More news from The Lebanon

[pickles]

Hezbollah is a client organisation of Iran, set up by an Iranian cleric in the 1980's. They invented the suicide truck bombing which was used to kill 100 or so US marines and about 50 French paratropers. They were responsible for the kidnappings of Terry Waite and the other Lebanese hostages. They run a large part of the South of Lebannon and are thought to own numerous businesses including banks and travel agents. they raise taxes and have an annual income of about 297,000,000 a year. This runs schools (on an Iranian sylabus) and provides a social support network including hospitals and an army 8,000 strong with about 30,000 reservists, armed and trained by Iran and Syria. Basically they are an Islamic state that is an extension of Iran not a bunch of nutcases with AK47's

They will be moving weapons and equipment about and since they don't have military vehicles will be using civilian vehicles and will almost certainly be using civilian convoys as cover . They are completely ruthless and do not care about civilian casualties which actually further their cause by sparking the kind of debate that is going on here and in the western media. The Israelis will have no choice but to target as best they can and these are the results, numerous civilian deaths. It is not a policy to terrorise it is intended to hit Hizbollah, but usually does not work.

Iran has ambitions to be a regional superpower and sees Israels destruction as the only think that can unite arabs and give them the kind of influence they seek. That is why this conflict has started, and why Israel has hit back so hard and with so little regard for world opinion or caualties, including their own.they understand the regional politics better than we do. It is not Israel against a few resistance fighters it is Israel in a fight against Iran which it can't afford to loose

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

The fact that you are not giving the orders is utterly irrelevant.

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 Hezbollah would also be killed?

I asked you that question several posts ago. You still haven't answered.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hezbollah is a client organisation of Iran, set up by an Iranian cleric in the 1980's. They invented the suicide truck bombing which was used to kill 100 or so US marines and about 50 French paratropers. They were responsible for the kidnappings of Terry Waite and the other Lebanese hostages. They run a large part of the South of Lebannon and are thought to own numerous businesses including banks and travel agents. they raise taxes and have an annual income of about 297,000,000 a year. This runs schools (on an Iranian sylabus) and provides a social support network including hospitals and an army 8,000 strong with about 30,000 reservists, armed and trained by Iran and Syria. Basically they are an Islamic state that is an extension of Iran not a bunch of nutcases with AK47's

They are widely regarded in the Middle East as a legitimate resistance movement. Let us not forget that they were founded to resist the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon 2 decades ago.

Do they kill civilians?

Yes, they do.

But so do the Israelis (about 20 times as many at the moment), so are they any worse than the Israelis? Are the Israelis "better" than them, and if so why?

They will be moving weapons and equipment about and since they don't have military vehicles will be using civilian vehicles and will almost certainly be using civilian convoys as cover . They are completely ruthless and do not care about civilian casualties which actually further their cause by sparking the kind of debate that is going on here and in the western media.

Is it wrong to be ruthless and not to care about civilian casualties? Actually, do you have any evidence that they don't care?
Have you considered the possibility that they are prepared to tolerate a certain number in the pursuit of their aims?

The Israelis will have no choice but to target as best they can and these are the results, numerous civilian deaths. It is not a policy to terrorise it is intended to hit Hizbollah, but usually does not work.

If it doesn't work, should they be continuing it?

How many civilian deaths do you think are an acceptable price to pay for the limited success they are having?

Iran has ambitions to be a regional superpower and sees Israels destruction as the only think that can unite arabs and give them the kind of influence they seek. That is why this conflict has started, and why Israel has hit back so hard and with so little regard for world opinion or caualties, including their own.they understand the regional politics better than we do.

So do you think we should let them get on with it, as they know what they are doing?

It is not Israel against a few resistance fighters it is Israel in a fight against Iran which it can't afford to loose

Do you think that if Israel kills enough Lebanese civilians that they will win?

How many civilians do you think is an acceptable number for them to kill in order to ensure their victory?

 

[pickles]

I wll answer that later BAS. I haven't got time now

 

[pickles]

I agree hez are viewed as a legitimate resistance in the arab world but, they would support a gorilla if it wanted to destroy Israel. You have to ask what they are resisting. Israel left lebanon in 2000 and by and large has left them alone since, so their resistance is in fact against Israels right to exist not it's occupation of Lebanese territory.

I don't buy the argument that they are supporting the Palestinians anymore than any arab force which has left them to languish in camps since 1948. No I don't think they are any worse than the Israelis but terms like "worse" "Better than" and "acceptable" are irrelevant to the participants.

