HizbAllah kills 12 Israelis

[Tr0n]

Shouldn't this be in politics now?

 

[The Monkey]

Shouldn't this be in politics now?

It is.

 

[15357]

People die in Lebannon, people die in Israel..... :O


People die in war? :O D: D: D:

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I read that article. Not only is it biased,ignorant on the issue of islam, terrorism and Westernworld, it's prevocative. It's basically declaring 'World War 3' on the islamic world.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Disregarding the 8 killed and the town shelled preceeded by years of shelling, ofcourse not.
But thats not what they're after, your question is loaded as it implies Israel is randomly bombing a large civilian population.

Obviously I'm implying that.
You may not have noticed the massive exodus of civilians that took place, and however many dead just to "rescue" two people.
There are cases where civilian casualties are an unavoidable outcome on the path to a greater good, but this is very blatantly not one of those times, as you agree.

You still haven't explained why you support them despite this huge problem.

If Israel is "using a cannon to shoot a fly", that's not bad tactics or an error. They're one of the most advanced militaries in the world.
If Israel is vaporizing an entire country that is a deliberate decision. If they have killed civilians and destroyed their homes, that is a deliberate. I've watched and read the opinions of enough analysts to know I'm not the only one who thinks Israel is trying to teach Lebanon a lesson here, as though Hezbollah was somehow their fault.

Israel has declared war on Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, and you still haven't provided a decent reason why that's something to accept with less than a shrug and "oh well, that could have gone better."

So yes, Israel is acting almost identical to Hezbollah here.
No-one has ennumerated any signifigant difference, except that one is state-sanctioned and vaguely "more noble."

"if that were the case, we're no better than Hezbollah either"
The joke writes itself.
There is a difference between unavoidable civilian casualties and avoidable civilian casualties.
The vast number of dead from both sides of this retarded conflict are all but exculsively avoidable.
In recent years, the US has been at least 50/50 with Afghanistan and Iraq.

"O RLY? So defence is religious, cool, i'll remember that.
Israeli jews might pull the "Jews Victim card" once in a while, but there's only 1 side constantly pulling to religion as a justification for constant terror and anihilation."

Now you are implying things: That Israel's massive attack here counts as "defence".
There is a difference between defence and retaliation.
Religious motivation has to be "constant" to be relevant...?
So surely you have at least one good non-religious reason to support either side, given that religion is a veritable non-factor in Israel's motivations?

So you want to disarm Hezbollah.
How does randomly shelling Lebanon acheive that aim at all?
How is disarming Hezbollah the only possible means of acheiving peace?
Again, the only excuse anyone has provided is that Hezbollah is so evil and terrible that Israel can do anything and still be great in comparison.

One team being an asshole can't be your sole justification for war. That's what happened to the US in Iraq, as though calling the other team a terrorist suddenly gives you carte blanche to commit intense stupidity.

"Israel might be a Jewish state, but large portions of Israeli muslims live there, along with a good portion of Christians.
Its a nation, not a freekin Zionist organisation ffs."

You brought up zionism, not me.
You keep making references to territory as though that's actually important. "Israel has territory, therefore they are justifed" kind of reasoning.
As I've already said, statehood isn't an excuse for stupidity.

The fact that other religions live there too doesn't mean you have provided a single non-religious reason to support either side.

 

[PvtRyan]

Reminds me, are those kidnapped troops still alive? Can't remember hearing anything about that the last weeks.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't think anyone really cares about them.

Israel used the initial outrage of the kidnapping as a justification for whatever the hell they're doing now.

 

[Korgoth]

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hizbollah killed 12 Israeli soldiers on Sunday in its deadliest rocket strike yet and Israeli bombs killed 19 Lebanese civilians as Lebanon rejected a draft U.N. resolution to end the 26-day-old war

i'm not saying its intentional... im just sayin, do the math.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I don't think anyone really cares about them.

Israel used the initial outrage of the kidnapping as a justification for whatever the hell they're doing now.

More like the drop that spilled the bucket.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What bucket?

You have continually failed to describe any justification behind your support.

If you can't justify your stance, then what you have is a nothing more than a religious belief.

 

[MjM]

You can't destroy Hezbollah militarily. You only strengthen their resolve and justify their grievances.

You have to undermine their militant methodology by confronting them politically ... empower Lebanon to assert substantive sovereignty over their lands and co-opt Hezbollah into the democratic political framework ... like the IRA/Sinn Féin.

We need people with a long-term and less provocative perspective to provide guidance.

 

[Ome_Vince]

What bucket?

You have continually failed to describe any justification behind your support.

If you can't justify your stance, then what you have is a nothing more than a religious belief.

Religious belief wtf? Read the post i made. I have described enough, shown and proven enough and repeated continiously what and how my support is, and what i'm countering, so i have no idea what your aiming at.
I'll assume you havent read it, so i'll await your response.

What Bucket? => How about over 6 years of terror on Northern Israel? (disregarding the constant terror coming from Southern Lebanon starting from the 70's with our PLO friends, yeah they really acted in Lebanese interests).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You mean this response?

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1998585&postcount=45

Again: being against Hezbollah is not a reason to support Israel. This is not a black-and-white choice.

I'm better than Hezbollah so, by that 'logic', you should be supporting everything I say too.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Oeps, didnt see that post.
Here ya go:

Obviously I'm implying that.
You may not have noticed the massive exodus of civilians that took place, and however many dead just to "rescue" two people.
There are cases where civilian casualties are an unavoidable outcome on the path to a greater good, but this is very blatantly not one of those times, as you agree.

Yes, though with "Just to rescue two people" your rediculing not only the current conflict, but scrapping decades of build-up.

