Israel and Lebanon now fighting

[transplant99]

Yes, Hamas was/is a terrorist organization, but they are the ones elected by the people to speak for them. That means we have to talk to the people through their elected officials.

I would agree with you except for one thing Lanny...

hamas has, as their charter states, an existance that is based on the obliteration of Israel.

Cant talk with those kind.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by spiteface

The Calgary airport?

Did I say Calgary airport? You implied that your friends had come from Lebanon, and I thought all ports of exit and entry in Lebanon were shut down.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The time for negotiation was with Hamas, immediately after they were elected to replace the PLO as the people's representatives. Israel elected to refuse to acknowledge the new representaive group instead of acknowledging the will of the people. Democracy is a bitch that can sometimes blow up in your face. Bush and company have been preaching about democratic reforms and demanding democray spread in the region. Well why would people embrace democracy if their elected officials aren't acknowledged because of our preconceptions of them? Yes, Hamas was/is a terrorist organization, but they are the ones elected by the people to speak for them. That means we have to talk to the people through their elected officials. Whether we like them or not, no matter what they stand for or have done in the past, we have to accept them as the representatives of the people. That's where the negotiations should have taken place, with who, and in what fashion. Instead the Israelis assassinated and kidnapped the leadership, and bombed the residences of the other representatives. That was not a good reaction and greatly added to the mess spinning out of control.

After Hamas was elected Israel called for them to renounce violence and accept any previous agreements made between Israel and the PA. Hamas refused to give up their "right to resist occupation" and their "duty to liberate all of historical Palestine" through violence.

Hamas spent their first months trying to eliminate Fatah opposition and begging the world for money rather than saying "ok, we will renounce violence and negotiate".

The rockets from Gaza into Israel were claimed by Islamic Jihad.

Jump to July and terrorists kiddnap a soldier from pre-1967 Israel. The Israeli government gives Hamas 2 days to return the hostage. The 2 days come and go (with rockets hitting the city of Ashkelon) and Israel takes matters into their own hands. The Gaza incursion I agree with. The rounding up of PA legislators I think was unessacary. It gives Hamas reason to claim that they cannot do anything rather than they will not do anything to aid in returning the hostage. Israel has denied Hamas the opportunity to miss the opportunity to show the world that they can be good governors.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by spiteface

What is that supposed to mean?

Its hilarious that you DEFEND, support and sympathize for a TERRORIST run organization. In fact, its SICK.


And you defending Israel and all its butchering is what.. a fight for democracy? Israel knows all along that Hizbollah arent gonna release the soldiers yet they went ahead with the attacks and have now brought Lebanon to rubble.


That comment is sick, pathetic and utterly filled with ignorance and hatred towards Israel.

Did i insult you?


Just because they attack the country you would love to see whiped off the face of the map, does not make them "freedom fighters."

Just because they defended the south of Lebanon ever since Israel has come to occupy the region, and have stood up as the only group to eliminate Israel from occupation in history, and continue to fight for land in Shebaa Farms... makes you wonder.


But I guess for a guy that supports annexing a free, legal and democratic nation, every terrorist activity is a fight for "freedom."

Lebanon = Free, legal and democratic. Why does Israel only stand for democracy. Just a few months ago Bush was encouraging the arabs to use Lebanon as an example of democracy, but now that Israel's involved, you knew there had to be a new point of view about Lebanon.

You're using a double standard that works both ways. Israel is a legal nation, and have every right to go on the offensive to protect their country. Hezbollah on the other hand, is a terrorist organization that is intent in eliminating Israel, something you obviously think is good.

BTW, nowhere have I said that Israel should annex Lebanon and take over their government. I did say that Israel should take our anything to do with Hezbollah, which as a terrorist organization, has no right to exist.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by spiteface

What they should do is negotiate. They've been doing it all along. They put themselves in this war and should expect things as such to occur. When you have 9000 of your enemies soldiers don't expect the arabs to sit around idle. They will not put up with it. Period.

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

I suggest you become more educated in the rules of war before you mention stupid comments.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[Lucky boy]

It looks like this thread is going down the waste side, so here is an attempt to bring it back to a level where we can civily debate the situation at hand.

First off, lets try to keep the insults to a minimum. I know I am guilty of insulting others as well, but I will try to stop doing it (except for Azure, he is a tool).

In regards to posters justifying the bombing because the Lebanese government is at fault, I would argue against that by saying that bombing has affected the civilians more than anyone else. Posters who condemn the rockets fired at Isreal yet support the Isreal bombing of Lebanon are not seeing the reality of the situation. It is wrong on both sides. People can not become targets because of their government. If you believe people should be held accountable for thier governments, then you have reached the mentality of a terrorist. The victims of 9/11 died because of their government foriegn policies, should they be held accountable for it? Ofcourse not, they had nothing to do with anything. Just like the lebanese have nothing to do with anything.