We view the conflict through the eyes of a society that believes that killing non combatants is wrong. This is a modern view, the history of warfare is full of the sacking of cities and the murder of civilian populations. The western world has only held this view since about the first world war with the advent of long range artillery and air power and it is a moral judgement we have imposed on the rules of war. Hezbollah and the Islamic world don't share it and to some extent neither do the Israelis and it is simply pointless trying to understand the conflict in those terms. Neither side cares greatly about the other sides casualties. There is a well of religious and personal hatred that goes back centuries and they are simply operating to different rules of behaviour of biblical proportions

No I don't think they should get on with it. It's fairly clear that Israel has made a tactical mistake and will probably come out of it without anything concrete. Hizbollah will have it's credibility enhanced without giving up anything significant and will retain it's capability to fire rockets at Israel when it chooses. They are using mobile units that can't be readily identified and can be put back into action very quickly. They are an army that is a committed as the Israelis and to some extent as well equipped and they are just not going to go away

This kind of non conventional warfare can't be won militarily, there needs to be a political solution and unfortunately that's not possible when both sides deny the others right to exist

Personally I think over the next 50 years or so the writings on the wall for Israels long term destruction

Slogger will tell us how to deal with 7,000,000 refugees

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree hez are viewed as a legitimate resistance in the arab world but, they would support a gorilla if it wanted to destroy Israel. You have to ask what they are resisting. Israel left lebanon in 2000 and by and large has left them alone since, so their resistance is in fact against Israels right to exist not it's occupation of Lebanese territory.

Very true, but maybe they wouldn't have had such an effective jump-start if Israel hadn't invaded The Lebanon all those years ago. The words sowing and reapng come to mind... Not that that excuses their rocket attacks for one second...

We view the conflict through the eyes of a society that believes that killing non combatants is wrong. This is a modern view, the history of warfare is full of the sacking of cities and the murder of civilian populations. The western world has only held this view since about the first world war with the advent of long range artillery and air power and it is a moral judgement we have imposed on the rules of war. Hezbollah and the Islamic world don't share it and to some extent neither do the Israelis and it is simply pointless trying to understand the conflict in those terms. Neither side cares greatly about the other sides casualties. There is a well of religious and personal hatred that goes back centuries and they are simply operating to different rules of behaviour of biblical proportions

So given that, are you now able to answer the original question - can you explain why it is acceptable for people to post messages on this forum saying that this sort of thing is OK?

 

[markie]

1st= it's called " Free speech " not free pic.

2nd= the mods allow it.

 

[Slogger]

isreal should tell all lebanons not to drive anything or risk being a target


set a curfue up say 4 pm and if anything moves then you probably got a terrorist


all this is easy done with modern surveilance gear

if any lebanese say stuff you then they have only themselves to blame when targetted


move all the jews to some remote part of the usa say texas = peace at last

as for your question how many innocents is it worth killling to get the main man i would say there is no number he has to go so if thousands die that is what will happen

realisticly i would say probably no more than 100 would be taken out with him as he hides amongst the childen HE IS ENDANGERING there lives

if isreal NUKES lebanon who would stop them could it happen ? should it happen its getting closer to isreal being a victim of a NUKE i am sure they would be the first to use one if they had any hint of an attack by syria and iran

 

[joe-90]

The point that you all seem to be missing is that Israel's actions in bombing the hell out of lebanon is that it is FORCING the United Nations and the rest of the world to act. They are forcing the enforcement of a buffer zone between the two armies, which means that when it is set up that Hezbollah won't be able to lob missiles over the fence without retribution from the rest of the world.

Had Irael not taken this action then Hisbollah could have done whatever they wished without the rest of the world taking a blind bit of notice.

Remember that Irael is a mini superpower with (at the last count) 212 nuclear warheads. Israel cannot be beaten because whoever attacks them will (at best) be destroyed alongside Israel. They even have nuclear armed submarines. This is why Iran is desperate to join the nuclear club - and why Israel will go to war against them to prevent it.

 

[pickles]

I agree hez are viewed as a legitimate resistance in the arab world but, they would support a gorilla if it wanted to destroy Israel. You have to ask what they are resisting. Israel left lebanon in 2000 and by and large has left them alone since, so their resistance is in fact against Israels right to exist not it's occupation of Lebanese territory.

Very true, but maybe they wouldn't have had such an effective jump-start if Israel hadn't invaded The Lebanon all those years ago. The words sowing and reapng come to mind... Not that that excuses their rocket attacks for one second...

