“We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people” –Israeli reservist.

Lets sum this thread up, you guys think that:

Israel only bulldozed the homes of terrorists.
Israel has never ever initiated a conflict.
Israel only ends up killing kids because they are hanging around Hizballa(as per the picture posted)
Bombing wheat silos, power plants, and water filtration is ok because:
1) Every nation in war has waged war like this in the last 200 years, or in other words: “All the cool kids are doing it!” -I do not accept this as truth, you must prove this. When countries violate these rules, they are brought before courts as war criminals ie Milosevic and Sadaam.
2) Israel is only trying to effect the terrorists with this strategy and the deaths/suffering is just an unintended by product. In other words, Israel’s actions kill civilians, but they don’t really mean it.
3) Hospitals have generators, so bombing electrical plants doesn’t really mean hospitals don’t work.

The reality is: Back up Generators are temporary and don’t last forever, that’s why they’re backups. When the backups inevitably fail, hospitals don’t work. Fact: The damage that is being done to Lebanese and Palestinian infrastructure, will take years to make whole again, and people will suffer and/or die from the resulting lack of access to medicine, food, power, and clean water. Regardless of whether Israel’s intentions were to target only terrorists, bombing the already weak infrastructure of places like Lebanon and Gaza, impacts millions of citizens, this is common sense people. There is no amount of explaining/justifying that can change that reality. Civilian casualities are not a side effect of Israel’s military actions, they are the primary effect. More civilians are dead than Hizballa’s members.

These kinds of acts are deemed illegal in numerous treaties and conventions, and immoral by compassionate, sensible human beings. If the fighting stops today, people will continue to die and suffer well into next year as a result of what has happened.

Furthermore, the gross overreaction by Israel, is creating more enemies, greater hostility, and much like the US’s ‘war on terrorism, it is not making its citizens any safer; which incidentally makes me wonder if the safety of Israel’s citizens is the Israeli gov’t true intent.

Killing hundreds of Lebanese civilians will not make Israel safer. There are only political solutions to this conflict, there are no military solutions. If I thought Hizballa could be dismantled by force, I would support such an action, because Hizballa is an organization that must be stopped. But there is no indication that it can be stopped by bombing Lebanese civilians into the 19th century. In the meantime, due to the suffering and oppression caused by these acts, more hatred will grow, more terror organizations will be formed, and the cycle will repeat itself.

Is Iraq safer after the US invasion?
Is Israel safer after blowing up a country?
What was accomplished by Israel's response?

Zionism is itself overtly imperilist, colonialist, and racist. This is no less dangerous than Islamic extremism. These 2 forces are what drives the terror.


[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-21-2006 4:30 PM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

[quote]Posted by Killa4luv:



Doesn't sound much like Zionists want peace and brotherhood to me..

Please don't use the term Zionist in this context... it has turned into a devisive slur, to justify the killing of any Jew on any soil..., the terrorists have ceased on this term indiscimanantly to justify blatant hostility to Jews worldwide... they simply became clever with their P.R. over the last quarter century and realized that indiscriminate anti-semitism is no longer en-vougue in western society; so they utilize this term to express their intetion to annihalate innocent civilian's across the globe...

For the purpose of this debate you can refer to Hawks and Dovs,; extreemists, moderates and liberals... Israel is a vibrant democracy - there are actually factions that are encouraged to disagree over policy... more than in the US...

And the point that you conveniently neglect is that the vast majority in Israeli people are n favour of peaceful coexistance with a 2 state solution with their neighbours...
the fact is that the majority of the Arab world wants Israel eliminated and destroyed.. hence, they lack a partner and therefore must focus on securing the safety of their people as best as they can...

As far as the quotes you used.. it is mostly a shameful misrepresentaion and ruse... much of it utilizes very unsubtle deception... taking things out of context and making convenient mistranslations... you clearly borrowed this from a hostile forum, that has no regard for truth and honesty.('');.