The counter argument that Isreal bombings and Hezbollah rockets can not be compared because one is a terrorist group while the other is a civil nation is null. A person does not become a terrorist when he disagrees with a certain nations policies. A person becomes a terrorist when he attempts to use fear as a mean to get his message across. Hezzbollah are not terrorists because they disagree with Isreal, Hezzbollah are terrorists because they are willing to kill anyone that is associated with Isreal. In my opinion, Isreal lack of fear of civilian deaths is border line terrorism. Sure they try to aviod civilan deaths, but they don't exactly sweat it when they do hit civilians.

We haven't really debated Iran's involvment in the conflict that much. I find what is going on right now is similar to what happened to Iraq. In the months before the invasion of Iraq, any form of terror that happened in the world was some how related to Iraq. Iran has been in the news alot lately... to me, I think the same thing is happening all over again. Thoughts?

[Azure]

A very good parallel would be of we were discussing who the best hockey club has been over the past decade and a Hab fan piped up and stated that the Canadiens had been the best, and their 24 Stanley Cups were proof of that! Great hstorical significance, but no relevance to the topic at hand, and essentially a bold faced lie.

Whatever Lanny, have it your own way. He never lied though, as he refered to the veto's as a general term.

And he even acknowledged the 11 veto's the US used since 96, why is that a lie?

[Azure]

It looks like this thread is going down the waste side, so here is an attempt to bring it back to a level where we can civily debate the situation at hand.

Sounds good.

First off, lets try to keep the insults to a minimum. I know I am guilty of insulting others as well, but I will try to stop doing it (except for Azure, he is a tool).

Or maybe not.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Lucky boy

We haven't really debated Iran's involvment in the conflict that much. I find what is going on right now is similar to what happened to Iraq. In the months before the invasion of Iraq, any form of terror that happened in the world was some how related to Iraq. Iran has been in the news alot lately... to me, I think the same thing is happening all over again. Thoughts?

The comparisons may seem erie, but there are a couple of key differences:

Iraq claimed to have no WMD and allowed UN inspectors into the country.
Iran will not allow UN inspectors in and claims to be working towards nuclear capability. Iran has also anounced their plans for their nuclear missles once they get them - obliterate "the Zionist Entity". (where as N. Korea has not said "our nuclear missles will obliterate the US" - I think)
I think (but not sure) Iran is the only country to outright say that they would use nuclear weapons in a first strike offensive rather then as a defenisve detterent.

That Iran funds and influences Hezbolah is commonly accpeted by western nations, htough this does not make it true. Many western media pundits are saying that Iran ordered Hezbolah to action just before the G8 summit to divert attention away from Iran and their nuclear asperations.

Does the US have their eyes on Iran - sure. Would they like to take an active role in regime change in Iran - sure (but they have been trying that for 27 years). Is Iran the next Iraq - probably.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would agree with you except for one thing Lanny...

hamas has, as their charter states, an existance that is based on the obliteration of Israel.

Cant talk with those kind.

Then we are not going to see a solution to the problem any time in the future. The people FREELY elected Hamas as their representatives. They speak for the people. Complete refusal just gives them the credability to the stance that they are looking for. Israel should have been smart, acknowledged the new government, attempted to negotiate with the assistance of moderates on both sides (say Egypt and Switzerland as picking two countries out of the hat). That would have placed the onus on Hamas to act like the government they were elected to be. Any issues Israel had could have been officially lodged with the moderates and responded accordingly using what was deemed as fair force.

Frankly I think this boils down to a dealing with a child. Dealing with Hamas is like dealing with a young child. They have no idea what they are really doing and just lash out to get attention. Israel is supposed to be the adult in the room and are supposed to act in a fashion that the other adults would approve of. Israel is not acting like it should. It is feeding the actions of the child, not shaping them. If you want your child to behave like an adult, what do you do? Treat it like an adult and coach it when it makes mistakes along the way, or do you just tell it that its an adult and then beat it down when it makes mistakes? Both sides are dead wrong, but Israel is supposed to be the adult in the room, and they should start acting like it. To me, it is up to them to make this thing work.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

After Hamas was elected Israel called for them to renounce violence and accept any previous agreements made between Israel and the PA. Hamas refused to give up their "right to resist occupation" and their "duty to liberate all of historical Palestine" through violence.

Hamas spent their first months trying to eliminate Fatah opposition and begging the world for money rather than saying "ok, we will renounce violence and negotiate".

The rockets from Gaza into Israel were claimed by Islamic Jihad.

Jump to July and terrorists kiddnap a soldier from pre-1967 Israel. The Israeli government gives Hamas 2 days to return the hostage. The 2 days come and go (with rockets hitting the city of Ashkelon) and Israel takes matters into their own hands. The Gaza incursion I agree with. The rounding up of PA legislators I think was unessacary. It gives Hamas reason to claim that they cannot do anything rather than they will not do anything to aid in returning the hostage. Israel has denied Hamas the opportunity to miss the opportunity to show the world that they can be good governors.

I agree wit what you're saying about Hamas. To quote the leader of the most pwerful country in the world (barf) "they have to get their **** together and get over it". That applies to both sides IMO. They need moderates to do some moderation to bring this thing to an end, once and for all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whatever Lanny, have it your own way. He never lied though, as he refered to the veto's as a general term.