If the UN resolution had actually been pulled through, instead of only Israel obeying to it, this crisis wouldnt have been.
Thats why i so strongly support the end of Hezbollah's military wing, who in the end serves no purpose but provoke wars.
If they dont end: we'll be sitting here again in a matter of years, just like in the other invasions.
I dont know if you enjoy this loophole of crap, but i dont, for both countries sake. As a lebanese woman put it best:
"If Iran wants to wage a war on Israel, let them fight it on their soil, instead of ours"

You still haven't explained why you support them despite this huge problem.

I actually have several times. I dont support Israel's response, and wish to see this end asap for both countries sake, since Israel is from day 1 (including the unprovoked assault) STILL being shelled by many katyusha rockets on a daily basis.
I support Israel's right to defend itself, though i do have critisism and support critisism to condem "shooting the flies with cannons".
Yet in cases of responsibility and preventing this from happening again, Hezbollah carries the majority of the blame for this whole crisis, and should be disarmed, along with an international force making sure terror activities end.

If Israel is "using a cannon to shoot a fly", that's not bad tactics or an error. They're one of the most advanced militaries in the world.

Have you ever read up on 4th generation warfare? The time where you were battling men in uniforms, with clear frontlines and basis is over.
You know what the difference is between an armed threat/militant and a civilian? => 1 carries a gun, the other doesnt.
Throw the gun on the floor and he/she is a civilian again.
Time and time again history has shown fighting this kind of warfare is almost impossible for modern armies, especially democratic countries.
Its not a matter of "Israel is so advanced it could have rolled in and taken care of them" => Have you ever taken the time to read up on not only Hezbollah's tactics of "human shield" but also its amazing training, arms and discipline.
These arent your average Palestinian Hamas terrorists, these are fierce combat troops who have studied the basics of this type of warfare.
They know where to station themselves, the Israeli's are not scared of them for nothing => they've been beaten by Hezbollah before..
Israel is paranoid about them, especially when the UN demands them to disarm, and they only get more powerfull and an even bigger threat..

If Israel is vaporizing an entire country that is a deliberate decision. If they have killed civilians and destroyed their homes, that is a deliberate. I've watched and read the opinions of enough analysts to know I'm not the only one who thinks Israel is trying to teach Lebanon a lesson here, as though Hezbollah was somehow their fault.

First of all the "vaporizing" is again loading up your argument here. Israel is not vaporizing the country. Thousands at least would be dead, perhaps even per day if that were so.
Second: Who carries responsibility for Hezbollah? They control the entire Southern part of the country and have seats in the parliament, and offices spread through the country, often in civilian areas.
I'm not saying the Lebanese are to blame, but we are all to keen to generalise the IDF's actions on the country, like the Galloway **** who called Israel a terrorist state, yet we all do our best to exclude all these terrorist organisations from their home-land, no matter how dug in they are (like Hamas controlling the entire country now).

Israel has declared war on Lebanon, not just Hezbollah, and you still haven't provided a decent reason why that's something to accept with less than a shrug and "oh well, that could have gone better."

There you go again, rediculing the situation. Read up on 4th generation warfare, and you'll see its no clear cut who's who and who's supporting who, especially when schools serve as human shield, as do hospitals as storage and base.

In some sense, this conflict (which i hope will end asap) has brought this endless shit to the table, which will now hopefully be resolved because its finally reached the worlds attention.

So yes, Israel is acting almost identical to Hezbollah here.
No-one has ennumerated any signifigant difference, except that one is state-sanctioned and vaguely "more noble."

You want an explanation on what the difference is between terrorist organisations and Israel?
Here we go:

-Terrorist organisations consist of people who have chosen to fight for a certain goal. There are no innocents, and while often using "human shields" they bring not only their own home-land in danger, in this case they're not even acting in any Lebanese interests. Lebanon has none of these agenda-points:
*whipe out Israel
*turn Lebanon in Iran2
Lebanon had no interest in being pulled into a war by this organisation, no matter what you're thoughts on Israel are.
The only interests Hezbollah forfills is its own and Syria + Iran's, who also happen to be funding, arming and were amongst the founding fathers.
Hezbollah's methods are shelling Israeli towns and acts of terror to provoke a military response by the IDF. Judging their positions, they probably dont even care if their own civilians get killed (to say the least).
Otherwise they would not station amongst them.

-Israel is a country, where the population is turning paranoid after decades of terror, in which the IDF does its best to protect its people, with no goals of anihilation.
By default every citizen of Israel is just as innocent as any Lebanese civilian.
They did not choose for this war, as neither did Lebanon. They were pulled into it, by this unprovoked attack on Israel, by this highly trained threat.
The Israeli government acts in the interest of its population, to protect it, which Hezbollah does not.

The differances are: goals and choice.

"if that were the case, we're no better than Hezbollah either"
The joke writes itself.
There is a difference between unavoidable civilian casualties and avoidable civilian casualties.
The vast number of dead from both sides of this retarded conflict are all but exculsively avoidable.
In recent years, the US has been at least 50/50 with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even though these tactics are out of proportion, how do you describe "unavoidable" and "avoidable" casualties when Hezbollah mingles not only its infrastructure but also its weapons amongst civilians?

Now you are implying things: That Israel's massive attack here counts as "defence".
There is a difference between defence and retaliation.
Religious motivation has to be "constant" to be relevant...?
So surely you have at least one good non-religious reason to support either side, given that religion is a veritable non-factor in Israel's motivations?

