lebonon not happy with U.N. resolution.Follow

What a load of ****. Seriously, all of your post is blatant lies or desguised ignorance. I won't go through it all cos I havent got time, so i'll just pick on what I can.




That's a lie.

They spent 12 years in lebanon and tried to dismantle Hezbollah. And failed. This time they only had a month. How could they reasonably think they would succeed?



It's illegal to unilaterally occupy part of a foreign country simply cos some people **** you off. Otherwise, Pakistan might as well start invading parts of India, the UK should've attack Ireland, Iraq might as well attack Iran, etc...

Israel is not a "special" country. It does have rights that other nations do not. Something you obvisouly refuse to understand.



Their aim is to get Israel out of Lebanon. Hezbollah have stated many times that if Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and if Palestine got a state, they would disarm. So no, it is not so absolute as you put it. Hezbollah has some nutcases, but most would give up the armed stuggle if Israel withdrew permanantly. Even their leader has said so on many occasions. It was formed to get Israel out of Lebanon, and it will die when Israel does it.



You're crazy. Seriously.

You have no idea what you are talking about, nor about the dynamics of that region. I bet you've never set foot in the middle-east.

But I understand your ideology better. Kill everyone. What a great solution, and surely one which will not lead to more anger, more violence, and more death. We all know that "killing everyone" is the best solution to any given problem. And they still havent given you a medal for these brilliant thoughts? Disgraceful...



You can't really talk about International Law, since Israel is one of the world's most consistent offender in that respect: Annexing territory illegally, not following UNSC Resolutions, certainly not following any GA Resolutions, not listening to judgments from the ICJ, getting nukes, building a wall on Palestinian territorry, etc... And of course, all of their actions have the backing of the US, so nothing is ever done, and no pressure is ever put on them to do diffferent. So please, don't even try with the International Law argument, that's a joke.

Secondly, Hezbollah's support dwindled considerably once Israel left Southern Lebanon and Syria withdrew from Lebanon.

So, how did it come back to an all-time high?

When Israel decided to bomb Lebanon to the ground. What makes these groups grow is not what people like me think. It's the situation in Palestine. It's Israel bombing Lebanon and invading its territory. It's the war on Iraq. It's the occupation of the Cheebah farms. That's what makes these groups grow. That's what constitutes their rethoric, what gives them a reason to exist. But, most importantly, its what swells their ranks with young men ready to die. All it takes to join Hezbollah is to pick up a rifle, or even just hide it in your cellar for when they need it. Both of which are much more likely to happen if your country is occupied/bombed, than if it is left alone.



And that's where we differ so much. You think you can bomb people/organisations/ideas into the ground. It's a caveman vision of the world. The whole concept of the "war on terror" is fundamentally flawed. For an innocent civilian, a bomb from a plane or a bomb strapped to a human torso is exactly the same. Both are "terror". Both lead to death.

Since your "war on terror" started, more "terrorists" have been killed than we ever knew even existed. The threat is in fact bigger now than it ever was, despite all teh "terrorists" killed.

If you weren't so primitively stupid, you might realise that its like a hydra. Everytime you kill someone, someone else will take his place. Death, poverty, war, violence, these are the breeding grounds for terrorists. Every stupid war the US embarks on, or approves (like the one right now), helps the terorists recruit. Every minute that goes by without a real push for Palestine helps the terrorists recruit.

Most people are not born evil. But they are much more easily brainwwashed if their borther has been killed and their house destroyed than if they have a stable job and good prospects in life.

You won't kill all the terrorists. You won't even come close. Just look at Iraq.

The "war on terror" is a war you cannot win with guns and bombs. One day someone, like Iran, N. Korea, or some terrorist group, will get a bigger bomb and blast it. And then what?

The problem with Islamists terrorist is very serious and complex. It is linked to many things: history, branches of Islam, foreign policy, natural ressources, race, religion, propaganda, etc...

Thinking you can solve this, or even just "make it better", with your retardedly simplistic vision of the world that divides it between "terrorists" and "allies" is doomed to failure. Tying up Hezbolah with "the war on terror" is all Bin Laden and his puppets could ask for. It helps to strengthen his rethoric that this is a struggle between the West and Islam. And this notion is the core of their ideology. Without it, they wouldn't exist.

And yet, cretins like you seem to do everything in your power to reinforce that vision. To make their rethoric "true". It's unbelievable.

Gbaji, you look at every single issue as though you were a lawyer. You don't try to look at it objectively, but you fight tooth and nail to defend one biased point of view, no matter if its right or wrong. If that means lying blatantly, so be it.

