Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

The lebonese civilians by accepting heboolas blood money buy storing weapons for Israels destruction in their homes (the lebonese peoples are clearly in violation the UN treaty). The lebonese civilians are not innocent and by shielding their heboolas brothers are equal conspirators in their war against Israel.Israel (to their credit) warns where they are going to bomb heboolas, if the lebonese civilians want to be martrys thats their choice not Israels fault. Israel has the right to defend itself, the lebonese have by choosing to stay behind to be blown into small pieces, is prophecy concering Israel being fullfilled. Zec 12:2psalm 58:7 zec 12:3 zec 12:2

All the hall marks of a good troll. Question: are children also guilty of storing weapons for hezbollah? Are they guilty by association?

Is that what you plan to say to your God when you stand in front of him on judgement day?"those kids deserved it".and it's "lebanese". Edited by CK, : No reason given.

I'm sure, like the muslim terrorists, you'll make your god very proud.

Well, as there are still a lot of documents that remain classified it appears all the evidence is not in. The survivors of the attack believe that the Israeli's knew it was an American ship. I side with their evaluation. I think the prosecution has the stronger case. But there is no final proof either way at this point and until and if it's declassified we can't know if the classified material would really help or not.I'll leave this at I'm suspicious but can't prove my suspicions regarding both the attack on the USS Liberty and the UN observatin post.So I'll say Isreal is innocent until proven guilty but I still strongly suspect guilt would we have access to all the information which unfortunately we don't and probably never will. So I think they probably got away with it. It happens and during wartime it happens a lot.lfen

I know it is. But Jar seemed to think that the mere calling of a ceasefire at any point in the proceedings makes a ceasefire "as simple as that". There are times when it is possible (when both parties have arrived at the point where it might be considered as a preferable strategic device - as in Northern Ireland) and times when it is not (one or both parties see an alternative route as being most profitable in terms of achieving ultimate objectives). Jar's grasp on such realites seemed to me to be simplistic in the extreme. Can you imagine the effect on the moral of the German troops when news of Dresden filtered through. Yes, there would have been some whose desire to exact revenge would have been inflamed, but globally such news (along with reports of less destructive but frequent bombings on many more cities) would have been devastating. Soldiers whose thoughts have turned irrevocably to loved ones at home do not efficient fighters make. A war which the top line knew to be long lost filtered down in no uncertain terms to the baseline. It was obscene - there has been few acts of terrorism to parallel it - but if you're looking not at the obscenity or (do not take me up wrong in this)...the efficiency of it - but take it as something which contributes to winning a war at the stage that it was set then.. ...is a statement I would have to disagree with.Hiroshima underlines the point even more strikingly (again, I beg tolerance of such words). Obscenely inefficient - but it resulted in an ending of the war. Killing always gets peoples attention. And when prolonged conflict dulled peoples appreciation for death then super-massive death and extreme fear is a way (an obscene and depraved way) of getting their attention. I take it from the longevity of the situation that you don't see it as simply Israel not responding to a call for a ceasefire. Surely you, like me, are more cynical than that.I am no blind supporter of Israels way of doing things anymore than I am a supporter of Hizbollahs. Not for me some notion that Israel are 'Gods chosen people' and that anything they do has Gods stamp of approval on it. But to suppose that you can place, in the position of prime import, the winning of hearts-and-minds when you are faced with a general problem of surviving as a nation in an environment which generally wants your scalp is mixing motivation-for-war metaphors.'Hearts and minds' is an approach that applies to some - not all - wars. Might I push it out a bit to suggest that 'hearts and minds' is a device employed to win a war in the quickest possible fashion before casualties cause the folks back home call a halt? Which may not apply in so widespreadly as a notion to the folk in Israel.I wonder which war has ever succeeded on the basis of hearts and minds anyway. It's an abstract concept which salves those who need salving for the days ahead - not a concept that has actually achieved much on the field of battle - as far as I am aware. It seems to be something best left to the time when the war is over.

OK that's fair. We don't know for sure. I just have a hard time imagining any motive, and can see lots of reasons why they would want to avoid such a mistake like the plague.

How many pictures of Israelis who have been hurt by Hezbollah attacks has anybody seen, compared to the pictures of Lebanese sufferers of Israel's? I just clicked through an AOL collection of 16 pictures from the war, every last one of them showing either Lebanese sufferers or pictures of Israeli soldiers that could be interpreted as sinister-looking it seems to me. Click on pictures

How do you know it had nothing to do with Hezbollah?

Lebanese civillian deaths outnumber Israeli's by about 10 to 1, of course you're going to see more pictures of them than of Israelis.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

OK, I concede. There's too much history involved for me to investigate details but you made your point.

Faiths link: shortened link

quote:

---

An Israeli paratrooper hugs his unit secretary as he returns safely from Lebanon. Several hundred troops returned Saturday after seven days of fierce fighting.

---

If anyone wants to see a classic example of the inability of the press to report objectively (on anything) then photo 13 (which is described by the above) should suffice... Edited by AdminJar, : shorten long linkEdited by iano, : No reason given.

The media bias is obvious to someone who supports Israel, though may be taken uncritically by anyone else. Emotion-rousing media coverage, not checking facts ... Jewish Virtual Library on Disinformation

A good friend of mine is a top crime journalist in Ireland. Conversations with him indicate to me that we shouldn't go pointing the finger at journalists-in-Israel per se.News is a product, journalists have to produce that product. If the do not then journalists they will no longer be. As long as the story can be sold as something which meets the general criteria required which places the product on the shelf then all is fair game. What sells is what the consumer is prepared to buy."Sources say" (for that is what they said - for whatever reason),"Amheds mother said that he was a good boy and that..." (for that is what she said of him)There is no more reason to trust a journalist saying "that is what is truly happening" than there is to trust what the packaging of any other product says. And if anybody should object I would ask them to state why it is they do so.

Yes, that picture really says it. All these happy healthy Israelis destroying the poor helpless Lebanese.Besides the pictures of suffering Lebanese (and no doubt about it, many are suffering), and the happy healthy Israeli soldiers by contrast, the last picture of the Israeli soldier smoking a cigarette also struck me as an attempt to present a sinister or callous image of the Israelis.