Israel is going in to make an end to Hezbollah, so it cant terrorize their country anymore, like its been doing for many years, agree with how or not, but hows that not defence?
Religious motivation to attack Lebanon and bomb it? constant or not, it doesnt make sense unless it forfills any religious goals like:
Islamic extremists grabbing and using religious motivation to call on muslims to destroy the "Jewish state". Strengthened by their apology when killing Israel muslim children.
Its a religious war against the Jewish state, i thought that example i posted on the 1948 bombing before Israel was even a state, was a nice example on how these organisations are not out for "oppression" but to battle the thought of a Jewish state.
It is a religious war, .. your right.. but not from Israel's side. Their policies and methods definatly not make them "goody-little-2-shoes", but there's no religious agenda, since Israel is not gaining anything out of this war.
If they're lucky, they might end Hezbollah.

So you want to disarm Hezbollah.
How does randomly shelling Lebanon acheive that aim at all?
How is disarming Hezbollah the only possible means of acheiving peace?
Again, the only excuse anyone has provided is that Hezbollah is so evil and terrible that Israel can do anything and still be great in comparison.

-Randomly shelling Lebanon is not true, it seems random since Hezbollah has its operations well organised and spread out through society.
-Because history has shown Hezbollah keeps attacking and provoking, because it is utilizing this kind of warfare as Iran's puppet to destroy Israel.
-Hezbollah fighters all support this goal, otherwise they wouldnt have signed up. They choose constantly, disregarding whats in the interest of "their nation".

One team being an asshole can't be your sole justification for war. That's what happened to the US in Iraq, as though calling the other team a terrorist suddenly gives you carte blanche to commit intense stupidity.

Who said anything about carte blanche? Does everything have to be black and white? Its not : bad or good.
Dont pull to things like: evil - good or justified or evil.

You brought up zionism, not me.
You keep making references to territory as though that's actually important. "Israel has territory, therefore they are justifed" kind of reasoning.
As I've already said, statehood isn't an excuse for stupidity.

huh?
Your comparing Israel as a country, with a terrorist organisation where people have all chosen for the path of hatred and terror with the purpose of destroying Israel.
Bring me Israel's goals of destruction please.

The fact that other religions live there too doesn't mean you have provided a single non-religious reason to support either side.

uhm, actually yes i have a multitude of times, but you dont seem to get it:
Israel is a country with multiple religions, out for survival, compared to a pure extremist-muslim terrorist organisation, consisting of people fighting to destroy this nation.
Its not Jew vs Muslim, its extremist-muslim organisation vs an entire country.
Israel, having many religions, is not on a Holy War, like these organisations are, there is no religious motivation for their acts.

If any "hidden agenda" would be the case, religious it is not. Perhaps upping the defence budget i dont know, but religious doesnt make sense.

Now, before we continue this swirl of quote-wars, we both know our opinions, so lets focus on the point where we disagree on:
-Your comparisson of Israel with Hezbollah.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Thats why i so strongly support the end of Hezbollah's military wing, who in the end serves no purpose but provoke wars.

There is a difference between purpose and results.
Anti-Israeli groups have a very specific purpose.
The liklihood of Hezbollah's full disarmament is so low that I don't even know why they bothered to try.
When in history has any group or country volunteered to fully disarm?

Still this, and I can't stress this enough, is not about how you hate Hezbollah.
It is about why you support Israel.

So I will disregard further points that simply re-iterate a disdain for hezbollah.

I support Israel's right to defend itself, though i do have critisism and support critisism to condem "shooting the flies with cannons".

You haven't explained how this action is in any way defensive given that you say diplomacy is the only option for peace, and you obviously don't hold much criticism for their tactics, given the continual repetition of how "4th generation warfare changes everything".

If "4th generation warfare changes everything" then Israel should try, I don't know, modifying their tactics accordingly.
Maybe a finer touch than mortar fire?
Also, why does Israel have the right to defend itself and not Hezbollah? You haven't made that clear.

Israel is paranoid about them

...so what?
You mention paranoia twice in this post, as though it's a good excuse.

In some sense, this conflict (which i hope will end asap) has brought this endless shit to the table, which will now hopefully be resolved because its finally reached the worlds attention.

So they are justified because the temper tantrum is getting the world's attention for the first time in history...?

Terrorist organisations consist of people who have chosen to fight for a certain goal.

Unlike Israel?

There are no innocents, and [...] they bring not only their own home-land in danger, in this case they're not even acting in any Lebanese interests.

Unlike Israel?

Based on your description, the only difference between a terrorist and an israeli soldier is that one uses "human shields" and the other is state-sanctioned.

Israel is a country, where the population is turning paranoid after decades of terror, in which the IDF does its best to protect its people, with no goals of anihilation.

This is like a great summary of all your worst points.
-Israel is a country.
Who cares?
-Israel is "paranoid".
Who cares?
-Hezbollah are more terroristy.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is doing its best.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is acting in defensively.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is not trying to annihalate anything.
That's pretty clearly untrue.
You're contradicting yourself a lot.

By default every citizen of Israel is just as innocent as any Lebanese civilian. They did not choose for this war.

Who cares what average Joe Israeli thinks?
I'm asking you why you support the actions of their government, not why you pity the "paranoid", powerless masses.

The Israeli government acts in the interest of its population, to protect it, which Hezbollah does not.

You just said that the Israeli people did not choose this war and never supported it.
Now you're saying that the war was done in for their benefit by the people they voted for.

The differances are: goals and choice.

What? "Goals" and "choice?"
Could your summary be any more abstract?

The only goal you've pointed out for Israel are the complete destruction of Hezbollah in the name of "defense".

Israel is not gaining anything out of this war.
If they're lucky, they might end Hezbollah.

Self-contradiction is a problem with many of your points, such as this one.

Your comparing Israel as a country, with a terrorist organisation where people have all chosen for the path of hatred and terror with the purpose of destroying Israel.
Bring me Israel's goals of destruction please.

