Israel decides to go to Lebanon.

[Mani]

i'm quite certain Israel's escapades only bolstered the support for Hezbollah. they'll have more volunteers & gain more sympathy on the 'ground'.

I'm quite certain most Lebanese were realising the Hezbollah was the cause of their misfortune, but now the world decided to force Israel to stop it's attacks many of them will be in doubt again.

as we speak, Hezbollah representatives are handing out money to people who lost their houses & jobs.

People wouldnt have lost their houses & jobs if it wasnt for the Hezbollah to begin with. The Lebanese would be fools to see this blood money as anything other than propaganda.

yeah, thats like saying every american wanted to bring soldiers home in coffins...

Not every American, but the majority, yes.

tbh, if i were a Lebanese general, i wouldnt have sent the available troops to the south either during the whole crisis

I meant those troops should have been used before the crisis to prevent the terrorists from attacking Israel.

granted, it's stupid from france. my country promised troops though & we're already overstretched in peacekeeping operations as is.

but it's even stupider that 2 countries need a babysit after decades of conflict. fucking pussies... war is easy, peace is tough.

If the world hadn't forced Israel into a cease fire no babysitter would have been required.

and where might you be from Mani?

i'd like to know the country that doesnt wage war, that doesn't make political errors, that is perfect and happy in every way.

Holland. Our government has more pussies than a lesbian resort and I fear it will only get worse with the elections later this year.

Factually incorrect. The world didn't force Israel into anything. Israel never wanted to invade Lebanon, it's a quagmire, they didn't want to get involved in that.

The originally stated goal of "wiping out Hezbollah" very quickly turned out to be more difficult than originally imagined. You can't imagine the firepower, manpower, money and lives it would've cost to do this. I'm sure Olmert has considered this, though.

Israel wanted a ceasefire and a force there to safeguard its borders. It's an easy way out for them. Nobody forced them.

What facts? World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire. You are underestimating the Israeli military forces and while wiping out Hezbollah completely is of course impossible, they could have destroyed most of their assets, severely disrupted their chain of command and of course killed a significent amount of terrorists.
Lebanese would be less willing to join the Hezbollah if everyone they knew who joined them was dead.

You do realise Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government, right?

As a minority party yes, the cabinet could have easily been formed without them.

 

[Sander]

I'm quite certain most Lebanese were realising the Hezbollah was the cause of their misfortune, but now the world decided to force Israel to stop it's attacks many of them will be in doubt again.

No they won't. They're not idiots, (almost) no one's opinion of what was the cause of something suddenly changes because it stopped.

I'm pretty sure that the Lebanese people were hit pretty hard by the Israelis and that there was considerable support for Hezbollah already. There are many sides to this conflict and many different effects, it's not that Israel's stopping is entirely beneficial to all sides, nor is it so that if they had continued that that would've beneficial to all. It's almost impossible to judge at this time which course of action will lead to the best solution.

People wouldnt have lost their houses & jobs if it wasnt for the Hezbollah to begin with. The Lebanese would be fools to see this blood money as anything other than propaganda.

Yes, and Hezbollah could also have not given them any money. I don't think that would've helped anything at all, though.

Also, it's not Hezbollah itself. Hezbollah was voted into government by and consists of Lebanese people. The Lebanese people are not a completely seperate entity.

yeah, thats like saying every american wanted to bring soldiers home in coffins...

Not every American, but the majority, yes.

I meant those troops should have been used before the crisis to prevent the terrorists from attacking Israel.

The terrorists are part of the democratically chosen government. Governments don't usually attack their own countries (except when it comes to Yugoslavia).

If the world hadn't forced Israel into a cease fire no babysitter would have been required.

If Israel hadn't attacked no babysitter would have been required either.
That doesn't make either solution any better, though.

Holland. Our government has more pussies than a lesbian resort and I fear it will only get worse with the elections later this year.

...
How is this even relevant?

Also, Holland is not a country, it's a region.

What facts? World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire. You are underestimating the Israeli military forces and while wiping out Hezbollah completely is of course impossible, they could have destroyed most of their assets, severely disrupted their chain of command and of course killed a significent amount of terrorists.

I love how people underestimate the power of disorganised terrorist cells. Even after Iraq.

Lebanese would be less willing to join the Hezbollah if everyone they knew who joined them was dead.

To do that they'd have to kill a lot of Lebanese non-terrorists as well. Especially since it's been pretty widely publicised that Israel had a lot of trouble with Hezbollah as is.
Besides that, this logic hasn't exactly worked for many other terrorist organisations. Hell, the logic is pretty silly anyway since a lot of those terrorists are suicide-terrorists and would be sent to their death anyway.

]
As a minority party yes, the cabinet could have easily been formed without them.

Right, our current cabinet could've been formed without the VVD as well. That doesn't make them any less important or any less of a part of the representation of the people.

 

[Mani]

No they won't. They're not idiots, (almost) no one's opinion of what was the cause of something suddenly changes because it stopped.

I'm pretty sure that the Lebanese people were hit pretty hard by the Israelis and that there was considerable support for Hezbollah already. There are many sides to this conflict and many different effects, it's not that Israel's stopping is entirely beneficial to all sides, nor is it so that if they had continued that that would've beneficial to all. It's almost impossible to judge at this time which course of action will lead to the best solution.

Well they're now going to change their mind to a more anti-terrorist pov now, in fact since the world opinion was against Israel they might start thinking Hezbollah was right.

Yes, and Hezbollah could also have not given them any money. I don't think that would've helped anything at all, though.

Also, it's not Hezbollah itself. Hezbollah was voted into government by and consists of Lebanese people. The Lebanese people are not a completely seperate entity.

