Finn, I’m not exactly sure what’s gotten into you, but if you’re feeling frustrated, maybe you should take a little break. I asked for a cite that you may have which mentions the location of the soldiers. I heard on the radio that they were in the Shebaa Farms area. That is not Israeli land. Your cite says “crossed the border.” I’m hoping you could enlighten me on which border exactly, because…
… is utter horseshit. The act of war is Israel parking its army and moving civilian populations onto occupied land captured in contravention of the Geneva Convention. Israel is drawing borders where ever it feels like it and then saying anyone who dares cross it has “voilated our territory.” It’s akin to me coming into your home and when you attack me to get me out I respond with “what?? how dare you attack me in my house??”
Please cool it with the “intellectual dishonesty” bullshit. I agree that the attack on Shlomi is not justifiable. I’m not dodging or obfuscating anything. I was referring to the location of the soldiers in my first post and I’m still awaiting for some proof from you.
And again, across what border? The one Israel draws at whim or the real one?
I misunderstood what part you were taking issue with. I thought you meant how was Israel’s response illegal. You want a cite that shows Israel is attacking civilian infrastructure like airports, bridges, and power stations?
I didn’t refuse anything. If you want clarification, please ask. If you think I’m wrong, then give me a counter argument. But please cool it with the “you’re dishonest” “evasive” and “refusing to cite this and that” nonsense.
Just to ensure that you don’t accuse me of “refusing” to provide cites that Israel is indeed targetting civilian infrastructure: cite
I was asking for a cite that states where the soldiers where at the time of their capture, not one stating “cross border attack.” I couldn’t care less if it comes from Al Jazeera or J-Post.
Actually, Syria claims it as Lebanese. Regardless of whether it’s Lebanese territory or Syrian, it certianly isn’t Israel’s territory. Which means any attack on Israeli forces or settlers isn’t the opening shot or an act of war or some “attack on sovereign Israeli territory” as you were asserting.
Um… Nitzsche, how about addressing my other posts that prove conclusively that the soldiers were kidnapped from the Zar’it area, which is undisputedly in Israel proper?
Well, the news isn’t good, and isn’t getting better. israel has bombed targets in beirut, and the lebanese economy is going into a tailspin. Syria is making noises, and iran is threatening. Will Isarel reoccupy southern lebanon? The last time they did, it turned into a costly wasting battle. meanwhile, what if moderate governments in jordan and Egypt collapse?
This could be the “big one”. I hope and pray it isn’t.
Even if they didn’t attack the Sheeba Farms area, they certainly attacked across the entire Israeli border, instigating a cross border raid and an open declaration of war no Israel.
You are right. I missed that post. I offer a full and unconditional retraction of everything I have said in this thread. Thank you for clearing up my ignorance.
I said that, I was right, and it was not the same thing as saying “no matter what provocation, no matter what, any defensive reaction is magically an aggressive reaction.”
Remember also that an action can be defensive and aggressive simultaneously. That is the nature of a “pre-emptive strike” (or America’s whole “pre-emptive war” with Iraq) – something which is sometimes justified but usually not, and almost always a very bad idea, but at any rate is both defensive and aggressive in principle.
Still haven’t seen any proof of that in this thread.
Still haven’t seen any proof that the kidnappers of Shalit are the “military wing” of Hamas in any sense.
I am not ignorant of it, I deny it. Proof, please, that the current Lebanese government is in any way allied with Hezbollah.
If you meant to type outside the 1968 boundaries, then it’s at least arguable that shelling a West Bank Israeli settlement is not quite the same thing, act-of-war-wise, as shelling a town in Galilee. Remember, not even Israel claims the West Bank is or ever has been Israeli territory. East Jerusalem was annexed, but not the rest.
You realize that your little side-debate with FinnAgain is completely academic, don’t you? As I believe I have determined (at least to Nietzsche’s satisfaction) that the kidnapping took place near Zar’it, within (pre-1967) Israel proper by any reckoning, and not in the Shabaa area.
So, I think even by your standards, I think you have to agree that the kidnapping was an outright Act of War.
As much as any position captured during a defensive war is part of a country’s territory.