"If they're lucky, they might end Hezbollah."
You wrote that.

As for having hatred and causing terror, can you honestly say that that doesn't apply to what Israel is doing right now?

One is an organization fighting for survival, compared to an organisation fighting to destroy.

I paraphrased the above to remove your recurrent bad points like "Hezbollah are terrorists but Israel is a country".

Just by reading that, can you tell which one is which?
They're both trying to kill eachother and they're both trying to survive. Both have goals mainly concerned with the aquisition of territory.




At the end of your post, you asked me to stop calling Hezbollah and Israel the same.
Can you please ennumerate any relevant difference between the two?
Keep in mind that you still haven't done so yet.

 

[Tr0n]

Watch vince go around in circles and avoid your questions.

 

[JNightshade]

HizbAllah

Subtle :|

 

[Ome_Vince]

Around? He's making me repeat my answers over, and over and over and over.
Well, here we go again.

There is a difference between purpose and results.
Anti-Israeli groups have a very specific purpose.
The liklihood of Hezbollah's full disarmament is so low that I don't even know why they bothered to try.
When in history has any group or country volunteered to fully disarm?

The IRA?
They volunteered, and i'm betting there's more =>but the point was the Lebanese government should have done this, or an international force.

Still this, and I can't stress this enough, is not about how you hate Hezbollah.
It is about why you support Israel.

So I will disregard further points that simply re-iterate a disdain for hezbollah.

Uhm no, if you even read my posts you'll see:
Throughout the course of this conflict, Hezbollah and similar organisations have drawn Lebanon into war a couple of times with their terror activities across te border.
In order to prevent future escalations, Hezbollah and similar organisations must be disarmed, and an international force must make sure none come back.

I'll start copy pasting this into a word document so next time i can paste it when you ask again.

You haven't explained how this action is in any way defensive given that you say diplomacy is the only option for peace, and you obviously don't hold much criticism for their tactics, given the continual repetition of how "4th generation warfare changes everything".

O come on, its offensive to destroy Hezbollah for defensive purposes, because they're getting terrorized for years..
England and France did the same when Nazi-Germany invaded Poland -> yet Nazi-Germany is still seen as the aggressor and bares the majority of the blame.

Israel's action, although out of proportion is defensive to once and for all ensure the safety of their northern border.

If "4th generation warfare changes everything" then Israel should try, I don't know, modifying their tactics accordingly.
Maybe a finer touch than mortar fire?
Also, why does Israel have the right to defend itself and not Hezbollah? You haven't made that clear.

Yes, their tactics clearly show extreme paranoid reactions. Though i dont really see how Hezbollah is "defending itself".
How by randomly assaulting Israel once in a while?

...so what?
You mention paranoia twice in this post, as though it's a good excuse.

No, you draw it to an "excuse". I merely explained it as a more plausable explaination as to how the Israeli's are responding to terror-attacks instead of the conspiracy "Israel is a terrorist" explaination.

So they are justified because the temper tantrum is getting the world's attention for the first time in history...?

Wtf are you talking about justified all the time?
The sentance is not justifying anything, its talking about a bright-spot in this whole shithole. For the last 6 years the world HAS been ignoring terrorist actions by Hezbollah on Israel (like a similar attack, failed attempt last year).

Unlike Israel?

Really? So the Israeli's have chosen to be attacked on their northern border by Hezbollah? So the Israeli people, just like the Lebanese have chosen to be bombed?

Unlike Israel?

Let me see: Hezbollah's goals are to turn Lebanon into a 2e Iran, and destroy Israel = i dont really see how thats what the Lebanese wanted.
Hezbollah engaging in these assaults, and utilizing those tactics endangers their country, without doing a single thing for the country => only their own agenda.

Please explain how Israel is similar to this. Perhaps they want to make Lebanon into a Jewish State. hmm, or make sure the world hate's them enough, so .. uhm, yeah.

Based on your description, the only difference between a terrorist and an israeli soldier is that one uses "human shields" and the other is state-sanctioned.

Wrong, god i hate repeating myself: its not only methods, and goals, but also the fact that this is an organisation, sponsored and co-founded by other countries, to push for a political agenda not in the interest of their country.
Like Franco being sponsored by Hitler, like the Rote Armee Fractione etc. They're no resistance, they're guerilla's with their own agenda, in this case: anihilation of Israel and turning Lebanon into a second Iran.

This is like a great summary of all your worst points.
-Israel is a country.
Who cares?
-Israel is "paranoid".
Who cares?
-Hezbollah are more terroristy.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is doing its best.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is acting in defensively.
You haven't really explained how.
-Israel is not trying to annihalate anything.
That's pretty clearly untrue.
You're contradicting yourself a lot.

Thats what you assume, i'm tired of having to repost things to explain it for you who obviously loves to pull certain "interesting elements" out of a post and redicule it.

Who cares what average Joe Israeli thinks?
I'm asking you why you support the actions of their government, not why you pity the "paranoid", powerless masses.

Right now Israel is doing a ground assault, i do support that: bombardments i dont support.
The reason i support that, is because i would like to see the region free of these organisations that are constantly luring the area into war.
Whether Israel's response is good or not:
-They did not start this war
-They did not provoke this war
-This is something that has been going on for some time.
I support the goal of Hezbollah's end, which the international community has ignored. Even when disarming it was put in a UN resolution.
Not only for Israel's sake, but especially for these countries.
So to put it into extreme black and white, and rediculing sense, which is what you love:
-Israel has to end as nation, or these organisations.

