Israel vs Hezbollah...who won?

[FinnAgain]

@antechinus

You are making it sound as if I am arguing that Israel is a terrorist organisation

No, that’s your your intellectual dishonesty.

The recently banned poster who made the claim that Israel targeted people for political reasons. I asked for a cite of Israel assasinating civilians instead of terrorists. In response to that, you offered your cite.

Pretend otherwise all you want.

@antechinus

. I am, however, pointing out that members of the Israeli government belonged to terrorist organisations.

Which has nothing at all to with the request for a cite and/or the original claim. Welcome to the debate. Feel free to read posts before responding to them.

@antechinus

You are almost as hopeless as arguing as xtimse.

Says the person who responds to a specific point as if he’s answering it, and then reveals that he was discussing a totally seperate issue without letting anybody know.

@antechinus

First make it sound like the person you are arguing with is saying something completely different to what they are trying to point out.

:rolleyes:
Yes, your total inability to respond to the actual discussion, and my mistake in thinking that you were actually trying to respond to what was being discussed… those are me doing something oh so very wrong.

Cry me a river.

@antechinus

Second you pick holes in this false argument.

The only ‘false argument’ is that once you were caught on your bullshit, you started claiming that you weren’t actually discussing the issue, but a totally seperate one, and you couldn’t be bothered to let anybody else know.

@antechinus

If thats the poor standard you are capable of, then how do you think you will convince others of your point of view.

I expect most people are capable of understanding which argument they’re responding to. I’ll try to help you out in the future. Maybe I can color code things.

Here, to fight your ignorance:

@FinnAgain

@Misscegnist

Israel’s record isn’t exactly very clean as regards political assisination - just because it is state sponsored makes it no less a terror attack.

Cite for Israel targeting civilians rather than terrorists?

To which she responded by citing an event where Israel killed terrorists, not civilians.

To which you, in turn, responded by saying

You might have more luck with noting how Count Folke Bernadotte was killed, or how King David Hotel was destroyed.

So, do you understand now why responding to a request of Israel targeting civilians for assasination with your post might… oh… I don’t know… imply that you were offering a cite having to do with Israel targeting civilians for assasination?

Your failure to understand what the heck you’re talking about, responding to, etc… is hardly anybody else’s fault.

Or to ask you your own question: If you can’t seem to understand that when you respond to a request for a cite for a specific event, that you are claiming that you are responding to a cite for a specific event, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

Nobody misrepresented anything. You being unable to comprehend that a request for a cite about Israel assasinating civilians requires a cite about Israel assasinating civilians… and that if you respond to it that one might assume you’re responding to it, and not discussing a totally seperate issue… well, that’s hardly anybody else’s fault.

Three strikes.
You’re out.

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

No, that’s your your intellectual dishonesty.

That should be “No, that’s your, your intellectual dishonesty.”

I find it funny that you respond to a request for a cite about Israel, the nation, targeting people for political assasination, and then kvetch when someone thinks that you’re responding in good faith, rather than trying to change the subject without letting anybody know that you have no real intention of actually answering the question.

Person 1: “Cite for the claim that nation X has done Y?”

Person 2: “Well, here is a cite for nation X doing not-Y.”

Person 1: “That’s not a cite for nation X doing Y.”

Person 3: “Well, here’s another cite in answer to person one’s request for a cite about nation X doing Y.”

Person 1: “But that doesn’t answer the request for a cite. It’s not about nation X doing Y.”

Person 3: “Hah hah, how can anybody take you seriously, You thought that just because I said my cite was in response to your request for a cite, that I was responding to your request for a cite. I fooled you!”

Good show.

[XT]

@antechinus

See my reply to FinnAgain. Same thing applies to this poor effort. If you misrepresent those you are ‘arguing’ with, how do you expect others to take you seriously.

:rolleyes: You know…its not like I can’t just scroll up to find out what you said. I really don’t get this kind of bullshit, but what the hell:

@antechinus

Sorry, where was the bit about Hezzbolah firing rockets into Israeli cities?

I didn’t realize you were in some kind of semantic arguement here. Yes, you are right…Hezbollah fired on the VILLAGES of Even Menahem and Mattat. I suppose what I SHOULD have asked you is why you think the distinction is important, save as a nit to pick. Feel free to explain why it makes a difference if Hezbollah fired rockets at these villages as opposed to a town or city…or just what the hell your point was.