And he even acknowledged the 11 veto's the US used since 96, why is that a lie?

Because he attempted to shroud the truth of that facts. He did indeed acknowledge that US had vetoed only 11 resolutions since '96, but he failed to acknowledge that there have only been 12 vetoed resolutions in that time frame all together. Wow! Big differerence there when that information is placed in the proper context now, isn't there. Then, to make matters even more confusing he tossed out the information about the Russians/Soviets having used the most vetos in the UN's history, showing there was a disproportionate number of vetos compared to those done by the United States. But when those are put into proper context, and the truth of the matter is exposed, we find that since 1965, the Soviets used only 13 vetos, the Russians used only 3, and the Americans used 81. Again, a huge difference in what the story really is. And then, to top it all off, he stated, and I am quoting him directly, "So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel", which is a bold faced lie. All but one resolution the USA has vetoed has been in the defense of Israel's actions or to cancel any potential censure against Israel. You may not call that a lie, but I was raised me to believe that if you are not being honest, you are lying. I suspect you were raised the exact same way, but are too pigheaded to admit one of your allies in this debate has been exposed as a fraud, and goes against your value system.

[Azure]

Because he attempted to shroud the truth of that facts. He did indeed acknowledge that US had vetoed only 11 resolutions since '96, but he failed to acknowledge that there have only been 12 vetoed resolutions in that time frame all together. Wow! Big differerence there when that information is placed in the proper context now, isn't there.

Still doesn't mean he lied. The information may have been deceitful, but I doubt that he wanted to present it in such a manner.

Then, to make matters even more confusing he tossed out the information about the Russians/Soviets having used the most vetos in the UN's history, showing there was a disproportionate number of vetos compared to those done by the United States. But when those are put into proper context, and the truth of the matter is exposed, we find that since 1965, the Soviets used only 13 vetos, the Russians used only 3, and the Americans used 81.

Again, still not a lie. He wasn't mentioning a timeframe, or anything of that sort. Just directly refering to how many veto's the US had used compared to other countries.

I agree that timeframe has a lot to do with it.

Again, a huge difference in what the story really is. And then, to top it all off, he stated, and I am quoting him directly, "So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel", which is a bold faced lie. All but one resolution the USA has vetoed has been in the defense of Israel's actions or to cancel any potential censure against Israel.

And? Why shouldn't the US veto a resolution that goes against probably their best ally?

Just like the Soviet Union vetoed anything that went against their allies, the US has the same right.

You may not call that a lie, but I was raised me to believe that if you are not being honest, you are lying. I suspect you were raised the exact same way, but are too pigheaded to admit one of your allies in this debate has been exposed as a fraud, and goes against your value system.

If he would lied, the information that he provided would have been WRONG.

You're just looking at it a different way.

[peter12]

Then we are not going to see a solution to the problem any time in the future. The people FREELY elected Hamas as their representatives. They speak for the people. Complete refusal just gives them the credability to the stance that they are looking for.

Alright fair enough. What would you say if the people of Germany elected the Nazi party, which in a few years time started enacting one of their big policies, the elimination of Europe's "lesser races"?

Do you just stand back and watch it happen?

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by Azure

I suggest you become more educated in the rules of war before you mention stupid comments.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Many of the prisoners, and the ones Hizbollah were asking for, are women and children.

Negotiations include indirect intervention of the USA and Lebanese govts to try and alleviate the escalation and then perhaps disarm Hizbollah properly. This issue cannot be controlled on its own with the two direct parties alone. And if it isn't eased then this could turn into a massive war between West vs Middle East.

[peter12]

[quote=spiteface]Many of the prisoners, and the ones Hizbollah were asking for, are women and children.

Negotiations include indirect intervention of the USA and Lebanese govts to try and alleviate the escalation and then perhaps disarm Hizbollah properly. This issue cannot be controlled on its own with the two direct parties alone. And if it isn't eased then this could turn into a massive war between West vs Middle East.[/quote]

You mean a massive war between the extremists and the West.

In that case, bring it on.

[spiteface]

Easy there, captain america. Extremists in the eye of an ignorant observer from the West perhaps. Don't always think you're view on life is the only and accepted one.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by spiteface

Easy there, captain america. Extremists in the eye of an ignorant observer from the West perhaps. Don't always think you're view on life is the only and accepted one.

No, you're right. It's okay to yearn for the Second Holocaust or to subject women to the role of property. We should all stand by and let that happen.

[Lucky boy]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, you're right. It's okay to yearn for the Second Holocaust or to subject women to the role of property. We should all stand by and let that happen.

Yep, Isreal for once and for all is freeing all the woman from oppression.

Looks like this thread is no longer capable of debate.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, you're right. It's okay to yearn for the Second Holocaust or to subject women to the role of property. We should all stand by and let that happen.

Please tell me you didn't say that.

What are you, 12?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by spiteface

Please tell me you didn't say that.

What are you, 12?

No, don't you understand... I was agreeing with you.

This thread has been hijacked by poorly informed and semi-racist posters. Unbelievable. Do you have a thread of rationality running through your brain?