Its one or the other, history has shown this repeated loophole of crap over and over and over.
I support the last part, whatever my own critisism is with Israel's "tact".
And i've stated enough reasons why in the name of common-sense you should support the end of these organisations, without trying to "justify" them, for i dont see many people trying to "justify" and "rationalize" the Nazi's.
England and France were no goodguys either, sharing a portion of the responsibility, yet the Nazi's end, meant peace in Europe had a chance. Isnt that what we want for the MidEast too?
It really is either Israel is destroyed, or these organisations (who have that as their goal), are disarmed or destroyed.

And lets not have fantasies on how the Lebanese civilians could have been able to disarm this immensely well-trained and equiped guerilla force.
The government might have a while back, but not now, Iran has equipped and trained Hezbollah to be hugely succesfull in the 4th generation warfare tactics.
Meaning any attempt by the Lebanese government now, would result in a Civil War.
An international force or the Israeli's are the ones capable of doing so. Since the Israeli's obviously lack the strategy in preventing these organisations from popping up, i'm hoping for the International force to come in asap.

You just said that the Israeli people did not choose this war and never supported it.
Now you're saying that the war was done in for their benefit by the people they voted for.

Uhm, yes? You want me to explain to you the differance between a government attacking to defend its nation, and this organisation who's out to destroy it?
Or whether the Israeli vote that was cast a while back included: "i now agree with invading lebanon for no apparant reason"?

What? "Goals" and "choice?"
Could your summary be any more abstract?

Sure, lets make a list:
Hezbollah:
-Anihilate Israel
-Found a second Iran

Israel:
-Survive
-Make lots of money
-(fill in here whatever conspiracy you believe in)

Differance in choice, is that people choose to be Hezbollah with those set of goals, but people dont choose to be Israeli = they are born Israeli and simply, like the Lebanese want to make a living.

Differance in goals is, Hezbollah's agenda is founding a new sort of religious state, and anihilating the Israeli state.
Israel's goals is as a country survive + whatever conspiracy you believe in i dont know.

The only goal you've pointed out for Israel are the complete destruction of Hezbollah in the name of "defense".

Are you missing stuff on purpose? I can see what you're trying to do, but your going through layers of crap in an attempt to simplify the situation.
Its not black and white, stop thinking it is.
Hezbollah, is not a resistance organisation, for many reasons i've allready pointed out, its a terrorist organisation, doing its best to de-rail peace between Arabic countries with Israel (like its attempts to de-rail Palestine-Israeli peace last year).
No resistance in the world has even remotely acted or stated similar goals as Hezbollah.

The fact that they will never stop terrorizing Israel, and destabalizing the area, means to ensure peace, and this from never happening again, they must disarm and imo preferbly cease to exist.

Self-contradiction is a problem with many of your points, such as this one.

Please explain, for you raped anther sentance me thinks
I'm countering the allready rising so called "goals for Israel" on why their response was so out of proportion.
Israel is not gaining territory, money or anything from this, only hopefully the end of Hezbollah.

"If they're lucky, they might end Hezbollah."
You wrote that.

As for having hatred and causing terror, can you honestly say that that doesn't apply to what Israel is doing right now?

Yes, thats their goal.
Causing Hatred with this response? Probably, and most likely yes.
Just as (let me give you a rediculing example):
"when a person slaps me in the face for 6 years constantly, then i get fed up and beat the shit out of him, his family will get pissed and want revenge."
Its a circel of violance that wont end unless these organisations cease to exist or are fully disarmed.

I paraphrased the above to remove your recurrent bad points like "Hezbollah are terrorists but Israel is a country".

You mean your assumed bad points? your constant rapage of posts, in your attempt to redicule and simplify what i'm saying? Ah yes i understand.

Just by reading that, can you tell which one is which?
They're both trying to kill eachother and they're both trying to survive. Both have goals mainly concerned with the aquisition of territory.

See thats your problem, you simplify things so rediculously that it doesnt even make the slightest sense.

You cant classify millions of mixed-religion people as "an organisation" calling that irrelevant.

At the end of your post, you asked me to stop calling Hezbollah and Israel the same.
Can you please ennumerate any relevant difference between the two?
Keep in mind that you still haven't done so yet.

O yes i have, multiple times, and you keep taking them building assumptions on them and attempting to redicule them.
I'm tired of repeating myself, i stated my reasoning above. No sense i repeating that. I've answered your questions a number of times, and if all you want to read is: "a country and blabla" then go ahead.

I'm not saying or claiming Israel is super, totally innocent and not to blame, its just totally rediculous to compare Israel with Hezbollah, and I havent seen any credible argumentation;
You're only trying to simplify things to black and white which dude, the world is not, and especially this situation.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I have combed through your post to remove the following:

-Factual errors.
-Arguments irrelevant to the discussion.
-Statements that could apply to either side.
-Arguments that follow Godwin's law.
and
-Arguments that are self-contradictory.

Here is what was left:

Israel's action is out of proportion.
[...]
Israel didn't start it. (How so?)
[...]
Israelis obviously lack the strategy needed to prevent anti-israeli organisations from popping up.

That's it.

If you disagree with that summary, please show an argument from your post that does not fit elimination under the listed criteria.

Out of the three points, only the second one is a valid argument but, as the parentheses state, it needs to be backed up with a fact-based argument.
Simply saying "they started it" does not prove who started it.
Facts, plz.

Also:

[Y]ou raped an[o]ther sent[e]nce[,] [methinks][.]

lolo

"use word properly?"

 

[Nemesis6]

I think Israel should go pay the Iranian embassy in Lebanon a little visit. Chances are they might just find their hostages. And if not, they can always destroy it. Now THAT will piss off HizbAllah as we all know that HizbAllah is an Iranian/Syrian proxy to whom both countries are supplying weapons, personel, etc.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

HizbAllah
HizbAllah
HizbAllah
HizbAllah
HizbAllah
HizbAllah

You're being too subtle.