We view the conflict through the eyes of a society that believes that killing non combatants is wrong. This is a modern view, the history of warfare is full of the sacking of cities and the murder of civilian populations. The western world has only held this view since about the first world war with the advent of long range artillery and air power and it is a moral judgement we have imposed on the rules of war. Hezbollah and the Islamic world don't share it and to some extent neither do the Israelis and it is simply pointless trying to understand the conflict in those terms. Neither side cares greatly about the other sides casualties. There is a well of religious and personal hatred that goes back centuries and they are simply operating to different rules of behaviour of biblical proportions

So given that, are you now able to answer the original question - can you explain why it is acceptable for people to post messages on this forum saying that this sort of thing is OK?

BAS I agree. Hezbollah filled the vacum left after the defeat of the PLO and the Israeli withdrawal.

I don't think it's acceptable for people to say this sort of thing is ok. It isn't but people say things on the net that they don't always mean or think through. Some of it's intended to be provocative and start an inflamed debate

In fairness to the MODs this is supposed to be a diy site and they are having to deal with some pretty heavy stuff lately, you should cut them a bit of slack, most threads are predictable and you can see where they are going to go. They could just shut every thread down at the outset but to their credit they don't, they try to let the debate run.

 

[pickles]

The point that you all seem to be missing is that Israel's actions in bombing the hell out of lebanon is that it is FORCING the United Nations and the rest of the world to act. They are forcing the enforcement of a buffer zone between the two armies, which means that when it is set up that Hezbollah won't be able to lob missiles over the fence without retribution from the rest of the world.

Had Irael not taken this action then Hisbollah could have done whatever they wished without the rest of the world taking a blind bit of notice.

Remember that Irael is a mini superpower with (at the last count) 212 nuclear warheads. Israel cannot be beaten because whoever attacks them will (at best) be destroyed alongside Israel. They even have nuclear armed submarines. This is why Iran is desperate to join the nuclear club - and why Israel will go to war against them to prevent it.

It's a pretty sure bet that if any lobs a nuke this century it will be in the middle east or pakistan/India.

 

[Richardp]

I think it'll be the yanks

 

[johnny_t]

Many threads, many subjects, but I'll start where I can.....

Firstly, as to how many children is it acceptable to die. The answer, of course, is none but I would maybe add slightly to that. It is easy to blame Israel for the situation, and if the story reported about them bombing an exiting convoy is true, then it is reprehensible.

However, Hezbollah and Hammas have both made extensive use of the human shield, situating weapons stores and missile launchers within their family homes and surrounded by their own families. Therefore, you can infer that they have come up with an acceptable number of their own children to die, and it would be useful to know what they think that number is too.


Regarding how many people can die to get at one man, again the answer is none. As we are seeing in Iraq, one man seldom has the power that we ascribe to them during the pre-war demonisation phase. There are still some out there who believe it was acceptable to kill 100,000 + civilians in Iraq to arrest one man and put him on show trial for something done 12 years ago. Often we would hear stories about a retaurant being bombed, or a convoy being shot up, all because Saddam was in there. I think the restaurant episode even ended with a report that his moustache had been found in the rubble. We now know that he wasn't in there, but we don't know who was.

We would not accept this if it was happening in this country. No-one would accept a pre-emptive strike on Leeds if we knew that a suicide bomber lived in 'one of those terraces' but we just didn't know which one, and we should not accept it over there either.

(Incidentally, AFAIK, Omar Bakri has not been accused of being some sort of terrorism mastermind, just what is colloquially known as a 'hate preacher' and is no better or worse than some English I know. No-one would say, for example, that we should blow Newcastle-On-Tyne back to the dark ages just to get rid of a 'hate preacher' who lives there. To say that we should bomb him and his surroundings is just stupid - if he was that bad then we should just have arrested him when he lived here - and I think reflects that the person saying it doesn't know who they are on about.)


And as for the true images of war, of course we should see them. The only image of dead people in war that some people know are the waxworked versions of Uday and Qusay that we see paraded about, whilst condemning Al Jazeera for showing pictures of coalition troops. The sooner people got real about what war involves, the sooner people will stop seeing it as the only solution.

Lets stop pretending this is some sort of children's forum, just so some don't have to be faced with the reality of what they are calling for.

 

[joe-90]

Sex is a reality too - and no-one dies. Let's see you post some porn shots then. After all. it's not a children's forum is it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A first class post.

I wonder if anyone can now explain why it is acceptable for people to post messages on this forum saying that civilian deaths are OK, and actually call for more of them to happen?