I'm not saying homeless Lebanese shouldn't accept the money, but they should realize it was not given out of kindness.

The terrorists are part of the democratically chosen government. Governments don't usually attack their own countries (except when it comes to Yugoslavia).

A political party can't have it's own army, especially if that army starts attacking neighbouring countries against the will of the government. The national army should and could have at least shown an effort to try and prevent this, but apparently the government was fine with it until Israel started fighting back, then of course they were to first to start crying the western world some mighty fine rivers of tears.

If Israel hadn't attacked no babysitter would have been required either.
That doesn't make either solution any better, though.

If Hezbollah hadn't attacked Israel, Israel would'nt have etc. =)

...
How is this even relevant?

Also, Holland is not a country, it's a region.

I don't know, I was asked.

When you say Holland in a foreign country everyone knows you mean the Netherlands as whole. Much like when someone says they're American you don't ask if they're Canadian.

I love how people underestimate the power of disorganised terrorist cells. Even after Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is very different, coalition forces and the new Iraqi army are killing them by the 1000s and even the public opinion is turning against them.

To do that they'd have to kill a lot of Lebanese non-terrorists as well. Especially since it's been pretty widely publicised that Israel had a lot of trouble with Hezbollah as is.
Besides that, this logic hasn't exactly worked for many other terrorist organisations. Hell, the logic is pretty silly anyway since a lot of those terrorists are suicide-terrorists and would be sent to their death anyway.

No the suicide terrorists are only a small portion of the terrorists, of course they are the most media friendly ones. There is a large network of recruiters, trainers, handlers, supply lines. If these could be destroyed it would go al long way in neutralizing the Hezbollah. But yeah a lot of these facilities are in civilian areas.

Right, our current cabinet could've been formed without the VVD as well. That doesn't make them any less important or any less of a part of the representation of the people.

By forming a cabinet with the Hezbollah the leading parties paved the way to a confrontation with Israel.

Also a political party is only as important as the number of seats it has in the government, give or take a minister position.

 

[Brother None]

Not every American, but the majority, yes.

25% of the *eligible voters* (not even all Americans!) voted Bush. How is that a majority?

What facts? World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire. You are underestimating the Israeli military forces and while wiping out Hezbollah completely is of course impossible, they could have destroyed most of their assets, severely disrupted their chain of command and of course killed a significent amount of terrorists.

Again, factually incorrect. It was discussed many times as the conflict started that Ehmud Olmert had no particular fondness of the thought of getting bogged down into Lebanon like before 2000 *again*, it is a simple, well-known fact.

World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire? Are you shitting me? How many times has world opinion forced Israel into anything it didn't want to do? Are they not currently in gaza and in the west bank, fighting as they go a long?

They don't give a damn about world opinion, never did. They just wanted Hezbollah off their backs since it was pretty obviously that they couldn't be removed easily. The easiest way to get them off Israel's back? International peace-keeping force, at no cost to Israel.

The only thing Olmert possibly regrets is it being a UN force.

Lebanese would be less willing to join the Hezbollah if everyone they knew who joined them was dead.

Yes, because that's been shown to work really well for fighting terrorism so far.

Have you been paying attention these past few years?

As a minority party yes, the cabinet could have easily been formed without them.

Wooh, hey, back up there, because now you're just showing blatant ignorance of the whole situation. Are you familiar with the Lebanese civil war? Are you up to speed on the facts of the wars waged up to 2000? Do you know Hezbollah's power and how they hold and spread it? That and this:

A political party can't have it's own army, especially if that army starts attacking neighbouring countries against the will of the government. The national army should and could have at least shown an effort to try and prevent this, but apparently the government was fine with it until Israel started fighting back, then of course they were to first to start crying the western world some mighty fine rivers of tears.

Shows you are wholly ignorant on the situation. I suggest you read up before forming an opinion.

 

[Sander]

Well they're now going to change their mind to a more anti-terrorist pov now, in fact since the world opinion was against Israel they might start thinking Hezbollah was right.

And you can predict this, how? Because that's just what you think will happen?
Also, how is being anti-terrorist a bad thing?

'm not saying homeless Lebanese shouldn't accept the money, but they should realize it was not given out of kindness.

And how do you know they don't? Because you assume they don't?

A political party can't have it's own army,

Because you say so?

especially if that army starts attacking neighbouring countries against the will of the government. The national army should and could have at least shown an effort to try and prevent this, but apparently the government was fine with it until Israel started fighting back, then of course they were to first to start crying the western world some mighty fine rivers of tears.

Your point being, what? That Lebanon is in part at fault?

I don't know, I was asked.

When you say Holland in a foreign country everyone knows you mean the Netherlands as whole. Much like when someone says they're American you don't ask if they're Canadian.

That doesn't make it any more correct, though.

The situation in Iraq is very different, coalition forces and the new Iraqi army are killing them by the 1000s and even the public opinion is turning against them.

After *4 years*, when people predicted that it would be over in months, as you just did.

No the suicide terrorists are only a small portion of the terrorists, of course they are the most media friendly ones. There is a large network of recruiters, trainers, handlers, supply lines. If these could be destroyed it would go al long way in neutralizing the Hezbollah. But yeah a lot of these facilities are in civilian areas.

Which is pretty much impossible to do without severely hurting non-terrorists as well.

By forming a cabinet with the Hezbollah the leading parties paved the way to a confrontation with Israel.

Also a political party is only as important as the number of seats it has in the government, give or take a minister position.

No it isn't. Small parties can take a key role in many elections. If you'd paid attention to the last cabinet formation you'd know this.

 

[Mani]

25% of the *eligible voters* (not even all Americans!) voted Bush. How is that a majority?