@antechinus

It seems there were missiles fired at villages. I did not know that - I thought it was all attacks on military that started the conflict.

Quite.

@antechinus

No, I don’t think that villages are cities. Puzzler stated that one of the intentions of the Israeli attacks was “reducing shelling of Israeli cities”. I was just pointing out that the shelling of the Israeli cities started in response to Israeli attacks - this is all about fighting ignorance after all.

So what? As I’ve pointed out not 3 times, there are PEOPLE in both…what possible difference does it make, except as a nitpick? What exactly is your point? After all the SHELLING of Israeli CITIZENS started with the initial Hezbollah attacks. Thats kind of a key point wouldn’t you say?

@antechinus

I was under the impression that the original shelling was a diversionary tactic to capture IDF soldiers, rather than an attempt to shell Israeli cities.

And as you yourself pointed out (and I confirmed) you were wrong. So why bring it up again? Push on to the meat of the question here antechinus…why does it matter if the civilians rocketted were in a village as opposed to a town or city?

@antechinus

What makes you think that I said otherwise?

Because frankly you keep repeating the same bullshit. That Hezbollah didn’t rocket attack cities while appearently ignoring that they DID rocket attack civilians in villages…and you continue to avoid explaining why this distinction MEANS anything in your own mind. So…what OTHER conclusion SHOULD I draw, based on your actual words?

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@xtisme

Feel free to explain why it makes a difference if Hezbollah fired rockets at these villages as opposed to a town or city…or just what the hell your point was.

Well, obviously, in order to produce Onagers a settlement needs at least 12,000 people and the correct governor’s palace.

Either that or it’s a pointless nitpick.

[XT]

:smack: You know, I had completely forgotten that! In addition I don’t believe you can get any of the OTHER more advanced units…nor the army reforms that give you full Legion units for that matter unless you are a full city.

Damn glad you pointed that out Finn…would have never thought of it.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@Der Trihs

Have you even heard of the concept of “vengeance” ? The Lebanese have. Recruitment will be easier, not harder.

Yes it did; what it did in Lebanon was terrorism. Some people are unable to admit that.

So, if someone launched rockets into the US, killing people, and the Canadian government showed no sign of trying to stop them and every sign of wanting them to keep at it, so the US sent some soldiers and tanks into the area the rockets have been coming from, killing some people and destroying lots of infrastructure, the US would be terrorists?

I’d call it a simple case of self-defense. Surely a nation has a right to defend itself from attack.

[Gorsnak]

@Evil Captor

So, if someone launched rockets into the US, killing people, and the Canadian government showed no sign of trying to stop them and every sign of wanting them to keep at it, so the US sent some soldiers and tanks into the area the rockets have been coming from, killing some people and destroying lots of infrastructure, the US would be terrorists?

I’d call it a simple case of self-defense. Surely a nation has a right to defend itself from attack.

If the Canada had just been through a nasty civil war, and one of the factions was still armed and the peace between it and the rest of the populace was so tentative as to have the entire nation on edge, and the central government was not strong enough to assert its will over said faction, and the US responded to rocket attacks by bombing the entirety of Canada’s infrastructure, I’d certainly consider that an attack on us, even if I wasn’t a part of said armed faction, and even if I in fact despised them.

Whilst I am somewhat sympathetic to the fix Israel is in with regards to limited and mostly bad options, those who are unconditionally defending Israel’s actions appear to be failing to grasp this point.

[XT]

@Gorsnak

If the Canada had just been through a nasty civil war, and one of the factions was still armed and the peace between it and the rest of the populace was so tentative as to have the entire nation on edge, and the central government was not strong enough to assert its will over said faction, and the US responded to rocket attacks by bombing the entirety of Canada’s infrastructure, I’d certainly consider that an attack on us, even if I wasn’t a part of said armed faction, and even if I in fact despised them.

And if the Canadian government came out with public support for this group, even going so far as to say it was a legitimate para-military resistance group? And if this group also made up a not inconsequential part of the Canadian government? Would you still feel that the US would be unjustified in holding the Canadian government responsible for such a groups actions?

-XT

[XT]

Whilst I am somewhat sympathetic to the fix Lebanon is in with regards to limited and mostly bad options, those who are unconditionally defending Hezbollah’s actions appear to be failing to grasp this point.

(I’m just making a point with this btw Gorsnak…I don’t for a moment believe you are such an unconditional supporter).