It's sad. The only good thing is that people like you are losing the argument. Everyone can see that the tactics and ideas of the neo-cos are stupid and counter-productive. The world is a lot more dangerous and a lot less stable than before. And the neo-cons have a huge responsability in this.

First. What law do you think this violates?

Second. To what degree is Israel bound by that law, but *not* Hezbollah? And if Hezbollah is not bound by that law, then who is responsible for this large group of armed militants attacking Israel?

You're effectively trying to twist the "law" to blame Israel with no regard to basic things like logic and reason. In order for that "law" to have any power, a nation must have the right to do something if it is violated (you *really* don't understand how international law works if you don't get this). That means that Israel absolutely has every single right to act against Lebanon as a result of the Hezbollah attack *exactly* as though the Lebanese government had attacked Israel itself.

Go look up the concept of sovereignity. Read a bit. Learn. Then come back and post.



Of course it's not. No one but you seems to be trying to argue that. If a group of Mexican banditos started attacking the US across the Mexican border, you can damn well bet that two things would happen. First, the US would hold the Mexican government responsible, and second, if the Mexican government could not or would not deal with the problem, the US would take care of it themselves by invading and defeating the bandits.

In fact, if you read a bit of history, you'll find that exact thing happened. Israel is not unique in any way. You just have an incredibly flawed idea of what sovereignity means. All the other gross flaws in your argument fall from that failure, so it's kinda pointless to bother with you until you bother to educate yourself on that one issue first.

Sure.

It is not OK for Hezbollah to capture two Israeli soldiers. It is not OK for Israel to respond to the capture of two soldiers by flattening and invading a neighbouring country, with over half the casualties being children.

However, there are degrees of "okayness". Yes, what Hezbollah did was wrong. But Israel's response was disproportionate, pointless, deadly, costly, counterproductive, and showed a complete disergard for civilian life.

Which, in this region, is not the best way to enhance your image.

Gbaji guffed



You sir are facking hilarious!

If your answer to every problem is 'invade the fuckers and kill everyone'
your more of a dick than I gave you credit for.

You ever heard of the police force? in the UK. the police are used for things like catching terrorists who are about to blow shit up. Sometimes they are quite good at it. whereas, in your delusional world, the answer to everything is going around the place bullying people with your gigantic weapons. Good job your government doesn't think like that. Imagine the trouble the world would be in if they did.

Oh...hang on..Never mind.

Fuckwit

"Lebanon" is so disappointing.

If you're going to give history lessons, you may want to check your dates - pretty sure the UN didn't exist until after WWII (replacing the League of Nations that was founded around 1910-12 ish). And while there were treaties in the 1700's they were essentially "gentlemen's agreements", not international law.

Red. It's amazing how you hit all the "general warm-fuzzy" statements, but apparently don't have the attention span to read a bit further.

Like say. Article 51:



Um. "Nothing" means "nothing", right? This superscedes all other parts of the Charter. A nation *always* has the right to defend itself from an attack. Always.


In case your reading comprehension is low, this means that Israel may respond to an attack such as the one Hezbollah launched in any way it wants, up until the UN actually comes up with a solution and implements it. A member nation is not required to sit by helplessly while waiting for the UN to come save it. Israel may itself come under sanction if the UN body feels that its response was in violation of some law, or not in accordance with the action of self-defense, but that's a decision for the UN to make, not you.

Gbaji again


So following that thought to its inevitable conclusion. The brits should have invaded Eire (Southern Ireland), bombed the suburbs of Dublin and destroyed the infrastructure of that country, because most of the 'bad guys' from the IRA were holed up in the areas south of the border between Northern and southern Ireland?

Your meanderings into the realms of international law are pointless. You are not a lawyer. That is obvious.

You live in a world where industrial strength slaughter is a valid road to peace.

You justify (try to anyway) your belief in destruction as a means to peace by quoting all sorts of 'official' documents from god knows how many sources.

You have absolutely no moral backbone.

Let me ask this question.

Do you think that the last 4 weeks of fighting has had a positive effect on the situation in the Middle east?

In my opinion it has been detrimental for the following reasons.

1. hezbollah has not been removed from southern lebanon. in fact their support has been bolstered imeasurably.
2. the IDF, until now has been seen as an elite indestructible fighting force. not any more.
3.Even more moderate muslims around the world have been radicalised by what they have seen on their tv's.
4. 150 or more Israelis are dead. >1000lebanese are dead.
5.the UN looks even more of a corpse burial service than before.
6. the US has again been shown to have unconditional support for anything
that israel does.
7. Iran, if they wernt chasing Nukes before, would be stoopid not to be developing them now.

I could go on.

Your turn. If you can tell me some reasons that, in your opinion, you think that this month long aggression has been 'worth it'. I would love to hear them

and before you start with your cut and paste bollox, Im interested in your personal take on it.

You are utterly deranged.....

Yes, and "armed attack" means "armed attack", not just any border squirmish.

Second the act of self-defense must be "proportionate". Third, self-defense is not "retaliation" or "reprisals". Which is what Israel did.

To put it another way: The "armed attack" against Israel was over by the time they sent in the planes and the tanks. Hence, it is not self-dfense. It is "reprisals". Or "retaliation". Both of which are illegal in international law.

You might try to argue that is was the goold old "preemptive self-defense", a rule which most academics agree exists only in very specific circumstances, which are, as stated by the Caroline case, that the:

"necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

That hardly applies to Israel's situation.

And anyway, Isral's response as not "proportionate" to the attack.

Therefore it was clearly not in "self-efense" that Israel attacked.

Wanna try another approach?

If all that Hezbollah do is capture a couple of soldiers to use in prisoner release exchanges once every 5-7 years, I think most Isrealis would consider that "peace" to be honest.



HAhahahahahahahahahahahaha *deep breath* hahahahahahahaha...

Oh gbaji, sometimes you're so funny.

Most of the time though, you're not.



Hummm. Ok so Israel is allowe to into Lebanese territory and destroy everything it can consider to help Hzbollah: roads, buildings, schools, hospitals, government buildings... Of course they can cpture/kill every Lebanese that decided to stay in his own country since that means he his an Hezbollah sympathiser.

Once half of Lebanon's population is dead and the country flattened, Israel better moce to Syria! Cos we all know thats where the real Hezbollah power lies. They pull all the strings. So, Israel can now declare war on Syria, and do the same there. Genocide? Not yet! What about Iran? They are the onse funding Hezbollah. If they dont all die, chances are they will rebuild Hezbollah. So Israel can now also attack and invade Iran.

Gret. Gbaji, you really are a clever guy, and soetimes I wdo wander why you don't yet rule the world. Hmm, maybe too much time spent on these forums prevent you from running for the White House. With ideas such as these...

You're a complete idiot. I'm sorry, but you are. This is the supidest idea I have heard in aong time, and a completely barbaric and monstrous one too. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

Do you even begin to understand what your "idea" about what Israel "should" do entails? India and Pakistan are nor fre to nuke the **** out fo each other, cos thats the only way to ensure that those damn islamist terrorist/Hindu nationalist stop bombing each other. I won't even begin to go into Africa, where the war in the DRC involves 7-8 countries. Cos thats another endless war in the whole of sub-saharan Africa.

When I see your vision of things, I gotta say, the real world doesnt seem so bad after all.

And somehow, I tend to trust people that have studied international law, have spent their lives travelling abroad and visiting conflit zone, have spent time actually talking to people on both sides on a conflict, over a homocidal maniac like you.

Arm-chair politics. Thats all you do. But saying to two kids, "Hey, to really sort out that dispute once for all, here, take a knife bread each and fight it out" is surely not the based way to solve problems.

I agree with Paulsol, you're completely crazy.

What exactly do you think a "border skirmish" is?

More to the point. Would you not define an action that involves a series of rocket attacks on several civilian settlements used to create a diversion so that a ground force can strike across the border, attack a group of soldiers, killing 3 and capturing two as an "armed attack"?

If that's not, then what do you think constitutes an armed attack? What do you think constitutes justification for war? The very fact that you seem totally willing to just ignore miltant attacks across a border show just how screwed up your thinking is on this. Are you seriously expecting everyone to just accept that it's perfectly normal and ok for militants in Lebanon to attack into Israel whenever they feel like it? That no one should react because it's just a "border skirmish"?



Who says? You?

A nation may defend its sovereignity in whatever manner it chooses. That's what sovereignity means.

The problem is that those conducting the attacks are counting on a "proportionate response". They've already calculated the action to ensure that any proportionate response results in victory for them. The only way to combat that is to have a disproportionate response. To show those making these sorts of attacks that it's going to cost them more then a little bit of time and trouble to conduct raids like this. And to show the Lebanese the cost that allowing Hezbollah to operate from within their borders is going to be.




Huh?! Are you serious? So if Hezbollah attacks across the border into Israel, Isreal only gets to attack back during the actual raid itself? Are you serious?

So. The US was violating international law when it declared war in Japan because at the time we declared war, the attack at Pearl Harbor was already finished and they weren't attacking us anymore?

