More news from The Lebanon

[ban-all-sheds]

Yesterday the Israelis ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border in Southern Lebanon, to leave their homes and then - as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards - the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding 13 other civilians.

Nine days ago they ordered the inhabitants of a neighbouring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, killing the women and children inside.

Some of you may recall seeing a photograph of one of the children killed

Can someone please explain why it is acceptable for people to post messages on this forum saying that this sort of thing is OK?

 

[markie]

Can you name one person, who in your eyes says it's ok for the Israeli air force to fire missiles into a fleeing convoy of civilians.

In joe 90 style, ( You can't ).

Why you can't, is that no one said it. It's a case of twisting peoples words around for your own benefit.

And regarding the first part of your post, the israeli army are no better than the terrorist, if they think ordering civilians out of there homes and as they flee attacking them with missiles.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can you name one person, who in your eyes says it's ok for the Israeli air force to fire missiles into a fleeing convoy of civilians.

In joe 90 style, ( You can't ).

Yes I can, because people cannot try to hide, in joe-90 style, behind a defence of I never actually used the words "it's ok for the Israeli air force to fire missiles into a fleeing convoy of civilians""

I hope (the Israelis) drop a bomb on (Omar Bakri) while the opportunity is there

If you advocate killing him by dropping a bomb on him, how many other people do you think it's OK to kill at the same time?

life is cheap over there so lets up the anti and say 200

Why you can't, is that no one said it. It's a case of twisting peoples words around for your own benefit.

I'm not twisting words - I believe that Slogger's sentiment is abundantly clear - it is OK for the Israelis to slaughter hundreds of civilians.

Bear in mind my question was "Can someone please explain why it is acceptable for people to post messages on this forum saying that this sort of thing is OK?"

But if you can't see that Slogger was in favour of "this sort of thing", forget the example of them firing on those convoys. Can you please tell me under what circumstances you think it is acceptable for people to post on this forum saying that it is OK for the Israelis to kill hundreds of civilians?

 

[Slogger]

SIGH

ok ok seems i have to really spell it out for you sometimes BAS

i think in some post you said how many people would it be ok to kill in order to get rid of the TERRORIST in question

i am sure i said 2 / 20 /100 blah blah even to the extent of thousands

if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him

i will take back the numbers i said as i dont agree with any innocents being killed BUT its a fact that they will i was being flipant and i shouldnt have been , SORRY


as for the isrealis firing on convoys only they will know who is hiding in what vehicle and i am sure they fire to hit those TERRORISTS who hide amongst children sad but true


no one wants kids to be killed ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

as for the isrealis firing on convoys only they will know who is hiding in what vehicle and i am sure they fire to hit those TERRORISTS who hide amongst children sad but true

Do you have any evidence that there were terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?

Assuming you are right, can you tell us what is the acceptable number of civilians to be killed in order to kill 1 terrorist?

 

[jbonding]

as for the isrealis firing on convoys only they will know who is hiding in what vehicle and i am sure they fire to hit those TERRORISTS who hide amongst children sad but true

Do you have any evidence that there were terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?

Assuming you are right, can you tell us what is the acceptable number of civilians to be killed in order to kill 1 terrorist?

Do you have any evidence that says there wasnt any terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?


Hard to answer if not impossible if your not there. I dont think 1 innocent person is an acceptable number but like what slogger said "if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him" its a sad reality of war on terrorism.

 

[Richardp]

like what slogger said "if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him" its a sad reality of war on terrorism.

and if those innocents where your family.....thats sick and what about you markie? do you agree with this?

 

[jbonding]

like what slogger said "if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him" its a sad reality of war on terrorism.

and if those innocents where your family.....thats sick and what about you markie? do you agree with this?

If they were my family i would be sick, Its reality get your head out of the clouds, do you support hesbolah?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you have any evidence that says there wasnt any terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?

No. Is that needed?

Do do you think that the people giving orders to fire should have evidence that there are terrorists, before they give those orders?

Or do you think that they should have evidence that there are no terrorists in order to not give the orders to open fire?