:rolleyes: I wonder if you’re going to say that the act of war is nebulous, not against the particular sovereign nation tha attacked Israel, and thus can’t actually be an act of war.
Why, lookit that, you did.
So Israel having captured a military position of Syria’s is a casus belli for Lebanon? Besides, we’ve done this debate to death, if you really want to assign blame for the occupied territories being in limbo, talk to the Arab regimes who were offered their land back but responded with the Three Noes.
Yes, that’s exactly what’s happening. Spot on.
Excellent analogy, except it deliberately ignores and obfuscates what actually happened. But great analogy, makes Israel look real mean and evil. :dubious:
Soon as you do. An argument that deliberately ignores its own refutation and shifts the ground under discussion is hardly an intellectually honest argument.
You were, indeed, dodging the question and attempting to obfuscate away the reality of the situation. You equated bombing Shlomi with Israeli’s campaign of self defense. Remember the phrase “poor Israelis”? Because you were deliberately setting up a moral equivelancy between an act of self defense targeted against military targets, and a blatant act of terrorism.
The one the UN agrees is valid, ya know, the Blue Line? Or you can make up some more fun analogies if you want. Maybe next time Israel can be the crazy home-invading-rapist-on-crack.
Um… no. I want a cite that Israel is attacking civilian infrastructure, not valid military targets like airports, bridges, and power stations.
Yes, you did refuse something. See, if you claim something falls under international law, you have to do a bit more than simply quote the law, you have to show why it applies. Simply saying “here is a law, and I don’t have to explain how it applies…?” That’d make for a very short trial.
In case you’re curious, article 52 is actually quite clear on why this is -not- a war crime.
Destroying the ability to ferry in new supplies by air, destroying their logistical ability to move large forces quickly, and destroying C&C are all valid military objectives.
‘Counter argument’ would imply you’d given an argument.
You still haven’t.
You have been refusing to. Now you’ve stopped that refusal. But you still don’t provide a cite for the actual claim you’ve made.
Roads, bridges, airports, and power stations all fall under the category of dual-use targets. If you can find a better way for Israel to prepare to possibly invade Lebanon without first disabling their ability to resupply with munitions via air, transport armor columns quickly and easily, and use all manner of electronic equipment, then I’ll be interested to hear it.
Sure. Saying that no matter what provocation, any defensive reaction on Israel’s part is an act of aggression isn’t saying that no matter what provocation, any defensive reation on Israel’s part is an act of aggression. Glad you cleared that up.
Quit shifting the goalposts. An act can be defensive and aggressive at the same time, but a war can’t be defensive and an act of aggression at the same time. Wars of Aggression are specifically war crimes under the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. “Aggressive defense”, is not.
This Humpty Dumpty language gaming really has to stop.
Funny, because it’s been provided many, many times. But hey, if you want to pretend that Hamas isn’t funded by Syria, and Hezbollah isn’t supported by Lebanon, alrighty.
Wow. Just… wow. So when Hamas, itself, releases a statement saying that their ‘military wing’ is the one behind it… you don’t see any proof?
What, exactly, are your standards here?
Clear evidence that Lebanon supports Hezbollah? Ignored.
Clear evidence that Syria supports Hamas? Ignored.
Clear evidence and a confession that Hamas kidnapped Shalit? Ignored.
The Gods themselves contend in vain with such willful refusal to admit to seeing evidence.
You have to be the first in order to do the second, I’m afraid.
Unless you really are ignorant of the relationship it’s impossible to deny all the evidence… cites have already been provided, numerous times. If you’re going to deny the mountain of evidence, there’s really not much help. You can deny whatever you wish. It’s just that denials of the obvious-and-well-cited end up looking rather absurd.
Besides the fact that they give them weapons? And money? And safe haven? And refuse to crack down on them? And that Hezbollah makes up about a sixth of the Lebanese parliment? And that the head of the government announced that as long as Hezbollah was part of the “resistance” against Israel, that Lebanon wouldn’t comply with the SC resolutions demanding that it stop Hezbollah?
You ‘deny’ all of that, too? Where exactly are you setting the bar, if providing money, munitions, political power, safe haven and refusing to disarm Hezbollah are seen as not being “in any way allied” with Hezbollah?
What the heck constitutes an alliance in your book?