[Edited by - colorfl1 on 07-21-2006 6:11 PM]

http://www.slate.com/id/2146235/

foreigners
This Isn't World War III
The war in Lebanon is a limited, local conflict. Friday, July 21, 2006, at 12:32 PM ET


As the bombs keep pounding Beirut, and Israeli soldiers take on the dangerous job of entering enemy territory on foot, and foreign citizens?Americans included?keep leaving the area, it's time for the world to calm down.

Yes, war is a terrible thing, but this one?contrary to the grandiose prognostications of Armageddon-obsessed pundits?will not bring about World War III or the end of the West or the defeat of extremist Islamism. It is now clear that the war in Lebanon is a limited, contained war, with modest goals and rational expectations. The war that has just started between Ethiopia and Somalia could be more vicious and could exact a greater toll of human lives, but it will probably get scant attention.

In the coming days?unless there are some extraordinary developments or a humanitarian crisis?the world will get somewhat bored with it. I think for the moment Israelis already have, though that could change because of the call-up of thousands of reservists and the massive ground operation. The number of minutes dedicated to TV war coverage is already declining, and next week, if they don't change their minds again, the major stations will go back to airing more standard summer programming and less news.

The Israeli government, backed by the United States, thinks some good can come out of this conflict?both for Israel and for Lebanon, if the Lebanese government cares to listen. At this point, we don't know if there is a real opportunity to get rid of Hezbollah once and for all or if the conflict will leave them a more humbled, risk-averse terror organization. And of course, there's always the possibility that they will not change at all, that Israel will fail. However things turn out, this will not be a world-changing event, but rather, another episode in the long slog called the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel concluded that its actions of the past couple of years?the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, the restraint it adopted along the northern border?sent the wrong message to its enemies. A message of weakness. And Israel's leaders decided that it is time to turn this around and recoup some of the respect it has lost?to deter the enemy from acting against it without fear of the possible consequences. Amir Oren writes in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz today that Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz strongly believes in a decisive escalation of conflicts so as to "avoid wars of attrition that are more convenient for the Arab side." So, this war will not take more than another couple of days or maybe a week or two.

The strategic benefit for Israel will be first and foremost the rehabilitation of its deterrence power. Whatever other gains emerge depends more on the decisiveness of the United States, and maybe France, to use this conflict as an agent of change for Lebanon itself.

In his book The White House Years, Henry Kissinger wrote critically about the now-forgotten Rogers Plan for Middle East peace, opening with this statement: "Like a gambler on a losing streak, the advocates of an active American role wanted only to increase the stake." This can also be said?though not necessarily critically?about the Bush administration and its involvement in this round of fighting. Losing battles in the war for democracy all over the Arab world, it wants to increase the stakes in Lebanon to use it as an example.

However, some other characteristics of this war are intriguing and worthy of further debate. We already know that the new phase of the Middle East conflict is more threatening than previous ones, because it is fought against religious fanatics, but this was just as true six months ago as it is now. What's more interesting in the war against Hezbollah?and this is something experts will probably dwell on in the coming years?is that it bears many of the characteristics of a new Cold War: two regional powers?Israel and Iran?conducting a war by proxy.

A couple of years down the road, when Iran gets its coveted nukes, this could be the new face of the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli conflict will only be fought through terror organizations and in no-man's land?since fighting it out in a more direct way could bring doom and destruction on an unprecedented scale. "Today's Lebanon," writes Jim Hoagland in this morning's Washington Post, "is a meeting place for the poisons and hatreds that six decades of conflict have spawned in its own citizens and its neighbors." And if that doesn't change, the country that became "Israel's Vietnam" in the psychological sense?a cursed place in which a generation of young Israelis lost their lives for nothing?can also become the Vietnam of the Middle East's new Cold War: the place in which two nuclear powers exchange hostilities on the backs of the local population.