That's how a democracy works.

Again, factually incorrect. It was discussed many times as the conflict started that Ehmud Olmert had no particular fondness of the thought of getting bogged down into Lebanon like before 2000 *again*, it is a simple, well-known fact.

So you believe this whole attack on Hezbollah was started so the world would put a force between them and Israel?


World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire? Are you shitting me? How many times has world opinion forced Israel into anything it didn't want to do? Are they not currently in gaza and in the west bank, fighting as they go a long?


They don't give a damn about world opinion, never did. They just wanted Hezbollah off their backs since it was pretty obviously that they couldn't be removed easily. The easiest way to get them off Israel's back? International peace-keeping force, at no cost to Israel.

The only thing Olmert possibly regrets is it being a UN force.

So you believe this whole attack on Hezbollah was started so the world would put a force between them and Israel? An evil scheme of sorts?

Mostly world opinion on Israel is unfair, so why should they listen? And they do listen when pressure gets too great, like they did in this case.

If the Palastinians would've uphold their part of the deal, Israel wouldn't have been forced to invade again.

Yes, because that's been shown to work really well for fighting terrorism so far.

Have you been paying attention these past few years?

Globally seen the number of terrorists attacks per year has been decreasing, so yeah it's working pretty well isnt it.

Wooh, hey, back up there, because now you're just showing blatant ignorance of the whole situation. Are you familiar with the Lebanese civil war? Are you up to speed on the facts of the wars waged up to 2000? Do you know Hezbollah's power and how they hold and spread it? That and this:

Shows you are wholly ignorant on the situation. I suggest you read up before forming an opinion.

Hezbollah's power base is in the south, where they also get most of their votes. Perhaps the major parties included Hezbollah in the government in fear of another civil war, but that doesnt mean Hezbollah should have been allowed to run free and attack Israel at will.

And you can predict this, how? Because that's just what you think will happen?
Also, how is being anti-terrorist a bad thing?

How can you predict it doesn't?
Anti terrorist is good, pro Hezbollah is bad.

And how do you know they don't? Because you assume they don't?

Like you assume they do?

Because you say so?

A political party generally can't have it's own army without this leading to conflict, examples: IRA, the SA.

Your point being, what? That Lebanon is in part at fault?

Partly? Mostly. They formed a government with the Hezbollah and gave the terorists a free pass to attack Israel.

That doesn't make it any more correct, though.

I am from the Holland region in the Netherlands, so I was correct to begin with.

After *4 years*, when people predicted that it would be over in months, as you just did.

I never claimed it would take months.

Which is pretty much impossible to do without severely hurting non-terrorists as well.

Agreed.

No it isn't. Small parties can take a key role in many elections. If you'd paid attention to the last cabinet formation you'd know this.

Eh D66 wanted an electable major, their plan got shot down. They didn't want the mission in Uruzgan to happen, but they got overruled again. In the end the only thing they had the power to do was blow up the government, which the other parties didn't mind anyway.

 

[Roshambo]

I split Neurof's stupidity and Vatted it, sorry if there's any disjunction, but I tried to make it as neat as I could.

 

[Brother None]

That's how a democracy works.

Not exactly. If you're going to argue that democratic governments by definition represent the majority of the country you can only support this by designating the inaction of the actual numeral majority of the country as "support of the government". In which case a tyranny is also a majority rule in most cases.

So you believe this whole attack on Hezbollah was started so the world would put a force between them and Israel? An evil scheme of sorts?

Heh, not at all. I don't believe in Jewish schemes, for the most part.

I believe it was an attempt to get a quick kill in Lebanon, to stop a problem constantly growing and festering at the border of the country.

I also believe it was simply misanalysed (much like, say, Afghanistan or Iraq), and when Israel realised they hadn't assessed the situation correctly they (read: Olmert) just wanted to get out.

Mostly world opinion on Israel is unfair, so why should they listen?

Unfair by what measuring rod? I mean, is it unfair that the USA supports Israel no matter what it does or unfair that Europe is against Israel no matter what it does? "World opinion", thcyeah.

And they do listen when pressure gets too great, like they did in this case.

They tend to listen better when it suits them.

If the Palastinians would've uphold their part of the deal, Israel wouldn't have been forced to invade again.

Not really relevant either way.

Globally seen the number of terrorists attacks per year has been decreasing, so yeah it's working pretty well isnt it.

a) Define terrorist attack
b) Link a source numbering a decrease in terrorist attacks per year since 9/11 split into grouping by movement and/or region
c) how is "number of attacks" a good way to measure the danger of terrorism?

Hezbollah's power base is in the south, where they also get most of their votes. Perhaps the major parties included Hezbollah in the government in fear of another civil war, but that doesnt mean Hezbollah should have been allowed to run free and attack Israel at will.

Doesn't it now? Well, I'm sure they'll make note and be much interested in that it really shouldn't mean that they run free. Meanwhile they have a reality to deal with, a reality pretty damn far away from what you're saying.

"The cabinet could've been formed without them". Tchyeah. You must not have been paying attention while the cabinet was being formed. Between Lahoud and Aoun the matter wasn't as easy as just going "hey, let's not include Hezbollah"

Partly? Mostly. They formed a government with the Hezbollah and gave the terorists a free pass to attack Israel.

Ignoring the ignorance of the first statement, the second statement is up to questioning to. The Germans allowed the terrorists that hit the WTC to be trained in their country, so would it have been justified for the US to attack Germany? If not, where do you draw the line? The Lebanese government isn't allowing Hezbollah to do its stuff willingly, but it's not like they have that much of a choice either.

