hear him Don :dizzy2:
I wonder what he said about the subject in march , and again in June .

It was a crisis back in June when Hezbollah was unilaterally shelling Israel,
Bollox . Now you are just showing full bias , there is no unilaterally involved at all , both sides violate the truce , regularly , often many times daily .

BTW since you are fixated on terrorist group not complying with a UN decree , would you care to compare the number of UN decrees that a certain government has not complied with .
If you want to get the numbers to balance a bit more you could argue that each 6 monthly mandate is a new decree against hezballah for its actions, but then again you won't find any of those new decrees that isn't also against Israel for its actions .

[Don Corleone]

Hi Tribesman,
Long time no see. I'm afraid my play time is just about up and I've got to get back to work here, but in the short time I have left:

-IF Kofi Annan has been calling on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah since January, and has taken steps in committees to actually put some pressure on them to do it, then you're right, I'm an ignorant cuss and retract my statements. Can't right now, but I'll do some digging on the subject when I get home.

-Israel has been firing on Lebanon for months you say? Hmm, then why do even Syria and Iran reference the 'latest crisis'. Nobody's disputing that Hezbollah's been firing on Israel for some time. If your point is that Israel has fired on Lebanon at some time in the past, well, we may as well give up the ghost then. If Hezbollah can start a new conflict any time they feel like because of actions that have already ceased, well, it's over. Heck, France should go lob a few bombs on Germany. They'd be perfectly justified, after all, Germany DID attack them back in 1940. At some point, when hostilities cease and agreements are made, if you restart things, you are responsible.

-You must have missed my call for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank in a bigger hurry. Though, in light of the Palestinians tunneling under the boundary from Gaza into Israel to kidnap those soldiers, you can kinda understand where Israel gets these ideas from.

Well, good to see you all again. Hope to be able to show up more regularly (try not to pout, Tribesman). I am now fully moved to a new job, a new part of the country (New Hampshire) and have purchased and moved into a new house. As you might imagine, my free time in the past 6 weeks has been non-existant, and it doesn't appear to be getting that much freer in the weeks to come.

Cheers. ~:cheers:

[Tribesman]

-Israel has been firing on Lebanon for months you say? Hmm, then why do even Syria and Iran reference the 'latest crisis'.
Because of instead of the usual tens of rockets and hundreds of shells over a couple of months , it is now hundreds of rockets and thousands of shells over a couple of days .

If Kofi Annan has been calling on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah since January, and has taken steps in committees to actually put some pressure on them to do it, then you're right
There is no "If" about it ,and it goes back a lot longer than January .
Ironically the last report (UNTSO not UNFIL) actually reported some good progress , but thats all out the window now , so the nutters on both sides must be very happy now .

[Ironside]

I would agree with you if the calls for Israel to stop began when they sent ground troops into Lebanon, or even after a few days of the shelling. But the calls for a 'cease-fire' began the moment Israel fired back. Coincidence? I think not.

The calls for ceasefire started about the time Israel started to destroy the airport, power stations, roads and other infrastructure in northern Libanon, trapping among others, tens of thousands European citizens (Sweden has evacuated 7415 Swedish citizens as of yesterday and thats not counting those who used other Scandinavian airplanes).


so the nutters on both sides must be very happy now.
Sadly true :no: