Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong, Wrong, Wrong !

by Cai Ping Tue Aug 15, 2006 16:18

When I look at the map, I see a small nation (Israel) surrounded by larger nations bent on its destruction.

If a man came to me with his friends, and this man throws a punch at me but misses or injures me only slightly. What would I do?

First I'd break that arm, than go for his other arm & legs as well so that he wouldn't be able to retaliate. While he flee behind his friends, they would be bound to get injured as well if they choose to stay and shield or protect him.

Just think about it..... what if this threat is not just against you but against your family & those you love. How much further would you go?

What have the muslim extremist called for? The extermination of Israel, Jews & all infidels (non-muslims). Also for all nations to become islamic states. If that sounds SCARY, think of how the Israelis feel.

by Caobhin Tue Aug 15, 2006 16:45

If you react by breaking all the limbs of someone for having a simple punch thrown (not even necessarily connecting as you point out) in any normal society you are locked up as a criminal physcopath . Thanks though for your perfect summary of the Israeli military mindset.

by Cai Ping Thu Aug 17, 2006 19:21

Hmmm..... "a man & his friends" come at you & throws the 1st blow. Obviously, it is a gang intent on bullying, hurting or killing you. I did not mention killing anybody, but only damaging their means of attack. Let's also not forget the safety of my wife & children with me.

When you show that you're weak, it emboldens them & the worst will definitely happen to you. If you show yourself stronger than they expect, they'll eventually start to back off just like cowards.

We are not talking about playground bullies here. These are national & religious leaders calling for the annhilation of all Israelis, Jews & even infidels (non-muslims). Many extremist are calling for the elimination of all infidels & returning Islam to its destined glory with all nations made islamic states. Obviously it is not only Israel that is being attacked, but all of the non-muslim world.

So, how should you than act when faced by not just one but several psychopath killers? If it is only 2, maybe I can still pary-off their attacks & hurt them just a little. More than that & especially if they are big, I certainly would have to go for the kill to increase my chances of suviveability. Surely I'd sustain serious injuries, but at least I might have a chance.

I live in South East Asia where there are many muslim countries. Fortunately, my many muslim friends here are moderate & are very nice & friendly people. Even so, the governments here are constantly struggling against the extremist & terrorists who want their countries to become islamic states.

When I look at the map of the middle east, I see a small country (Israel) surrounded by many large and hostile countries where the extremist are more numerous & aggressive.

In today's context, with the extreme calls these muslim leaders are making, people cannot just say "oh it's wrong but....". If you do not outright condemn their beliefs & ideology, that's as good as supporting them.

Now, just imagine if they had even half the military might of the US? What do you think would happen to Israel & even the rest of the world? Do you think they'd show as much restraint? Why do you think so many countries are so concerned about nuclear technology getting into the hand of certain nations?

by you know it makes sense Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:49

dont waste your breath on here, people are wearing blinkers

of course Israel had a plan of attack beforehand---If you had a terrorist organisation camped out on your border taking in massive amounts of missles from openly hostile countries(offensive weaponry) and building massive bunkers under the noses of the UNIFIL all over the south of lebanon capable of storing such hardware wouldnt you plan a worst case scenario?

anyone who doesent see this is wearing such a large pair of blinkers it is not funny

israel did lebanon a favour disabling hezbollah now before they got larger more powerfull missles and as a result Israel obliterates lebanon after hizbollah fired them(and they would have)

And before you give the crap about a slaughter---everybody knows that if the Israelis wanted to kill civilians in lebanon

There would be noone left alive in lebanon today,
given the amount of firepower they unleashed--it was extremely accurate, and it was only a small amount, israel could have put 10times the amount of tanks that it did in

The hizbollah funded and built many schools and many hospitals in south lebanon, the problem was they built massive military bunkers underneath them
thats the kind of army they are, like firing those stupid chinese firecrackers into Israel civilian areas

stupid, just stupid

by Topper Fri Aug 18, 2006 18:29

"And before you give the crap about a slaughter---everybody knows that if the Israelis wanted to kill civilians in lebanon

There would be noone left alive in lebanon today."

The fact that we've heard this argument so many times suggests that defenders of Israel actually think it might convince someone, anyone.

So let's be clear what you are actually saying - Israel cannot be criticised because it did not systematically exterminate the population of Lebanon, killing every man, woman and child. Unless Israel actually carries out the genocide of millions of people, Israel is totally innocent and beyond reproach.

Do you have any idea how pathetic, how deranged this 'argument' sounds? 'You know it makes sense' - to a lunatic maybe.

In any case, Israel was not in any position to carry out mass murder on that scale. Israel is heavily dependent on support from Britain and the US; Bush and Blair would not have been able to maintain their support for the Israeli attack on Lebanon, even for a day, if the Israeli government had brazenly declared that it was deliberately killing Lebanese civilians.

So Olmert and Peretz played the game, pretending that their forces were not attacking civilian targets. This pretence will not have been convincing to anyone who looked at the conflict with open eyes, but even those who desperately wanted to believe needed the IDF to at least PRETEND that it wasn't slaughtering civilians.

by omg - GOTC Fri Aug 18, 2006 18:54

Nobody cares if you criticise Israel, the fact was people on here were spluttering about a genocide in Lebanon and that kind of crap.

My little friend the only genocide in Lebanon was carried out by the PLO and the Syrian state, something these posters should bear in mind before issueing ridicolous statements as most of em are rampant PLO supporters, they should look closer to home before they spout crap.

by Topper Fri Aug 18, 2006 19:03

No no, my little chum, I'll repeat what was said just above my post:

"And before you give the crap about a slaughter---everybody knows that if the Israelis wanted to kill civilians in lebanon

There would be noone left alive in lebanon today."

In other words, nobody is allowed suggest that Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon, because Lebanon didn't actually carry out a mass genocide. Now, there aren't many regimes in history that have actually attempted to do this: the Nazis would be one, the Turkish regime during WWI, and you could come up with maybe half-a-dozen other examples (scholars disagree about different cases).

Does this mean that there are only half-a-dozen regimes in history that have been guilty of killing civilians deliberately? I'm quite certain that the Bloody Sunday massacre was not a genocide; nor were the Birmingham bombings. Does that mean neither the British army nor the IRA ever targeted civilians?

by wtf Fri Aug 18, 2006 19:21

show me proof that the Israeli soldiers shot, maimed and/or killed civilians. Witnesses? or are the casualties from israeli bombs? is that what you are talking about ? the israeli bombs?

Listen my friend eithier the israelis targetted civilians or they did not, now if they did why did they only kill 1000?

Ill tell you why. because this hizbollah operate in civilian areas, they always have, even when the PLO were there, they operated the same way.

Id prefer if hizbollah fuck right out of my country, nasrallah talks shit and as a consequence my fucking country is ruined , he should fuck off back to Syria, the little pricks that asasinated our leaders and made sure that hizbollah had an iron grip on the south

i hope the Israelis slit his fucking throat

by Topper Fri Aug 18, 2006 20:44

"Listen my friend eithier the israelis targetted civilians or they did not, now if they did why did they only kill 1000?"

Your nonsense argument doesn't become any less bogus because you keep repeating it. I have already answered your point - the Israeli government had to pretend that it wasn't targeting civilians to save its backers in Washington and London from embarassment, because it is heavily dependent on US and British support. So although they did target Lebanese civilians, they did it in a way that would allow Bush and Blair wriggle-room, so they could pretend to believe that the IDF was doing everything it could to avoid civilian casualties.

The aim of the Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians was not to exterminate the entire population of Lebanon, it was to terrorise them in the (crazy) assumption that this would make them turn on Hezbullah. So they killed enough civilians to spread terror among the population.

"show me proof that the Israeli soldiers shot, maimed and/or killed civilians. Witnesses? or are the casualties from israeli bombs? is that what you are talking about ? the israeli bombs?"

For those who do not find it disturbing when the IDF drops leaflets telling people to flee by road and then bombs the roads on which they are fleeing, here's an article from the Irish Times by someone who knows the terrain and the different players in the conflict intimately, and cannot be accused by any sane person of sympathising with Hezbullah.

I don't expect that this will be enough for you; clearly we have entered some kind of bizarre alternative reality where mere "facts" cannot implicate Israel in any crimes, because Israel is the innocent victim by definition. But I'd like to see how you try and wriggle out of this, the most clear-cut example of the IDF targeting civilians. Clonan might have added that this came a few days after the Israeli justice minister said publicly that everyone still living in south Lebanon was a Hezbullah supporter - his clear, unmistakable point being that they were all legitimate targets and got what was coming to them.

Anyway, this will be my last contribution to this thread, the stench of fanaticism is too much to put up with:

Hizbullah rockets cannot be fired from buildings

Tom Clonan

Hizbullah has fired almost 2,000 missiles into Israel over the last fortnight, killing more than 50 Israelis and forcing almost one million into air raid shelters.

Despite this provocation, however, Israel's response has been sharply criticised as "disproportionate" in many quarters. In the aftermath of the deaths of dozens of innocent Lebanese women and children at Qana yesterday, even the US has urged the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to modify their responses to Hizbullah's attacks.

IDF spokespeople are maintaining that Hizbullah had been mounting missile attacks on Israeli territory from Qana in recent days. The IDF has claimed it targeted the three-storey house in Qana at 1.30am local time in the belief it contained a Hizbullah "asset".

Any investigation into the targeting of this house will have to consider precisely what kind of Hizbullah "asset" could possibly have been hidden in a modest, low-rise building among the narrow streets of a village such as Qana.

The type of missiles being fired by Hizbullah at Israeli cities cannot be fired from within houses, mosques, hospitals or even UN facilities as has been suggested by the IDF. Due to the massive "back-blast" caused by the rocket launchers of these missiles, they can only be fired from open ground. To fire them from within a building would result in the instant death of the missile crew and probable destruction of the missile before launch. Most of the missiles are truck-mounted and are fired - on open ground - from the backs of flat-bedded trucks or larger four-wheel-drive vehicles.

When fired, these missiles generate an enormous flare of light, heat and sound energy - a heat and light signature which is readily detected by IDF target-acquisition systems. Accurate retaliatory fire can be directed at Hizbullah launch sites by IDF aircraft and ground artillery in seconds. Such a reaction would be considered by international military norms to be proportionate and within the general "rules of engagement".

In these circumstances, having fired their missiles, Hizbullah tends to disperse as rapidly as possible. It is unlikely that a flat-bedded truck with a multilaunch rocket-system mounted on it could be easily and rapidly hidden in a village as small as Qana. Nor is it likely that such a truck-mounted weapon or four-wheel-drive vehicle could easily be hidden in a house such as the one targeted by the IDF yesterday.

The pattern and circumstances of the attack are sinister. With no telltale scorch marks from a Hizbullah missile launch visible near the destroyed house, and with no Hizbullah fighters among the dead and injured, the question remains as to what kind of "asset" the IDF could credibly allege to have been contained within the building.

The timing of the attack, taking place as it did during a period of relative calm and not in the immediate aftermath of a Hizbullah missile launch, speaks of a punitive strike designed simply to kill members of the Shia community from which Hizbullah is drawn and receives its moral support. The targeting of unarmed Shia women and children would represent a deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for retaliatory or punitive purposes, and may well constitute a war crime.

by Cai Ping Sat Aug 19, 2006 16:14

Why is it that Muslim Extremists are less harshly criticized when they openly target civilians, as compared to Israel & Western Countries when they "accidently" or "allegedly" target civilians?

Wouldn't these extremist groups be intelligent enough to realize, understand & exploit this fact?

With this fact in mind, how do you think they would play or are already playing their cards?