Eh D66 wanted an electable major, their plan got shot down. They didn't want the mission in Uruzgan to happen, but they got overruled again. In the end the only thing they had the power to do was blow up the government, which the other parties didn't mind anyway.

You two are locked too much in Western political thinking. Stop trying to apply our political models to their democracies, that will get you nowhere, it doesn't work that way

 

[Sander]

How can you predict it doesn't?
Anti terrorist is good, pro Hezbollah is bad.

*sigh*
You missed my point, *again*. I never attempted to predict the exact majority response to what has happened since that's nigh impossible to do.

Like you assume they do?

Now where did I say I assumed the opposite? I am questioning your allknowing knowledge of what the Lebanese people do and do not know, I'm not telling you what they do and do not know.

A political party generally can't have it's own army without this leading to conflict, examples: IRA, the SA.

Yes, because with an army comes bigger leverage. That doesn't mean a political party can't have one, though, but that if they do it distorts the power balance.

I am from the Holland region in the Netherlands, so I was correct to begin with.

No, because you were asked what *country* you were from.

I never claimed it would take months.

No, but you did claim:
"What facts? World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire. You are underestimating the Israeli military forces and while wiping out Hezbollah completely is of course impossible, they could have destroyed most of their assets, severely disrupted their chain of command and of course killed a significent amount of terrorists."
Implying that that would be pretty easy and relatively lossless.

Eh D66 wanted an electable major, their plan got shot down. They didn't want the mission in Uruzgan to happen, but they got overruled again. In the end the only thing they had the power to do was blow up the government, which the other parties didn't mind anyway.

Yes, because D66 consists of fucktards who would rather ceremonially be in government than actually decide anything. They could have easily forced something through by pulling support for the cabinet, leaving the cabinet with too little support on several of their key points. When they attempted to force something (on the weakest point they could have tried to force something), they did it much too late to make much of a difference.

But Kharn is right, this is Western politics, not Lebanese.

 

[Mani]

Heh, not at all. I don't believe in Jewish schemes, for the most part.

I believe it was an attempt to get a quick kill in Lebanon, to stop a problem constantly growing and festering at the border of the country.

I also believe it was simply misanalysed (much like, say, Afghanistan or Iraq), and when Israel realised they hadn't assessed the situation correctly they (read: Olmert) just wanted to get out.

If they went in looking for a quick kill they would have failed, however an enduring attack could have destroyed most of Hezbollah's recources.
I believe that's what they were going for and that they were forced into a ceasefire prematurely. Of course Israel isnt going to say this, as it would be admitting defeat. However the Hezbollah hailed the ceasefire as a victory which says enough.

Unfair by what measuring rod? I mean, is it unfair that the USA supports Israel no matter what it does or unfair that Europe is against Israel no matter what it does? "World opinion", thcyeah.

Israel can't even kill a terrorist leader without Europe breaking out in tears, calling them assasinations. Also in the case of the ceasefire even the US was crying for Israel to stop.

a) Define terrorist attack
b) Link a source numbering a decrease in terrorist attacks per year since 9/11 split into grouping by movement and/or region
c) how is "number of attacks" a good way to measure the danger of terrorism?

Well this was is the news a few months ago, also Jon Stewart mentioned it on the Daily Show.

a) violent attack agaisnt civilian targets for religious/political reasons
b) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33777.htm
Only data up until 2003 though. Though I also found sites claiming the number of attacks was rising based on a different defenition of terrorist attacks as that site uses.
c) How else are you going to measure it?

Doesn't it now? Well, I'm sure they'll make note and be much interested in that it really shouldn't mean that they run free. Meanwhile they have a reality to deal with, a reality pretty damn far away from what you're saying.

"The cabinet could've been formed without them". Tchyeah. You must not have been paying attention while the cabinet was being formed. Between Lahoud and Aoun the matter wasn't as easy as just going "hey, let's not include Hezbollah"

Yeah I'm sure in your reality the holy people of Lebanon did everything right. In the mean time, this is their actual reality right now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14252208
One that could have been avoided.

Ignoring the ignorance of the first statement, the second statement is up to questioning to. The Germans allowed the terrorists that hit the WTC to be trained in their country, so would it have been justified for the US to attack Germany? If not, where do you draw the line? The Lebanese government isn't allowing Hezbollah to do its stuff willingly, but it's not like they have that much of a choice either.

The Germans didnt know the intentions of the terrorists, they probably didn't even know they were terrorists. Had the Germans known their intentions and trained them anyway, yes then they would have crossed the line.
Now that there is a ceasefire Lebanon has 15.000 troops to make a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, why couldnt these troops have been used to make a buffer before the conflict?

Now where did I say I assumed the opposite? I am questioning your allknowing knowledge of what the Lebanese people do and do not know, I'm not telling you what they do and do not know.

Well then, why do you think the Hezbollah is dealing out money?

Yes, because with an army comes bigger leverage. That doesn't mean a political party can't have one, though, but that if they do it distorts the power balance.

That's what I said.

No, because you were asked what *country* you were from.

Not that this matters, but he asked: "and where might you be from Mani?" I dont see him mentioning country until the next sentence.

No, but you did claim:
"What facts? World opinion forced Israel into this cease-fire. You are underestimating the Israeli military forces and while wiping out Hezbollah completely is of course impossible, they could have destroyed most of their assets, severely disrupted their chain of command and of course killed a significent amount of terrorists."
Implying that that would be pretty easy and relatively lossless.

I don't read that as implying it would be easy, and well I'm sure the Israeli forces could have gotten a similar K count as the US in Iraq, which is 20 enemy fighters killed, for every US soldier dead by enemy fire, leading to relatively small losses.