Do it like this:

HizbALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAH
HizbALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAH
HizbALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAH

 

[mortiz]

Do you mean Hezbollah?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, silly. "Hezbollah" is how the jew-run media spells it.

The correct spelling is "HizbALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAH"

 

[Ome_Vince]

I have combed through your post to remove the following:

-Factual errors.
-Arguments irrelevant to the discussion.
-Statements that could apply to either side.
-Arguments that follow Godwin's law.
and
-Arguments that are self-contradictory.

Here is what was left:

That's it.

If you disagree with that summary, please show an argument from your post that does not fit elimination under the listed criteria.

Out of the three points, only the second one is a valid argument but, as the parentheses state, it needs to be backed up with a fact-based argument.
Simply saying "they started it" does not prove who started it.
Facts, plz.

Also:


lolo

"use word properly?"

omg, this situation is rediculous. Your stripping down everything YOU think is irrelevant, so you can make your apples and oranges comparisson.

Israel is a nation, out for survival, Hezbollah is an organisation out for its destruction.
An organisation and a country with contradicting goals.
Now that allready classifies a few FACTS:

-Israel is a nation, with millions of people born into Israel with various religions and opinions: just like you cant blame Hezbollah's actions on Lebanon, you cant blame the IDF's actions on entire Israel. Hezbollah's actions you can blame on Hezbollah, since those people choose for it, all support it and like a combat soldier "signed up for it". An Israeli or Lebanese civilian, did not sign up for this war, Hezbollah did. The differance is choice. Not only igniting it, but the choice is made by Hezbollah to attack Israel, and the Israeli government's choice was to go in and end Hezbollah's threat with full-force.
That choice was made for the Israeli's just as Hezbollah made the choice for Lebanon to start this.

-Hezbollah's goals include the destruction of Israel, Israel's goals are no where similar. = a violent destructive goal, apposed to nothing similar.

Please show me how thats:
-Factual errors.
-Arguments irrelevant to the discussion.
-Statements that could apply to either side.
-Arguments that follow Godwin's law.
and
-Arguments that are self-contradictory.

There's more but i'll leave it at that for now.
You're comparisson would even remotely make sense, if you compare Hezbollah to the IDF instead of Israel as a country.

And if thats what your rediculing and calling irrelevant, than we'll, have to agree ->to disagree, as i'm not going to keep repeating myself. You go think Hezbollah and Israel are the same, i'll return to the real world.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I asked you the following, in the context of the recent conflict:

Do you have a non-religious reason to support either side in this conflict?
and
Is there a relevant difference between Hezbollah and Israel in this conflict?
Those are essentially restatements of the same question, although the second is looser in that it does not require you to actually support either side.

Here is your most recent answer, taken almost verbatim from your last post:

01) Israel is a nation.
02) Israel is out for survival.
03) Israel is retaliating to a conflict that they did not start.
04) Israel is not out for destruction.
05) Israel has goals.
06) Israel has millions of native citizens.
07) Israel has a multicultural population.
08) Israel does not represent Israeli civilians.
09) Israel contains civilians did not choose to fight in a war.
10) Israel does not have a violent goal.

Plus points from older posts that you have not yet restated.

Now, I asked you not to use:

-Factual errors.
-Arguments irrelevant to the discussion.
-Statements that could apply to either side.
-Arguments that follow Godwin's law.
and
-Arguments that are self-contradictory.

You claim that all of your ten points up there do not fit any of those criteria.
I disagree.

01) Israel is a nation.
How does Israel's status as a nation justify their actions?
What Israel is has nothing to do with what Israel does and why they do it.

02) Israel is out for survival.
That is not a relevant difference between the two sides because everyone in the world is out for survival.

03) Israel is only retaliating to a conflict that they did not start.
I have already asked you to explain how and when the conflict started.
You have refused to do so.
Even if it is a retaliation, "they did it first" is not a proper justification for support.
I am not asikng you why Hezbollah is bad. I am asking you why Israel is better.

04) Israel is not out for destruction.
This is blatantly untrue. Tons of things continue to be destroyed.

05) Israel has different goals.
The importance is what those goals mean and what is actually acheived in seeking them.
The only goal you have listed is that "Israel wants to survive".
You have not listed why the continuation of current Israeli policy is a good thing.
You have not listed how current actions are justifiable when used in pursuit of the goal.

06) Israel has millions of native citizens.
This is not relevant to a discussion about the actions of the Israeli government.

07) Israel has a multicultural population.
This is not relevant to a discussion about the actions of the Israeli government.

08) Israel does not represent Israeli civilians.
Blatanty untrue. A government represents its people unless it is some form of dictatorship.
However, the power or weakness of civilians isn't relevant to a discussion about the actions of the Israeli government.

09) Israel contains civilians did not choose to fight in a war.
What civilians want has nothing to do with what a government is doing.

10) Israel does not have a violent goal.
Blatantly untrue. Tons of things continue to be destroyed.

So, in other words, you have not answered my question again.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Its seems rediculing and insanely simplifying is all you can do.
You managed to cut up 5 sentances aiming for 2 things: choice and goals, into your own meaningless points, pulling them way out of context, and any form of meaning.
I'm not going to respond to those points you setup, because that simply is not what i said nor am saying.

It is good you quoted your 2 questions, so here's a nice short answer for you:

I asked you the following, in the context of the recent conflict:

Do you have a non-religious reason to support either side in this conflict?

The first question is aiming at my personal support for either side. Whether you agree or dont agree with my reasoning, i have more than once explained why i support Israel.