This evolution is already visible, even as the current war is still in the making: Just as Iran used Hezbollah to conduct war against Israel in Lebanon, Israel has also refrained from attacking the so-called "root cause" of the conflict, namely Syria and Iran, and has chosen to limit itself to a war against the messenger, Hezbollah. Some experts think this was the wrong decision?and they might have a point. A couple of days ago, the Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser wrote in the National Review that Israel's response "is misdirected. Lebanon is not the right address for reprisal. Syria is. Israel ought not let its adversaries define the battleground. Rather, it ought to carry the battle to them."

Israel's leaders chose a different path for the time being. They still expect that the larger problems?Syria's rogue-state behavior and Iran's nuclear aspirations?will be dealt with in a more civilized way, and not by Israel alone. They hope that the international community will take care of things, they want to avoid Newt Gingrich's "World War III" scenario. And, of course, there's a good possibility that they are being too optimistic that this will happen. After all, this is the same international community that failed to take action and turn the "cedar revolution" into a real turning point in the history of Lebanon.

Here we go again... these Muslim extreemists are so misunderstood...


Somali Militant Urges Holy War on Ethiopia
Friday, July 21, 2006

Islamic Militia Leader Vows to Take Control of Gov't Seat in Somalia

MOGADISHU, Somalia — An Islamic militia leader called for a holy war Friday against Ethiopian troops protecting Somalia's weak U.N.-backed government.

Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, speaking on Radio Shabelle, said Ethiopia's decision to send troops to protect the transitional government in Baidoa, 150 miles northwest of Mogadishu, must be met with war.

"I am calling on the Somali people to wage a holy war against Ethiopians in Baidoa," said Aweys, who the U.S. government says has ties to Al Qaeda. "They came to protect a government which they set up to advance their interests."

Residents of Baidoa reported seeing hundreds of Ethiopian troops, in uniform and in marked armored vehicles, entering Baidoa on Thursday and taking up positions around transitional President Abdullahi Yusuf's compound. Ethiopian and Somali government officials have denied Ethiopian troops are in the country, though witnesses from five towns have reported seeing them.

"Abdullahi Yusuf is in the pocket of Ethiopia," Aweys said in the nationwide broadcast. "He's been a servant of Ethiopia for a long time."

Posted by simrud:

The two faced approach of the UN is legendary. They pass resolutions which include things that both Israel and muslim entities should do something, Israel eventually complies, the muslims never do, and the resolution is never enforced. So Israel is left holding the proverbial bill.

If you are gonna just lie, you will have to do it on someone elses watch.
Enough with your revisionist history. This is why I can't take you guys seriously.
How can you pretend that Israel is this law-abiding global citizen who always or even often complies with UN resolutions?
You have got to be kidding me. This is the abridged version, I didn't wanna take up the whole site with the list of violations.

 #  1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return. 

Dare I say Israel is a routine violator of UN resolutions?

Posted by arkrud:

I like what I see Killa.
Looks like you changed you mind and moved more to the center from the extreme views.
So this thread wasn't a waist of time.

There are no bad races, nations, countries. There are bad people in any nation, race and country.
And under bad I mean ignorance, greed, laziness, and jealousy.
There is no good reason to kill people. Faith, money, national proud, etc. - this stuff is not worth a single person live.

As per Israel in Lebanon - I think you get you wish. Isaraeli army is moving in to clean up the area and will stop bombing soon.
The missiles can reach into 25 miles into Israel - so they will move 25 miles in Lebanon so the Hezbollah will be able to strike only Israeli troops which is the natural for the military and local Lebanese people which is natural thing for the terrorists.

Ark, I really haven't moved anywhere. Its just that as this progresses, you get a broader view of my take on this issue. What I say now is essentially the same thing I've been saying. I just wont allow folks here to paint Israel is this pure force of good in the region who tries so hard to do good and cooperate and negotiate. There are many facts and public statements to disprove that. The pro-israel people here are so far to the right, they are tipping over. They are saying things that are blatant lies and I prove it. I post a bunch of quotes which colofl1 calls sinister translations.
how was this a misquote?
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

what exactly did he mean by that, that was misconstrued. This isn't some ancient quote, this is 1998, if he meant something differently certainly we can find it, no?