 

[Sander]

Well then, why do you think the Hezbollah is dealing out money?

I never questioned your assessment of Hezbollah's reasons for doing this either, I questioned your assessment of what the Lebanese people themselves thought of it.

That's what I said.

Yes, after twisting around. Here's what you initially said:

A political party can't have it's own army

Not that this matters, but he asked: "and where might you be from Mani?" I dont see him mentioning country until the next sentence.

For fuck's sake, context:

"and where might you be from Mani?

i'd like to know the country that doesnt wage war, that doesn't make political errors, that is perfect and happy in every way."

I don't read that as implying it would be easy, and well I'm sure the Israeli forces could have gotten a similar K count as the US in Iraq, which is 20 enemy fighters killed, for every US soldier dead by enemy fire, leading to relatively small losses.

You're now ignoring the losses of Iraqi soldier life as well as civilian losses.

 

[Mani]

I never questioned your assessment of Hezbollah's reasons for doing this either, I questioned your assessment of what the Lebanese people themselves thought of it.

Well I stand by what I said.

Yes, after twisting around. Here's what you initially said:

A political party can't have it's own army

I merely clarified what I meant.

For fuck's sake, context:

"and where might you be from Mani?

i'd like to know the country that doesnt wage war, that doesn't make political errors, that is perfect and happy in every way."

He could deduct what country I was from, from my answer to the original question.

You're now ignoring the losses of Iraqi soldier life as well as civilian losses.

Well I looked into it, at least for the data from 2004:
Insurgents killed by the US Army: 15.000 (from CNN)
US soldiers killed in Iraq (not specified of what cause):875 (from http://icasualties.org)

Which adds up to 17.14 killed insurgents per 1 killed US soldier.

 

[Brother None]

If they went in looking for a quick kill they would have failed, however an enduring attack could have destroyed most of Hezbollah's recources.

Yes, they know that.

I believe that's what they were going for and that they were forced into a ceasefire prematurely. Of course Israel isnt going to say this, as it would be admitting defeat. However the Hezbollah hailed the ceasefire as a victory which says enough.

It says Hezbollah are a couple of schmucks. Are you going to take their claim of victory seriously? Are you shitting me?

The only "victory" is that Israel made a mistake and drew back when it realised it had done so. That can hardly be called a victory, for either side.

No, they weren't going for the long haul. If you knew Olmert and if you knew the history of Israel in Lebanon you would know this is so.

Israel can't even kill a terrorist leader without Europe breaking out in tears, calling them assasinations. Also in the case of the ceasefire even the US was crying for Israel to stop.

And Europe can't break into tears without the US bullying them into leaving Israel alone.

Good going on highlighting only one side of world opinion, though.

And the US wasn't crying for Israel to stop. Hell, it couldn't care less, but Israel wanted to stop.

a) violent attack agaisnt civilian targets for religious/political reasons

So Stalin's state terrorism goes into this too? How about the murder on Pim Fortuyn? Or on Theo van Gogh? Religious murder or terrorism? Hell, there are enough wars with enough casualties going on right now in Africa to completely overshadow this Hezbollah/Hamas-bullshit, but, guess what, while they are violent attacks against civilian targets for political reasons, they're not considered terrorism.

So *buzz*, try again.

b) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/33777.htm
Only data up until 2003 though. Though I also found sites claiming the number of attacks was rising based on a different defenition of terrorist attacks as that site uses.

That's really funny because the most significant dip is caused by the fall of terrorist attacks in Latin America.

The amount of attacks and casualties in the Middle East, which is what we were talking about, is going up, according to those stats.

So thank you for proving me right.

c) How else are you going to measure it?

"Number of attacks" by itself is a retarded measuring rod. You need to take the population of the area and the total number of casualties and material damage into account at the very least to come up with any significant argument.

Yeah I'm sure in your reality the holy people of Lebanon did everything right.

Hah! Nice strawman, nice attempt at mouth-stuffing.

*knocks on Mani's head* Hellooooo, anybody in there?

We're talking about an overly complex political situation with talons of other countries stuck deep into the throat of an entire people, yet you dismiss it as "they could've just not included Hezbollah". You're joking, right?

In the mean time, this is their actual reality right now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14252208
One that could have been avoided.

Avoided by Israel not bombing that city? Hell, Pete, do keep your line of thinking on the logic of whose responsibility is what clear, because we've been over that bullshit once before in this thread.

The Germans didnt know the intentions of the terrorists, they probably didn't even know they were terrorists. Had the Germans known their intentions and trained them anyway, yes then they would have crossed the line.

Ok, so the US and Russia should declare war on Pakistan, is that what you're saying?

Now that there is a ceasefire Lebanon has 15.000 troops to make a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, why couldnt these troops have been used to make a buffer before the conflict?

Oh, sorry, I thought that was a rhetoric question.

Political reasons. You don't send your army to *stop* one of your party's militias. Duh gypsy.

I don't read that as implying it would be easy, and well I'm sure the Israeli forces could have gotten a similar K count as the US in Iraq, which is 20 enemy fighters killed, for every US soldier dead by enemy fire, leading to relatively small losses.

You do realise Iraq is an invasion from another part of the world, right? So the only US people there are, for the most part, soldiers. Plus some cookie civilians.

Israel is *right next* to Lebanon. Comparing the situation is a joke, at best.

A valid comparison of the situation would be comparing Lebanon to Palestine. Thankfully we know Israel made short and effective work of Palestinian terrori...oh, wait, they didn't!

Well I looked into it, at least for the data from 2004:
Insurgents killed by the US Army: 15.000 (from CNN)
US soldiers killed in Iraq (not specified of what cause):875 (from http://icasualties.org)

Which adds up to 17.14 killed insurgents per 1 killed US soldier.