-XT

[Little_Nemo]

“The attack [on King David Hotel] was initially ordered by Menachem Begin, the head of the Irgun, who would later become Israeli Prime Minister”.

I’ll agree that the King David Hotel attack could reasonably be called a terrorist attack and that Begin can reasonably be called a terrorist. But the King David Hotel attack happened sixty years ago and Begin is long dead. Neither is representative of what Israel is now. Hassan Nasrallah, the current head of Hezbollah, was directing terrorist attacks a few weeks back.

[FinnAgain]

Little Nemo: with respect, I’d advise you to drop it. While he was responding to a question about Israel assasinating political leaders, evidently he was either unaware of that fact, or… something. He doesn’t want to discus the original claim.

I’m not sure why he was pointing that out, but hey… Hezbollah first attacked Israeli villages (towns? hamlets?), but not cities, with rockets as they abducted soldiers. I hope we all see the clear implication from that fact.

@Gorsnak

If the Canada had just been through a nasty civil war, and one of the factions was still armed and the peace between it and the rest of the populace was so tentative as to have the entire nation on edge, and the central government was not strong enough to assert its will over said faction, and the US responded to rocket attacks by bombing the entirety of Canada’s infrastructure, I’d certainly consider that an attack on us, even if I wasn’t a part of said armed faction, and even if I in fact despised them.

And if Canada had been through a civil war, and much of its government still voiced support for a terrorist group and vowed that it was an official part of their fight against America? What if they helped it get weapons? If a sovereign nation couldn’t control its own territory, or chose not to, what then?

Or, if we’re talking about Lebanon, before the current war did the legitimate government of Lebanon beg the security council to send troops in order to help them disarm Hezbollah? Did they make any real attempts to combat Hezbollah? Or did many of them give Hezbollah support?

Even if they didn’t, what do you believe the proper response would have been in order to both harm Hezbollah, and cut their logistical supply routes?

If the US government was supporting and giving weapons to a group with the stated objective of attacking Canada, and they had been launching attacks for about six years at Canadian soldiers and civilians, what would you want done? If there was really only one way to stop this group from getting more rockets to lob at your civilian population centers, would you oppose bombing major highways in New York?

[Gorsnak]

@xtisme

And if the Canadian government came out with public support for this group, even going so far as to say it was a legitimate para-military resistance group? And if this group also made up a not inconsequential part of the Canadian government? Would you still feel that the US would be unjustified in holding the Canadian government responsible for such a groups actions?

-XT

Depends. Has the US occupied parts of Canada for much of the past 25 years? Is the US holding Canadians who resisted that occupation prisoner?

You’re right, I’m nowhere near an unconditional supporter of Hezbollah. I’m not a supporter at all. I think they’re a bunch of evil thugs, cynically inducing the IDF into retaliatory actions that Hezbollah knew would result in Lebanese civilian deaths for the purpose of being able to make themselves look to the Arab world like defenders of the people against Israeli aggressors. That’s pretty damn vile. But even if the FLQ did the same thing, I’d still be bloody pissed off to the point of wanting to take up arms if the USAF flattened half of Saskatoon.

Alessan has reported that Israeli attitudes towards Arabs have been hardened by the rocket attacks. Predictable and understandable, imho. I expect that the attitudes of those who sought shelter from IDF bombings have been affected in precisely the same way. And that, my friend, is the reason I declared in my first post in this thread that there are only losers here. The possibility of peace has been set back by 20 years. That is the true tragedy.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Who won ?

Israel. Big time.

Yes its true, Hezbollah got what it wanted and Israel failed in achieving its immediate objectives.

But if Hezbollah glories in its new found fame as the Number 1 Jew-slayer amongst the jubilant Arab population milling about amongst the rubble, they can have their victory.

Israel is still intact. Judging from Alessan’s post, Israeli’s, normally a discordant lot are united as never before. Israel, the country with the most effective security apparatus in the world has learned lessons that can only be gained through war. And now Israel appears to have secured foreign resources to protect its northern border.Hezbollah’s threat to Israeli’s citizens has been significantly reduced.

[Squink]

@The Flying Dutchman

Israeli’s, normally a discordant lot are united as never before.