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by colorfl1:

Posted by Killa4luv:

[quote]Posted by Killa4luv:



Doesn't sound much like Zionists want peace and brotherhood to me..

Please don't use the term Zionist in this context... it has turned into a devisive slur, to justify the killing of any Jew on any soil..., the terrorists have ceased on this term indiscimanantly to justify blatant hostility to Jews worldwide... they simply became clever with their P.R. over the last quarter century and realized that indiscriminate anti-semitism is no longer en-vougue in western society; so they utilize this term to express their intetion to annihalate innocent civilian's across the globe...

For the purpose of this debate you can refer to Hawks and Dovs,; extreemists, moderates and liberals... Israel is a vibrant democracy - there are actually factions that are encouraged to disagree over policy... more than in the US...

And the point that you conveniently neglect is that the vast majority in Israeli people are n favour of peaceful coexistance with a 2 state solution with their neighbours...
the fact is that the majority of the Arab world wants Israel eliminated and destroyed.. hence, they lack a partner and therefore must focus on securing the safety of their people as best as they can...

As far as the quotes you used.. it is mostly a shameful misrepresentaion and ruse... much of it utilizes very unsubtle deception... taking things out of context and making convenient mistranslations... you clearly borrowed this from a hostile forum, that has no regard for truth and honesty.('');.


[Edited by - colorfl1 on 07-21-2006 6:11 PM]

Zionism is what it is man. I didn't make it up, and I didn't make all of those prime ministers say what they said. I didn't hear you asking Simrud to stop calling me an anti-semite, nazi propogandist, jew-hater? Its ok to do that, but I can't call a zionist a zionist? Get outta here?

This is why I can't take you guys seriously. There is no parity, or sembelance of fairness. I even asked a moderator to step in and nothing happened, he continued to call me a racist, and other slurs. This is the exact same approach that Israel brings to diplomacy.



[Edited by - Killa4luv on 07-21-2006 9:48 PM]

kill do you know how happy these me radicals would be if they were dragging your children's burning corpses through the streets of iran and syria decked out in red white and blue? dont you ever watch these people burn the american flag and chant death to america. i dont know what you are standing up for your children are safe in israel if they got a hold of you or any family memeber in these other places, the worst of the worst could happen they want to kill you and not for love they HATE americans all of them any color you go there with US passport you are walking target. i dont agree with everything the us does i dont agree with everything israel does but you can live your life within reasonable freedoms--these other countries are still back in the middle ages the way peoples rights are violated women have very little rights cant show their face these people walk into crowded supermarkets and blow themselvs up these are the last of a civilization that is going dow the tubes all people ultimately want their reasonable rights to live free. the animosity and hatred STEM from these middle ages western civilizations trying to control the end of their days.

Posted by Nalod:

Killa, you can argue semantics but what we are talking about is taking sides.


At some point you gotta take sides. If you anti Israel, just be with it. You might be a minority in that, but its you point. If your gonna try to convince us otherwise is a waste of time.

Nalod, I don't think you have to encourage me to take sides here. I came on here proclaiming Israel is a facist state. I stand by that. I provide proof of noncompliance with UN resolutions, racist Zionist quotes from Israeli prime ministers, and sound logic. All I get back is 'take sides'?

Sorry, this isn't LB vs. Steph, this is serious. And from where I'm sitting, I can't see a side in this conflict that i agree with. In fact, if we are to go by sheer numbers Israel kills exponentially more civilians than Hamas & Hizballa combined. Thats a fact. And facts are funny things, because they haven't been brainwashed to defend Israel no matter what. Zionism in its essence and application is racist. Blowing up a country in response to the abduction of 2 soldies is inappropriate no matter how much you love Israel.

The side I choose is called justice, that you choose a state over it, explains why you and others here cannot refute nor make one minor concession about any of the points I've made.

Addtionally there are very few countries that will actually listen to and comply with the UN when it doesn't serve their interests. It's a very very corrupt organization. It's decisions are for the most part basically the prejudices and machinations of individual nations. The UN almost never takes any action at any rate...it's like a running filibuster.