[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

You referred to them as freedom fighters, people that fight to get the "evil" Israel out of Lebanon.

Freedom fighters are NOT terrorists.

Holy spin Batman! Now you're talking semantics. Terrorism is tactic, and may be used by any side at any time. As an example, "shock and awe" was meant to terrorize the people people of Iraq into laying down and welcoming the Americans as heros. It was a show of force, saying that we have the ability to reach out and do damage to you, which is the same as a suicide bomber walking into a crowded hotel and detonating his payload and his organization immediately taking responsibility. The difference is that one side wears uniforms and has trillions of dollars of arms at their disposal, and the other side scrapes together their weapons.

The term freedom fighter strictly depends on which side of the engagement you are on. The Mujahideen were freedom fighters when they were financed, supported and trained by the CIA, but when they were cast aside and fractured into two camps (the Northern Alliance and al Qaeda) they became terrorist organizations. Ironically, when the Northern Alliance became an alternative to the Taliban, they ceased to be a terror organization and became "a warring faction", which turned into an important ally again. Depending on what terminology you wish to apply to a group strictly depends on which side of an engagement you are on.

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe you should look at the firepower at each side, and realize that Israel has the capability to do more damage then Hezbollah.

Relevance? None. Having more firepower does not make one side more or less just, nor does it make their actions acceptable.

If I knew my area was a hotbed for terrorism, and KNEW that a certain nation would be targetting that area, I'd get the hell out.

So you admit to being a coward and not wanting to fight for a cause you believe in? I guess that is why you refused to answer any of the hypothical situations posed to you in regards to similiar circumstances and what you would do. You didn't want to expose your soft yellow under belly!



I think this is a simplistic position as well. That's like saying the people that stayed behind in New Orleans deserved to die because they refused to heed the warnings of potential disaster. Many of the people that stayed behind had to stay. They could not afford to leave, didn't have the ability to leave, or just had no place to go. Bugging out is not an option for a lot of people. A lot of people are not prepared, nor have the assets to do what you suggest.

No it wouldn't make me feel better, and I would probably get mad at whoever did it, but I don't live in a nation that supports and harbours terrorist groups, so you and I aren't in that position, are we?

Refusal to walk a mile in someone else's shoes! Cop out. Classic dodge.

Still, collateral damage has been part of EVERY war since the start of mankind. No matter HOW good your technology is, innocent people will ALWAYS die.

So that makes it forgiveable?

Israel is not intending to kill innocent Lebanese civilians, while Hebollah is, yet fails miserably with every attack.

And you know this how? For a guy that doesn't talk about **** he doesn't know about, you talk a lot of **** about stuff you don't know about. You have no idea what the intentions of the Israelis are, and you have no idea what their intentions for collateral damage are. Just because they fly expensive jets and drop (supposed) laser guided bombs does not mean they are showing any more restraint or care for civilians. The fact that they are dropping bombs into civilian areas says to me that they don't give a rats ass about collateral damage and are just going after their targets of opportunity as they see fit. They may say one thing, but their actions indicate another.

That to me is the deciding factor.

No, I think the deciding factor is the side they claim to be on. I personally flip flop on the Israel/Palestine issue, depending on the actions of either side. There is no way you would ever support the Palestinian cause. If Israel lined up 10,000 women and children and publicly gunned them down you'd spin it as "a measured response to actions by Hamas and Hezbollah, and an effort to defend Israel from future generations of terrorists".

You trying to make me feel sympathetic for their cause?

I have a feeling the only way you would feel any sympathy for them is if they put on a uniform, drape themselves in the American flag, kiss King Dubya's ring, and swear allegance to the empire.