Cost of a tragically botched war

The unacceptable results of war in Lebanon have engendered a chorus of demands for the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

Regrettably, any investigation is likely to ignore the economic aspects of Israel’s defeat. That would be unfortunate. Economic decisions made prior to the war contributed greatly to the IDF’s poor battlefield performance, and economic decisions made during the war will greatly exacerbate the war’s long-term social and economic damage.

MKs: Convergence may be PM’s undoing

The convergence plan that served as a cornerstone of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s rise to office may lead to his downfall, members of the coalition said Wednesday.

“If you asked me now what could break up the coalition, I would say convergence,” said a senior Labor minister. “We can’t support a plan which calls for unilateral moves.”
…
“How, after everything we have seen in the past month, could anyone suggest that unilateral steps lead to peaceful solutions?” asked MK Colette Avital (Labor). “In Gaza and Lebanon we’ve seen what happens with unilateral steps… they create a vacuum that simply leads to more violence.” Like many in Labor, Kadima’s main coalition partner, Avital said that in light of the past month, she could not encourage the convergence plan.

[XT]

@Gorsnak

Depends. Has the US occupied parts of Canada for much of the past 25 years? Is the US holding Canadians who resisted that occupation prisoner?

In the spirit of keeping the analogy close to the real situation, what if the US occupied part of Mexico taken in a war that Mexico and others had launched. This part of Mexico was a quasi-disputed part of Canada…at least Canadians as well as Mexicans once lived there. But Canada never actually disputed Mexico’s soveriegnty of the territory before, in fact they had made no claim to the territory even when the US originally took and annexed the land (33 years later). After that 33 years however when the US invaded Canada due to a group of, um, Costa Rican militants being in Canada and launching attacks into the US from Canada, THEN Canada suddenly decided to put such a claim forward. The territory is clearly marked on Mexican maps, Mexico had administrative and soveriegn control of the territory when the US occupied it. The US had annexed that territory decades ago. Oh yeah, and the UN had ruled that Canada had no claim to that land in any case.

whew Ok. Given all that, do you still feel that the Canadians are justified in supporting that paramilitary insurgent group? That Canada and said insurgent group are justified in their belated claim to that Mexican territory?

-XT

[Gorsnak]

@xtisme

In the spirit of keeping the analogy close to the real situation, what if the US occupied part of Mexico taken in a war that Mexico and others had launched. This part of Mexico was a quasi-disputed part of Canada…at least Canadians as well as Mexicans once lived there. But Canada never actually disputed Mexico’s soveriegnty of the territory before, in fact they had made no claim to the territory even when the US originally took and annexed the land (33 years later). After that 33 years however when the US invaded Canada due to a group of, um, Costa Rican militants being in Canada and launching attacks into the US from Canada, THEN Canada suddenly decided to put such a claim forward. The territory is clearly marked on Mexican maps, Mexico had administrative and soveriegn control of the territory when the US occupied it. The US had annexed that territory decades ago. Oh yeah, and the UN had ruled that Canada had no claim to that land in any case.

whew Ok. Given all that, do you still feel that the Canadians are justified in supporting that paramilitary insurgent group? That Canada and said insurgent group are justified in their belated claim to that Mexican territory?

You know, frankly I don’t think that Shebaa Farms has anything to do with anything. Insofar as it’s relevant to anything, it’s just an excuse. A rationalization. My point, such as it was, isn’t really about whether anyone is justified in supporting Hezbollah. My point is about whether Lebanese predictably will support Hezbollah. I maintain that Israel’s actions have very predictably increased support for Hezbollah, regardless of whether that support is justified or not. Whether it’s justified doesn’t really make any difference anyways. What makes a difference is whether it exists. And, like I said, regardless of how much the FLQ provokes the US, if the USAF bombs Saskatoon, I’m going to blame the USAF, not the FLQ. And even if I despise them for how they’ve ripped my country apart in the past, I’ll still apt to look favourably on them sticking it to the country that’s dropping bombs on my head. As Alessan’s post indicates, people in bomb shelters don’t tend to fret over the why’s and wherefore’s of the situation. They just develop an intense dislike of the people who are trying to kill them.

[Sevastopol]

@Puzzler

…WRT Hezbollah? …

No.

[Der_Trihs]

@Evil Captor

So, if someone launched rockets into the US, killing people, and the Canadian government showed no sign of trying to stop them and every sign of wanting them to keep at it, so the US sent some soldiers and tanks into the area the rockets have been coming from, killing some people and destroying lots of infrastructure, the US would be terrorists?