This is the most moronic statement you've made yet. And you've made quite a few. Are you deliberately trying to create rules that just make it easy for militant groups like Hezbollah to do whatever they want? I'm serious here. You're dealing with a force that specifically conducts raids into a bordering nations purely to try to gain some sort of leverage against that nation, and you seem to think that the nation can only defend itself from active attacks, and never counterattack? That's lunacy!



First off. It's not "pre-emptive". They were attacked. They reacted to an attack on their soil. Exactly as the US did against Japan in WW2. What about this is confusing to you?



Of course not. Becuase this wasn't a pre-emptive act of self-defense. They didn't start bombing targets in Lebanon until *after* Hezbollah made a major attack against them. Are you just dense?



No. I'll stick to the one I'm using, thanks very much. You haven't managed to even dent my arguments.

- Israel was attacked. They have a right to defend themselves from that attack.

- The attack was conducted by a military force operating from across an international border. Thus, they *can't* defend themselves using purely domestic action.

- The nation that controls the territory from which the attack occured was either unwilling or unable to control those conducting the attacks.

- Therefore, Israel's only option to prevent future such attacks is to attack those militants themselves. The alternative is to just sit there and let them do it again, and again, and again.


It's just not that hard of a concept to grasp. If you are a sovereign nation, and you are attacked by a military force from within another sovereign nation, you have a right to attack that force back by crossing that border yourself.

What's bizarre about your position is that you seem to be giving more leeway to Hezbollah because it's *not* itself an official military of a nation. If the army of Lebanon conducted the attacks that srated this, you (presumably) would have no problem with Israel's response. You'd see that as a clear cut example of a nation attacking another nation, which clearly allows for a declaration of war and counter attack. But for some reason, the fact that Hezbollah isn't the official Lebanese army, you seem to believe that Israel is somehow restricted in its actions. The fact is that legally, it does not matter if Hezbollah or the Lebanese army conducted the attack. Israel has suffered an attack by a "foreign military power". They have a right to counterattack. Who's army it was just doesn't matter.


I just think that the problem is that some people seem to believe that non-national organizations are somehow immune to the "rules" that the UN and Geneva Conventions set up. But both structures specifically are designed to try to encourate conflict and resolution to be between nations. By giving organizations like Hezbollah a bye, you effectively destroy the entire system of laws we've got, since anyone can bypass them simply by creating a military force that's not tied officially to a nation.

In order for the rules to work, you must treat groups like Hezbollah more harshly, not less harshly. You've got to strongly discourage the formation of such groups, and the only way to do that is to punish nations that allow them to operate in a manner that affects other nations. That's *exactly* what Israel did in this conflict. They held Lebanon responsible. Hezbollah operated within that nation. Thus, it's that nations responsibility for every action that Hezbollah did. If we don't apply rules like that, the civilized world will collapse into groups of militants doing whatever they please (or being used as remote armies for other nations).

You may think that Israel's actions were harsh and "disproportionate", but the fact is that they have to be. And in the long run they are the correct actions, even if many people don't see it yet. It's just horrifying to me that the ideology of appeasement has grown to such strength that this is even debated. That people like you will take the positions you do on an action like this scares me far more then any abuse or action we might see nations do, because if we follow your logic, we end up at a result that means there are no laws, and no rules, and we'll truely live in a "might makes right" world.

Scariest part is that you don't even realize it. You're just responding as you've been programmed to. Knee-jerk reaction to the "big guy" beating on the "little guy". Throw in civilian casualties and you just can't even think straight anymore. It's sad really...

Ah. So no one should ever counterattack someone who attacked them, because they'll just make those other people into heroes.

So logical! Not...


Maybe this is a bit too complex for you, so I'll go slow:

If Hezbollah raids Israel, and Israel does not respond militarily, but opts for some diplomatic solution, Hezbolla counts that as a victory (even if it gets nothing with the diplomacy, it's shown it can attack Israel and get away with it), and uses that as a recruiting tool.

If Hezbollah raids Israel and Israel reacts militarily, Hezbollah points to civilian losses (cause they're coincidentally holding positions in buildings occupied by civilians) and uses that as a recruitment tool.


It's lose/lose Smash. The only out is to destroy Hezbollah. You do that by totally disarming it and removing its ability to act as a military force within Lebanon. That will *only* happen if the Lebanese government makes it happen (using whatever assistance they can get from the international community). If Israel's actions push the international community to do that, then they will "win" this.

Thought this was obvious. The entire objective of Israel in all of this has been to force Lebanon (presumably with UN/international help) to disarm Hezbollah so it wont attack Israel anymore. And the actions they've taken have been exactly the correct ones to accomlish that goal. Not responding militarily does not accomplish the goal. Half hearted military response does not accomplish the goal. Massive military response that force the international community to get off its collective butts and do something about Hezbollah *does*.