This, judging the nature of your question, answers your question, that i have "non-religious reasons to support either side in this conflict".
As a matter of fact, i dont have any religious reasons to support any side at all, i'm not Jewish nor Muslim.
Agree or not, simplify or not, i have answered your question.

Is there a relevant difference between Hezbollah and Israel in this conflict?

If you cut out every piece of history, and every fundemental differance, limiting only to the IDF in Lebanon vs Hezbollah: No = they're 2 sides fighting with the Lebanese being the hostage.

Yet i reject that kind of reasoning, because it doesnt make the slightest bit of sense in the picture of: the conflict's history, the explanaition of the sides involved, the blame, and last but not least : how to solve this conflict.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, if you can effectively show that, in the past, throughout this long and violent history in the region, Israel has been 'in the right' all along, then yeah, let's go with that.

Unfortunately it's all such a load of old balls that it's no longer relevant who started it, who did what to whom and so on.

"Hezbollah started it!"
"Yeah, but Israel started before that..."
"Yeah, but Hezbollah..."
"Yeah, but Israel..."
[...]
"Yeah, but the dinosaurs [???]..."

I doubt it's possible anymore to say who is really in the wrong. And even if you could...I'm not sure it would matter.

I'm finding this argument slightly hard to follow, but for the record, both 'ridiculous' and 'ridicule' have two letter 'i's in them.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's been bugging me.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Whether you agree or dont agree with my reasoning, i have more than once explained why i support Israel.

Typically, reasoning has to be reasonable.

You have still not provided any substantial reason to choose one side over the other.

Whether I agree or not is vastly important, because I always do my best to pick the most logical stance in any conflict, whether that means I'm pro-abortion or pro-gun.
All you need to do in this case, where seemingly no-one is rational, is to make a rational argument - and I'm on your side.

But in this case, although neither side is acting very logical, over the course of this looong discussion the people in support of Hezbollah are putting forward at least a handful of decent reasons behind their actions:

They want to regain land that was taken from them in past conflicts, they want their POWs from defunct wars freed, etc. That their tactis suck is one of the few things I can hold against them.

You, on the other hand, keep saying only that Israel needs to "survive", as if the occupied land and political prisoners were the only things keeping the country from collapsing.

As if Hezbollah could ever truly destroy Israel and as if they're trying to make a "2nd Iran" as you constantly say.
"[Hezbollah] has abandoned its goal of establishing a fundamentalist Shiite state in Lebanon." according to wikipedia.

Notice how everything you say is as vague as humanly possible. "Survival." "Goals." "Destruction." "Terrorism." "Nation."

Here is what is concrete: Israel has taken control of things belonging to Lebanon and Hezbollah tried to get some back, using guerilla tactics (that fourth generation warfare that confuses and terrifies you.)
So, after a comparatively minor attck by mideast standards, Israel bombs the everloving **** out of an entire country.

That's the situation. There's nothing in there about "survival."
Hezbollah can't destroy Israel any more than al Qaeda can destroy America.
It can't destroy Israel because al Qaeda can't destroy America.
It's impossible.

So survival is a bullshit excuse, and it just so happens to be the only one you've got.

If you cut out every piece of history, and every fundemental differance, limiting only to the IDF in Lebanon vs Hezbollah: No = they're 2 sides fighting with the Lebanese being the hostage.

In other words, I am absolutely correct unless you can finally provide any relevant historical precedent to your stance or a single logical reason behind that stance.

I'm not cutting out anything that wasn't fundamentally flawed, and you haven't provided any historical context beyond "Hezbollah was mean once".

So stop pretending you've already wowed the crowd with your showstopping points.

You still haven't made a valid argument in support of what you are saying, despite having typed thousands of words by now.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Typically, reasoning has to be reasonable.

You have still not provided any substantial reason to choose one side over the other.
Whether I agree or not is vastly important, because I always do my best to pick the most logical stance in any conflict, whether that means I'm pro-abortion or pro-gun.
All you need to do in this case, where seemingly no-one is rational, is to make a rational argument - and I'm on your side.

You see, theres the flaw of both your questioning and your reasoning. You ask me if i have non-religious reasons to support either side. Even if i answered with: "i think the Israeli flag looks better, or the women are hotter".
That would have answered your question that i have non-religious reasons to support either side.
Which means we move on to debating my argumentation.
Yet, what you do, is keep turning back to the question, repeating i havent answered it.

On top of that, the flaw in your reasoning is that you provide no criteria AT ALL to your question.
Are you asking:
-The difference between Israel and Hezbollah in stupidity in this conflict?
-The difference between Israel and Hezbollah in goals?
-The fundemental difference
-Which period are you refering too, historical backgrounds?
-The morale elements fueling this conflict?
etc etc

There's no criteria to your questions, which make you able to counter arguments which were implying to the fundemental difference: the country -> with "that isnt an excuse for stupidity".
Without criteria this discussion will never be solved, hence i'm awaiting your EXACT criteria of what your asking.

But in this case, although neither side is acting very logical, over the course of this looong discussion the people in support of Hezbollah are putting forward at least a handful of decent reasons behind their actions:

They want to regain land that was taken from them in past conflicts, they want their POWs from defunct wars freed, etc. That their tactis suck is one of the few things I can hold against them.

You, on the other hand, keep saying only that Israel needs to "survive", as if the occupied land and political prisoners were the only things keeping the country from collapsing.

You see, there you go again you've taken 1 thing, and combined it with another. This is no-where near what i said.
I'm not saying Israel is attacking Hezbollah out of survival, its attacking Hezbollah to protect its people, because the countries eternal goal is survival, and the IDF's goal is protection of its people.
Its like the maffia cant whipe out a nation, yet the police and special forces still work together to protect their country from them to get rid of them.
The long term goal is survival.