Old.

We're now at:

Civilians: 30,000 to 45,000
Iraqi army: 30,000+
Insurgents: 6,837 (11,926 captured) (I don't know where the hell CNN gets its numbers from, but compare to this)
US: 2,603 (your icasualties lists 2613 US soldiers dead, so I don't know where you got your number from)
Coalition: 229

That's about 1 to every 3 insurgents. Or 1 insurgent to every 5 Iraqi soldiers (but those numbers include deaths from the US invasion, so that's hardly fair).

 

[Mani]

It says Hezbollah are a couple of schmucks. Are you going to take their claim of victory seriously? Are you shitting me?

The only "victory" is that Israel made a mistake and drew back when it realised it had done so. That can hardly be called a victory, for either side.

No, they weren't going for the long haul. If you knew Olmert and if you knew the history of Israel in Lebanon you would know this is so.

Since the attacks of Israel on Lebanon stopped, it really is a victory in their minds.

Israel was preparing an additional 30.000 troops to be used in the conflict before they were forced into the ceasefire, that tells me they were dedicated to the cause and indeed prepared to keep up the attacks for a long time.

And Europe can't break into tears without the US bullying them into leaving Israel alone.

Good going on highlighting only one side of world opinion, though.

And the US wasn't crying for Israel to stop. Hell, it couldn't care less, but Israel wanted to stop.

Eh wrong, Bush openly criticised Israel and asked for a ceasefire.

So Stalin's state terrorism goes into this too? How about the murder on Pim Fortuyn? Or on Theo van Gogh? Religious murder or terrorism? Hell, there are enough wars with enough casualties going on right now in Africa to completely overshadow this Hezbollah/Hamas-bullshit, but, guess what, while they are violent attacks against civilian targets for political reasons, they're not considered terrorism.

So *buzz*, try again.

Stalin was a tyrant not a terrorist, what's next, asking if the holocaust was caused by terrorism?
The murders of Pim and Theo were terrorism yeah.
Yep the casualties in Africa are infinitely greater than the ones on the Middle East. However most attacks on civilians there aren't meant to spread terror, they're just meant to kill everyone of the other tribe, that's genocide.

Definitions of Terorrism:

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Which is basically the same as I said.

*buzz* I'll take the refrigerator and the garden gnomes, Pat.

That's really funny because the most significant dip is caused by the fall of terrorist attacks in Latin America.

The amount of attacks and casualties in the Middle East, which is what we were talking about, is going up, according to those stats.

So thank you for proving me right.

Wrong again there brainboy, we were discussing the decline of terrorism on a global scale.

"Number of attacks" by itself is a retarded measuring rod. You need to take the population of the area and the total number of casualties and material damage into account at the very least to come up with any significant argument.

Ah so the people working for the US Department of State are retards, thanks I didnt know that. I'll mail them requesting to have them replaced by monkeys with typewriters.

Hah! Nice strawman, nice attempt at mouth-stuffing.

*knocks on Mani's head* Hellooooo, anybody in there?

We're talking about an overly complex political situation with talons of other countries stuck deep into the throat of an entire people, yet you dismiss it as "they could've just not included Hezbollah". You're joking, right?

Right, excuse me for getting sarcastic with someone who refuses to even put one ounce of blame for this whole conflict on the Lebanese.

Ok, so the US and Russia should declare war on Pakistan, is that what you're saying?

I don't know, did Pakistan train terrorists with the intention of having them hit targets in Russia or the US?

Avoided by Israel not bombing that city? Hell, Pete, do keep your line of thinking on the logic of whose responsibility is what clear, because we've been over that bullshit once before in this thread.

and:

Oh, sorry, I thought that was a rhetoric question.

Political reasons. You don't send your army to *stop* one of your party's militias. Duh gypsy.

Ah of course you don't, Look what I found here, right next to the laws of physics, it's the law of not sending your army to stop one of your party's militias.

It seems it's impossible to get this point accross to you: If they had send the army to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, they wouldn't have forced Israel to strike back.

Maybe this would have caused some civil unrest or some fights between the Lebanese army and the Hezbollah, but at least the centre of Beirut wouldn't have been a hole in the ground.

Really, can you blame Israel for attacking Hezbollah? You can only poke a dog with a stick so many times before he bites you.

You do realise Iraq is an invasion from another part of the world, right? So the only US people there are, for the most part, soldiers. Plus some cookie civilians.

Israel is *right next* to Lebanon. Comparing the situation is a joke, at best.

A valid comparison of the situation would be comparing Lebanon to Palestine. Thankfully we know Israel made short and effective work of Palestinian terrori...oh, wait, they didn't!

.....
That comparison was made on the basis of the US and Israelian armies being way more advanced, better trained and equipped.
What the hell does geography have to do with that.

However your comparison is the real joke, since there's more than a million Palastianians who live in Israel, which makes it almost impossible to stop those terrorists.

Old.

We're now at:

Civilians: 30,000 to 45,000
Iraqi army: 30,000+
Insurgents: 6,837 (11,926 captured) (I don't know where the hell CNN gets its numbers from, but compare to this)
US: 2,603 (your icasualties lists 2613 US soldiers dead, so I don't know where you got your number from)
Coalition: 229

That's about 1 to every 3 insurgents. Or 1 insurgent to every 5 Iraqi soldiers (but those numbers include deaths from the US invasion, so that's hardly fair).

My data was from the year 2004 alone, just that 1 year.
Apparently CNN gets its news from that unreliable source called the US Army.
Further more my data was only showing the kills made by the US Army on enemy fighters and the total deaths of US soldiers alltogether, which was relevant as it was to point out that Israel could succeed in Lebanon with relatively low losses to their armed forces.