I dont think 1 innocent person is an acceptable number but like what slogger said "if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him" its a sad reality of war on terrorism.

Sounds to me that despite your opening statement you are using an ends-justifies-the-means argument.

If you think his death would be worthwhile, then what price do you think is worth paying in terms of deaths of innocent people in order to bring about his death. It's a simple enough question.

 

[jbonding]

Do you have any evidence that says there wasnt any terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?

No. Is that needed?

Do do you think that the people giving orders to fire should have evidence that there are terrorists, before they give those orders?

Or do you think that they should have evidence that there are no terrorists in order to not give the orders to open fire?

I dont think 1 innocent person is an acceptable number but like what slogger said "if this man is the one in charge and if his death would bring some sort of peace then for the greater good of all he has to die and there will be some innocents dieing with him" its a sad reality of war on terrorism.

Sounds to me that despite your opening statement you are using an ends-justifies-the-means argument.

If you think his death would be worthwhile, then what price do you think is worth paying in terms of deaths of innocent people in order to bring about his death. It's a simple enough question.

You keep answering a question with another question so i will follow you, do you support hesbolah? Your going on like they all live in harmony, innocent people are killed daily by hesbolah so i ask you how many more innocent people have to be killed and tortured before someone steps in to destroy these people?


quote BAS "Do do you think that the people giving orders to fire should have evidence that there are terrorists, before they give those orders?"

they dont have to in this country so i would expect the same over there.

 

[Richardp]

do you support hesbolah?

well no I don't happen to support that particular group but If you suspected that I did and you happened to know that I was traveling on the 9:30am bus from penzance to truro with a seletion of the public including women and children and a baby or two would you consider it prudent to bomb the bus? how many people do you think it would be ok to kill if you suspected that as a result of killing them a member of hesbolah would also be killed? what if it was a plane? would you blow it out of the sky just in case I was on board?

 

[masona]

I have no answer to this but how would any of you deal with terrorists without any civilians being killed

 

[jbonding]

do you support hesbolah?

well no I don't happen to support that particular group but If you suspected that I did and you happened to know that I was traveling on the 9:30am bus from penzance to truro with a seletion of the public including women and children and a baby or two would you consider it prudent to bomb the bus? how many people do you think it would be ok to kill if you suspected that as a result of killing them a member of hesbolah would also be killed? what if it was a plane? would you blow it out of the sky just in case I was on board?

wether i suspected anything doesnt matter, im not giving the orders Its a good senario you give because this is exactly how hesbolah like to travel,so the question you should be asking is does hesbolah give a toss wether innocent women and kids are killed?
I think you know the answer and if you were honest you may agree hesbolah needs to come to an end and its started and needs to be finished. They will have support always but hopefully wont have as much control.

 

[Richardp]

I have no answer to this but how would any of you deal with terrorists without any civilians being killed

well I don't know the answer either but I believe that there are people whose job it is to know, you cant just open fire indiscriminatly on the off chance of killing a terrorist, seems alot of that recently, how many have they caught?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You keep answering a question with another question

No I don't - you asked me one question:

Do you have any evidence that says there wasnt any terrorists in the vehicles attacked by the Israelis?

No.

so i will follow you, do you support hesbolah?

No.

Your going on like they all live in harmony, innocent people are killed daily by hesbolah

Indeed they are.

so i ask you how many more innocent people have to be killed and tortured before someone steps in to destroy these people?

That's the sort of question you ask when one side is killing innocent people, and the other side are doing nothing. Israel has already stepped in, so I'm not sure where the concept of "more before" fits.

But I'd like to ask you a "more before" question - how many more innocent people have to be killed and tortured before a ceasefire is called?

quote BAS "Do do you think that the people giving orders to fire should have evidence that there are terrorists, before they give those orders?"

they dont have to in this country so i would expect the same over there.

So on what grounds do you think they should open fire on civilian convoys?

Should they have a strong suspicion that there are terrorists there?

Or a reasonable idea?

Or a vague suspicion?

Should they open fire in the mere hope that there are terrorists there and that they get lucky and kill one?

How many civilian deaths do you think are an acceptable price to pay for the death of one terrorist?