As if Hezbollah could ever truly destroy Israel and as if they're trying to make a "2nd Iran" as you constantly say.
"[Hezbollah] has abandoned its goal of establishing a fundamentalist Shiite state in Lebanon." according to wikipedia.

Read their ideologie, and Nasrallah's speeches , thats all i have to say and have said as i was refering to the goals of the organisation in the rediculous comparisson.

The only mere difference with Iran, is their stance on women which is interesting to say the least.
They use Iran as a model example for Hezbollah.

Notice how everything you say is as vague as humanly possible. "Survival." "Goals." "Destruction." "Terrorism." "Nation."

Uhm., no.. it clearly indicates your not getting what i'm saying.
You ask the difference, i've given you a shitload of differences, yet my only mistake was not demanding for more accurate criteria to what you're asking, since you're going all over the place.

Here is what is concrete: Israel has taken control of things belonging to Lebanon and Hezbollah tried to get some back, using guerilla tactics (that fourth generation warfare that confuses and terrifies you.)
So, after a comparatively minor attck by mideast standards, Israel bombs the everloving **** out of an entire country.

"minor attack"? Constant attacks spanning years = the drop that spilled the bucket, and what Israel is trying to do is "closing the tap". Which the UN should have done a long time ago.
So this self-defence would only be reasonable when an x number of people have been killed? -> whats that amount?
And how does Israel's enormous attack change the fact that Hezbollah not only started this war and its firing rockets at civilian towns, but continues to fire a shitload of rockets a day?
In your words: rocketing the shit out of northern Israel.
The difference in tactics is: Israel is trying to hit Hezbollah, but doing a bad job due to a number of reasons, Hezbollah is trying to hit as many civilians as possible -> before-during and most likely after this conflict (if they survive).
Buuut i guess thats all irrelevant. All that matters is there are Israeli bombs and some of them hit civilians, so they're no different than Hezbollah. Right?

Israel wants to end this militant wing once and for all, its obvious.

That's the situation. There's nothing in there about "survival."
Hezbollah can't destroy Israel any more than al Qaeda can destroy America.
It can't destroy Israel because al Qaeda can't destroy America.
It's impossible.

Again, mixing all kinds of stuff i never said or implied. The goals differ, which lead to these fundemental differences.
Read what i said above.

So survival is a bullshit excuse, and it just so happens to be the only one you've got.

No, its complete flawed reasoning on your end picking one thing and combining it with another building up on assumptions.
Israel's actions are with the goal to protect its people, for the eternal goal of "survival".
And no, Hezbollah wont anihilate Israel, but is hurting its people on a constant basis.

In other words, I am absolutely correct unless you can finally provide any relevant historical precedent to your stance or a single logical reason behind that stance.

I'm not cutting out anything that wasn't fundamentally flawed, and you haven't provided any historical context beyond "Hezbollah was mean once".

Really? This is hilarious. Cutting out anything that irrelevant?

In that case, cutting out the preceeding history, the governments and any other irrelevant information, whats the difference between the allied forces on D-Day and the German forces?
Nothing: they're both armies fighting on French soil.

If thats the point your trying to make, yes thats true. Its totally useless and rediculous, but true.
If thats not the point your trying to make, please give me EXACT criteria (i've asked for it a couple of times in this post, hopefully you'll read it).

So stop pretending you've already wowed the crowd with your showstopping points.

You still haven't made a valid argument in support of what you are saying, despite having typed thousands of words by now.

You havent been able to break a single one, all you seem to be able to do is pull things out of context, redicule, combine things that were never said, and keep repeating i havent answered your questions which i have a multitude of times.
(ps, it would have worked if your questions werent so vague and personal)

If there's something specific you're after in your comparisson, i demand EXACT criteria to your comparisson.
Not some bullshit vague question, which allows you to hop all over the place.

 

[15357]

Ah, too bad war is a nessecity.

 

[Nemesis6]

With all due respect, the guy thinks I'm Satan and that the media in the U.S is run by the Jews. I don't understand why you guys even bother arguing with him.

 

[Tr0n]

But I am Satan...

 

[Absinthe]

With all due respect, the guy thinks I'm Satan and that the media in the U.S is run by the Jews. I don't understand why you guys even bother arguing with him.

Hahahaha you're ****ing clueless, dude.

 

[JNightshade]

No kidding. You wouldn't know sarcasm if it took a shit all over you

 

[Nemesis6]

Clueless? Maybe. So what were those two posts trying to express then? They were both stupid and both representative of how people like him will disregard Israeli casualties. You, on the other hand, are just helping a fellow leftist out of a sticky situation. To me he also kind of made it clear that he's a nut with this whole putting extra L's in HizbAllah. I still don't get that, but hey, if it floats his boat to spam(Taking jibes at me within it), and yours to support that decision, then fine by me.

 

[JNightshade]

And YOU are simply digging your own grave. I'm sorry, but you really ought to stop posting- everything you say makes me take you less seriously. How on earth is he in a "sticky situation"? He's managed to shut down every argument you've put forward, without resorting to a single flame. Congratulations, you lose.

 

[Nemesis6]

Listen, man... He hasn't shut anything down, you just think he has because you disagree with what I have to say. Simplicity at its best.

 

[CptStern]

Listen, man... He hasn't shut anything down, you just think he has because you disagree with what I have to say. Simplicity at its best.

what colour is the sky in your world? you have yet to counter anything he's said and if I were you I'd leave it at that:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[Nemesis6]

Ok, let's try something... Which arguments haven't I countered?

Marc Twain, huh? - "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

 

[Tr0n]

"You're a dumbass so shut your god damn mouth." - Me