 

[Brother None]

Since the attacks of Israel on Lebanon stopped, it really is a victory in their minds.

Yes, as would it have been were they all slaughtered themselves. They're insane, remember?

Israel was preparing an additional 30.000 troops to be used in the conflict before they were forced into the ceasefire, that tells me they were dedicated to the cause and indeed prepared to keep up the attacks for a long time.

Prove it.

Eh wrong, Bush openly criticised Israel and asked for a ceasefire.

Oh, did he? I guess that completely proves me wrong, then.

Do you even have an inkling of how international politics work?

Which is basically the same as I said.

Nice try, sporky, but you said "a) violent attack agaisnt civilian targets for religious/political reasons"

Where is the mention of instilling terror or propegating fear? You were completely off, and you are once again trying to pretend you didn't say what you said. Kind of hard to do that when it's down in writing, though.

Wrong again there brainboy, we were discussing the decline of terrorism on a global scale.

Not really, you brought "global" into a discussion about the middle east. Don't pretend that I mentioned global anywhere.

Even moreso, we were discussing fighting terrorism by the methods Israel and the USA have been applying. These methods apply to the middle east, where terrorism is...on the rise.

Ah so the people working for the US Department of State are retards, thanks I didnt know that. I'll mail them requesting to have them replaced by monkeys with typewriters.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Please keep your false reasoning away from me.

Right, excuse me for getting sarcastic with someone who refuses to even put one ounce of blame for this whole conflict on the Lebanese.

Haven't I? Not an ounce? Really? Because I haven't been supporting Israel since the start? Because I don't think Hezbollah has no raison d'etre and certainly no right to bear arms? Because I don't believe Lebanon needs to be shut off and have Iranian and Syrian influence distilled out of it?

Well, thank you for telling me what I think.

And you weren't being sarcastic. Again, don't try to deny what you yourself said, it gets tiring.

I don't know, did Pakistan train terrorists with the intention of having them hit targets in Russia or the US?

Yes. Duh. Do you know anything?

Ah of course you don't, Look what I found here, right next to the laws of physics, it's the law of not sending your army to stop one of your party's militias.

Again you show a surprising lack of understanding of the political situation there. How old are you?

It seems it's impossible to get this point accross to you: If they had send the army to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, they wouldn't have forced Israel to strike back.

Nobody forced Israel into anything. All Hezbollah did was kidnap two soldiers. It's happened before, it'll happen again, Israel chose to attack at this point, underlining "forced" doesn't change that.

And again, you show a complete lack of understanding of the Lebanese political situation with your "if they had sent their army to stop Hezbollah." Sure that's rhetorically true, *if* their army had the manpower to defeat an organisation like Hezbollah and *if* Hezbollah didn't enjoy great public support in the south. Both of these, however, are true.

Maybe this would have caused some civil unrest or some fights between the Lebanese army and the Hezbollah, but at least the centre of Beirut wouldn't have been a hole in the ground.

Oh no, it would've been much better. Do you even know what the Lebanese civil war is, kid?

That comparison was made on the basis of the US and Israelian armies being way more advanced, better trained and equipped.
What the hell does geography have to do with that.

The fact that Katushas, while shortranged, can actually hit Israeli ground. Or do you think Hezbollah's arsenal is depleted. Snurk.

However your comparison is the real joke, since there's more than a million Palastianians who live in Israel, which makes it almost impossible to stop those terrorists.

Yeah, totally, and there are no Palestinians in Lebanon! By your comparison Palestinians being in both Israel and the Palestinian grounds means the Palestinian groundwar is unwinneable, ignoring the fact that much of Southern Lebanon is...right...Palestinian! Good going, got anymore ignorance to display?

Further more my data was only showing the kills made by the US Army on enemy fighters and the total deaths of US soldiers alltogether, which was relevant as it was to point out that Israel could succeed in Lebanon with relatively low losses to their armed forces.

Not really, the comparison is moot. Why? Because the US may have a low casualty rate in Iraq, but rather than "succeeding" all they've done is push Iraq towards civil war. Israel might have an equal casualty rate, does that mean they'll have an equal success rate, i.e. 0%?

 

[Mani]

Prove it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14055188/

Oh, did he? I guess that completely proves me wrong, then.

Do you even have an inkling of how international politics work?

Well, what did Bush mean then when he called for a ceasefire?

Nice try, sporky, but you said "a) violent attack agaisnt civilian targets for religious/political reasons"

Where is the mention of instilling terror or propegating fear? You were completely off, and you are once again trying to pretend you didn't say what you said. Kind of hard to do that when it's down in writing, though.

The terror part of terrorism should be fairly obvious, even to you.

Not really, you brought "global" into a discussion about the middle east. Don't pretend that I mentioned global anywhere.

Even moreso, we were discussing fighting terrorism by the methods Israel and the USA have been applying. These methods apply to the middle east, where terrorism is...on the rise.

Yeah, I brought up the decline of global terrorism. I don't pretend you mentioned global, but since you responded to my claim global terrorism was declining I assumed the response was actually aimed at me.

And terrorism is on the rise in the middle east, I never said it wasn't.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Please keep your false reasoning away from me.

Well excuse me for putting faith in the authorities of western democracies.

Haven't I? Not an ounce? Really? Because I haven't been supporting Israel since the start? Because I don't think Hezbollah has no raison d'etre and certainly no right to bear arms? Because I don't believe Lebanon needs to be shut off and have Iranian and Syrian influence distilled out of it?

Well, thank you for telling me what I think.

