SD on 17/7/2006 at 14:28
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Because Israel has the means to annihilate them.
MIGHT IS RIGHT, rite?
Quote:
Unfortunately for some reason "Palestinians" have garnered enough sympathy is Israel by this point that no one would approve of bombing them back to the countries they actually originated from.
Wow, you're ignorant even by TTLG lurker standards. You do realise there were "Palestinians" in "Israel" long before "Israel" existed? In fact, it was called "Palestine" back then. You might want to, you know, have half a fucking clue what you're talking about before you start preaching to all and sundry about the Middle East.
And indeed, how unfortunate that the Palestinians are viewed as human beings and that we can't "bomb them back to where they came from".
Azal on 17/7/2006 at 14:37
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Oh, you guys are nitpicking.
Regardless of any mistakes or controversial statements StD made, his fundamental point remains correct - that invading another country in response to a few people blowing up a couple hummers and shooting missiles at a few towns is way overcool.
But when the "few people" are the military arm of part of the Lebanese government, then things become a lot less clear cut.
Hizbullah holds 23 seats in the Lebanese parliament and is effectively the only government that exists in southern Lebanon.
So, when Hizbullah attacks Israeli soil, is not Israel justified in viewing it as an attack by Lebanon?
So we have one sovereign nation attacked by another sovereign nation. The attacked sovereign nation responds by attacking the sovereign nation that attacked it.
However, as it happens the sovereign nation which was attacked has an army many times more powerful that the sovereign nation that did the attacking and is known for not fucking around when it is attacked by anyone, sovereign nation or not.
Saly for the civillians of the sovereign nation that did the attacking, their "leaders" have a penchant for hiding near innocents when they fire rockets indiscrimately over the border. So when the sovereign nation being attacked responds, sometimes they get killed.
That sucks, no bones about it.
My major point of contention is that this is less the fault of the Israelis and more the fault of Hizbullah for hiding behind women's skirts in the first place.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/7/2006 at 14:41
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
They're targeting an enemy who uses civilians as human shields, and who uses civilian infrastructure to perform military operations.
That does present a tricky problem. How do you fight such an enemy without killing civillians? :erg:
But also, can you expect them to do any differently when up against such a superior military? Are they to be reasonably expected to come out in the open and fight a nice honest battle to satisfy our notions of fair play?
Scots Taffer on 17/7/2006 at 14:53
Regardless, Bush just thinks Syria needs to "make Hezbollah stop that shit".
The Leader of the Free World has spoken y'all.
And oh so eloquently.
Jason Moyer on 17/7/2006 at 14:54
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Wow, you're ignorant even by TTLG lurker standards. You do realise there were "Palestinians" in "Israel" long before "Israel" existed? In fact, it was called "Palestine" back then.
a.) Yes I'm aware of that, and I'm sure you're aware that the members of the Zionist movement had no problem peacefully assimilating the natives of "Palestine" into the nation currently known as Israel. While Israel is a Jewish state (the only one of its kind, in case anyone wasn't aware of that), there are not and have never been restrictions on people of other ethnicities or religious backgrounds living there.
b.) There has never been a country called Palestine, and the current people who call themselves Palestinians are refugees from Egypt and Jordan.
Convict on 17/7/2006 at 14:57
Quote Posted by ChimpyChompy
But also, can you expect them to do any differently when up against such a superior military? Are they to be reasonably expected to come out in the open and fight a nice honest battle to satisfy our notions of fair play?
I don't know if this relates to the concepts of war we have. Disclaimer: The following is my uneducated thinking on this topic: In the good old days the troops wore nice bright red or blue shirts for clear identification. Then guerillas and camoflauge happened. Now maybe the new revolution is terrorist organisations and noone admitting to being the soldiers.
Jason Moyer on 17/7/2006 at 15:01
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
That does present a tricky problem. How do you fight such an enemy without killing civillians? :erg:
But also, can you expect them to do any differently when up against such a superior military? Are they to be reasonably expected to come out in the open and fight a nice honest battle to satisfy our notions of fair play?
a.) I'm not sure. I think if someone discovers a way to do that, it would revolutionize modern warfare. I can't imagine weapons becoming accurate enough to conduct that sort of war without losing their effectiveness, but technological development isn't something that is necessarily easy to predict.
b.) I can understand the strategical usage of civilians to try and even out the numbers in a battle, I just don't want to hear people using civilian casualties as a justification for condemning what Israel is doing when those civilians are being used as part of the other side's military strategy.
Agent Monkeysee on 17/7/2006 at 15:02
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Regardless, Bush just thinks Syria needs to "make Hezbollah stop that shit".
I don't think this is a real quote sir :grr:
Agent Monkeysee on 17/7/2006 at 15:55
haha oh bush what foible of the reagan administration won't you recreate