I’d call it a simple case of self-defense. Surely a nation has a right to defend itself from attack.

Terrorism in self defense is still terrorism. Self defense is not a carte blanche. Shooting back at your enemies is one thing; practically ignoring them and attacking everybody and everything nearby to terrify them is another.

[FRDE]

@slaphead

Iran and the Hezbollah extremists would be delighted with that. Their goal is very straightforward - keep the Middle East in a state of chaos until such time as Israel is destroyed. Every outbreak of war between Israel and its neighbours plays straight into their hands.

So what is Israel to do ?
Sit here and have rockets chucked at them ?

In the past outbreaks of war with Israel have resulted in peaceful settlements, Egypt (1973) and Jordan (1967)

I seriously believe that Syria will come to a ‘raprochement’ with Israel as a result of this spat. They sounded very worried about Israel’s response.

• I heard an Israeli minister talking about ‘a raprochement with Lebanon and Syria’ - which I found very interesting.

Syria is Ba’athist - they don’t like Fundamentalists or Islamisists

• I suspect that they have been pressured by Iran

I don’t think that Hezbollah extremists have any real plan

@slaphead

A couple of years ago it looked moderately possible that a peaceful settlement might be achieved - now, curtesy of this ill-conceived bungle, everyone is back behind their old battle lines. The Israelis are focused on keeping the Palestinians and Arabs subjugated until the rest of time, the Arabs and the Palestinians are convinced their only hope for peace and prosperity is to exterminate the Israelis.

A bit longer ago things were peaceful and prosporous, but they got screwed up.

Right now ‘Palestine’ is looking pretty good, Abbas looks like someone one can deal with and Hamas has lost its real ‘pulling power’ as its source of finance has been cut off.

@slaphead

A country still in the process of piecing itself back together after a devastating civil war is reluctant to tackle its single biggest and best-armed faction, which not even the Israelis can supress effectively. A strange reason indeed.

Israel could never have suppressed Hezbollah, they could have bombed and starved them out of S. Lebanon, but were stopped short of that.

I reckon that they did hope that the other 75% would fall on Hezbollah

The Lebanese army probably will go some way towards suppressing Hezbollah’s antics - they are currently taking over Israeli positions, and are unlikely to allow re-supply of arms through their lines. If they come under fire from Hezbollah, then they will probably turn nasty.

My guess is that 75% of Lebanon was waiting until Israel locked down the South, and would then have turned on Hezbollah.

[Puzzler]

@RedFury

A selective recollection problem mayhaps?

Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions

Of course, that list does not include the number of US vetoes to any number of additional SC resolutions against Israel.

So then, would you like to re-think your original statement?

I’ve been too busy with Real Life to answer before, and I’m afraid I must keep this reply shorter than your question deserves. Also, it seems the thread had moved on. Sorry for that.

1. You did notice that the subject of my original sentence was Hezbollah, not Israel. Right? Do you really believe that Hezbollah cares much for international institutions opinions and decisions? More than Israel?

2. Regarding the cite you gave: I failed to find the source (rather than report about it), but I doubt I’ll find a reference to Hezbollah in it. Does it mean that Hezbollah never violated UNSC resolution? What about the GC?

3. And now about Israel. I would like to stress that I’m in no way a spokesman for Israel, and there more than a few government decisions that I object to – now and in the past. However, I must place this in context somewhat (cites upon request). Again: mush shorter than it deserves.
   Israel’s relations with the UN are quite complex. While Israel was established thanks to a UN resolution, the UN is not considered objective in Israeli eyes. The third-world countries have an “automatic” majority for anti-Israel resolutions since the 1970’s. The peak of these IMHO is the decision that compared Zionism with Racism. Another amusing example is the refusal of the UN to “write down” (not sure what is the proper term) the Camp-David agreements from 1978, as that automatic majority considered them a surrender by Egypt… Other incidents, like the UNIFIL involvement in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers (the censured tape) didn’t help. If you want to go farther back in history, I can talk about the UN forces leaving Sinai in 1967 following an “order” from Egypt president, without consulting Israel. And I can go on – but no time. Oh, and the UN made some questionable decision other than Israel – Like the election of Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya to chair the Commission on Human Rights.
   So you see, Israel is a part of the democratic nations, and it does place significant weight on the world opinion, including UN / UNSC resolutions. However, the UN is viewed by many (myself included) as leaning heavily against Israel.