And you weren't being sarcastic. Again, don't try to deny what you yourself said, it gets tiring.

Bacause Israel is at fault for defending itself? Because terrorist organizations have a valid reason to exist? Because Iranian and Syrian influence has been so rewarding for Lebanon?

You're welcome.

Again you show a surprising lack of understanding of the political situation there. How old are you?

Why? Because I think the Lebanese goverment should have tried to prevent the Hezbollah from attacking Israel?
I'm 3 years old, these posts are just me banging my head randomly on the keyboard.

Oh no, it would've been much better. Do you even know what the Lebanese civil war is, kid?

Right, the Lebanese civil war was a war with more sides than a D20, all militias have since been dissolved, except one: Hezbollah.
Of course this war ended 16 years ago.

The fact that Katushas, while shortranged, can actually hit Israeli ground. Or do you think Hezbollah's arsenal is depleted. Snurk.

Ah the awesome Katyusha, 4000+ fired causing a massive 44 Israeli civilian casualties. Still, a great weapon for spreading terror, but destruction... not so much. Narf.

Yeah, totally, and there are no Palestinians in Lebanon! By your comparison Palestinians being in both Israel and the Palestinian grounds means the Palestinian groundwar is unwinneable, ignoring the fact that much of Southern Lebanon is...right...Palestinian! Good going, got anymore ignorance to display?

Your ignorance is on display when I say Palestinian terrorist attacks from inside of Israel are hard to defend against and you mention more Palestinians outside of Israel.

Not really, the comparison is moot. Why? Because the US may have a low casualty rate in Iraq, but rather than "succeeding" all they've done is push Iraq towards civil war. Israel might have an equal casualty rate, does that mean they'll have an equal success rate, i.e. 0%?

Terrorists groups tried to incite a civil war in Iraq some months ago, but the worst of this has already past. Really Iraq is finally heading the right way with a decreasing number of insurgent attacks and the Iraqi army getting stronger by the day. Sure the presence of the US military will be required there for quite some time but within one or two years Iraq should be a stable nation governed only by itself.

I'd say that is a success.

 

[Brother None]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14055188/

Israel’s government decided Thursday not to expand its battle with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon for now, but authorized the army to call up 30,000 reserve soldiers in case the fighting intensifies.

How does that prove what you said?

Well, what did Bush mean then when he called for a ceasefire?

Apeassing the UN, mostly, but also just agreeing with what Israel itself was interested in.

The terror part of terrorism should be fairly obvious, even to you.

Even to me? I'm sorry, I'm not that one that completely failed to mention it in a given definition of it.

You have real issues admitting you're wrong, don't you? you keep denying your own words, which is just weak.

And terrorism is on the rise in the middle east, I never said it wasn't.

Good, can we then agree that the Amero-Israeli model of fighting terrorism, the one you so support, is *not working*?

Well excuse me for putting faith in the authorities of western democracies.

That's funny, because putting unquestioning faith into authorities is the antinome of democracy.

Bacause Israel is at fault for defending itself?

Never said that.

Because terrorist organizations have a valid reason to exist?

Never said that.

Because Iranian and Syrian influence has been so rewarding for Lebanon?

Never said that.

Why? Because I think the Lebanese goverment should have tried to prevent the Hezbollah from attacking Israel?

No, not because you think they should've done so. Because you think they COULD have.

Right, the Lebanese civil war was a war with more sides than a D20, all militias have since been dissolved, except one: Hezbollah.
Of course this war ended 16 years ago.

Ended? It ended in the same veign that the Russo-Japanese stopped fighting after WW II, without a peace-treaty, without any promise of peace. If those two don't slug it out it's through pure luck, and Lebanon is even worse.

Everyone knows this, especially the Lebanese. As horrible as an invasion by Israel might be, it does a lot of damage and is then interjected by an international peace force, which is probably what the Lebanese were aiming for. This is not even mildly comparable to the horror of a repitition of the Civil War.

Ah the awesome Katyusha, 4000+ fired causing a massive 44 Israeli civilian casualties. Still, a great weapon for spreading terror, but destruction... not so much. Narf.

Katushas are just a part of the equasion. As a bordering country Lebanon would have a lot of chances to invade with terrorist strike forces, not something Israel could stop no matter how people they put on the border.

Terrorism against civilians is a major detraction in a war, though.

Your ignorance is on display when I say Palestinian terrorist attacks from inside of Israel are hard to defend against and you mention more Palestinians outside of Israel.

No, it isn't. Besides the fact that this would not be ignorance but a logical fallacy, it's also not true.

Because your logic is that Israel is not succeeding in the Palestinian Authority's Area because the PA has its own people inside Israel.

Well, I then reply, so does Lebanon, so does Hezbollah.

Point counterpoint.

Terrorists groups tried to incite a civil war in Iraq
some months ago, but the worst of this has already past.

AAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Really Iraq is finally heading the right way with a decreasing number of insurgent attacks and the Iraqi army getting stronger by the day. Sure the presence of the US military will be required there for quite some time but within one or two years Iraq should be a stable nation governed only by itself.

I'd say that is a success.

You'd say so? Heh, that's funny...I'll admit that attacks surged in April if you admit that it's not that much better now.

Your conclusion is very clearly wrong, not in the least because it is contradicted by American generals themselves. You're concluding that since the worst surge of violence is over that we're done? That despite the fact that the day-to-day violence in Iraq is still much worse than in 2004 and 2005?

You see, the funny thing is your logic would have also roughly held in 2004. Are we much better off now?

You can't call it a success when the process isn't finished. And it isn't. The Iraqi army is still a joke. Insurgency is still widespread and violent, still claiming at least hundreds of lives every week.