Facts of the Israel-Lebanon conflict of 2006

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

24 Jul 2006, 7:07 am

Excuse: "Lebanon attacked into Israel"
Israel claims Hezbollah attacked into Israel in their efforts to "abduct" two Israeli soldiers. Unfortunately that just isn't true. The initial border skirmish between Hezbollah and the Israeli military actually happened outside Israel, at a place called Shebaa Farms. Now Shebaa Farms is within Lebanon but still claimed by Syria.

Excuse: "Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers"
Israel claimed the cause of the current conflict with Lebanon was that Lebanese Hezbollah militia fighters "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. Let's look at the facts. Israel claims the right to attack Lebanon because, they claim, Lebanon "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. However, the initial border skirmish (outside Israel) happened when Hezbollah fighters attempted to liberate two Hezbollah people abducted by Israel (1, 2). So isn't Hezbollah doing precisely what Israel said is acceptable? Why yes, they are.
And that isn't even including the 8,000+ Palestinians and Lebanese abducted and imprisoned by Israel. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Excuse: "We aren't targeting civilians"
The explanation is that Israel isn't targeting civilians, but is actually taregting terrorists, and the civilian casualties ("collateral damage", in the par;ance of those who like to remove the bloody horror from such atrocities) are merely a necessary and unfortunate by-product of war. How can that possibly be the case when the vast majority of those killed by Israel in this conflict are civilians? Doesn't that make the civilians the primary targets, and any alleged terrorists they kill merely lucky shots? Aren't the military deaths the actual "collateral damage" in this case? When does it become bullshit? When the civilians make up 99% of the dead? What about 99.5%? How about 99.9%? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Excuse: "Israel hasn't committed any war crimes"
Warfare between states is supposed to be governed by something called the Laws Of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Now, there are lots of international laws covering all sorts of things. International laws are laws which nations agree to abide by. SOme of those laws relate specifically to war. Any such international laws related to warfare, which are in force today, constitute the Laws Of Armed Conflict. Many of these include the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Specifically, in relation to the current Israel-Lebanon conflict, one can point to the following:

Quote:
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, II), July 29, 1899
ARTICLE XXIII
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:
d. To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
ARTICLE XXV
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

Quote:
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague, IV), October 18, 1907
ARTICLE XXIII
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden:
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
ARTICLE XXV
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Quote:
Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938
Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;

Quote:
Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945
War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Quote:
Resolution on Human Rights, United Nations, December 19, 1968
Affirms resolution XXVIII of the XXth International Conference of the Red Cross held at Vienna in 1965, which laid down, inter alia, the following principles for observance by all governmental and other authorities responsible for action in armed conflicts:
(b) That it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian populations as such;

Quote:


Excuse: "We dropped leaflets telling people to leave"
Now that's a rather lame excuse. Israel claims it dropped leaflets telling any civilians to leave the areas they intend to destroy (civilian areas; see the laws mentioned above), so anyone left must be evil nasty terrorists or just plain stupid. Now the problem with that is... Israel then went on to kill those who, having found and read such leaflets and being unwilling to simply live in their own homes, tried to leave. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) And that, by the way, is another war crime.

Excuse: "We're not preventing civilians from leaving"
Section 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention demands that "Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict" be allowed to leave, and not be prevented from leaving, the area of conflict. That is the law. However, one Greek ship was forced by the Israeli navy to leave without picking up its intended refugees (1, 2). A Swedish rescue effort was also prevented by the Israeli navy.

Excuse: "They're our pals"
The UN Security Council recently tried to slap a resolution on Israel for its actions against Lebanon, but the resolution was blocked by the USA, something the USA has done for Israel many times. Is there some sort of double standard at work? This article mentions several, and demonstrates how people attempt to justify or rationalise such.



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

25 Jul 2006, 11:10 pm

Scaramouche wrote:
Excuse: "Lebanon attacked into Israel"
Israel claims Hezbollah attacked into Israel in their efforts to "abduct" two Israeli soldiers. Unfortunately that just isn't true. The initial border skirmish between Hezbollah and the Israeli military actually happened outside Israel, at a place called Shebaa Farms. Now Shebaa Farms is within Lebanon but still claimed by Syria.


Maybe you should try reading the sources you quote. It says in the article that the area is under dispute. (Last occupied by Israel). Besides, it's an area scarcely a mile wide.



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

25 Jul 2006, 11:13 pm

Scaramouche wrote:
Excuse: "Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers"
Israel claimed the cause of the current conflict with Lebanon was that Lebanese Hezbollah militia fighters "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. Let's look at the facts. Israel claims the right to attack Lebanon because, they claim, Lebanon "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. However, the initial border skirmish (outside Israel) happened when Hezbollah fighters attempted to liberate two Hezbollah people abducted by Israel (1, 2). So isn't Hezbollah doing precisely what Israel said is acceptable? Why yes, they are.
And that isn't even including the 8,000+ Palestinians and Lebanese abducted and imprisoned by Israel.


Most of those 8000 are know terrorists. You left out the part where Hezbollah killed 8 Israeli soldiers.

Are you trying to make a point of moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel??


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

25 Jul 2006, 11:21 pm

Just what is your point here?? you post a bunch of half-truths caliming them as "Facts". This is little more tha a propoganda piece.

Fact- If Hezbollah lays down it's arms, you have peace in the region. (or at least one less instigator)

Fact- If Israel lays down it's arms you have a second Holocaust.


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

26 Jul 2006, 4:09 am

Scrapheap wrote:
Scaramouche wrote:
Excuse: "Lebanon attacked into Israel"
Israel claims Hezbollah attacked into Israel in their efforts to "abduct" two Israeli soldiers. Unfortunately that just isn't true. The initial border skirmish between Hezbollah and the Israeli military actually happened outside Israel, at a place called Shebaa Farms. Now Shebaa Farms is within Lebanon but still claimed by Syria.


Maybe you should try reading the sources you quote. It says in the article that the area is under dispute. (Last occupied by Israel). Besides, it's an area scarcely a mile wide.


I have read it, and many more besides. Fact remains, it's not in Israel.



Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

26 Jul 2006, 4:10 am

Scrapheap wrote:
Scaramouche wrote:
Excuse: "Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers"
Israel claimed the cause of the current conflict with Lebanon was that Lebanese Hezbollah militia fighters "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. Let's look at the facts. Israel claims the right to attack Lebanon because, they claim, Lebanon "abducted" two Israeli soldiers. However, the initial border skirmish (outside Israel) happened when Hezbollah fighters attempted to liberate two Hezbollah people abducted by Israel (1, 2). So isn't Hezbollah doing precisely what Israel said is acceptable? Why yes, they are.
And that isn't even including the 8,000+ Palestinians and Lebanese abducted and imprisoned by Israel.


Most of those 8000 are know terrorists. You left out the part where Hezbollah killed 8 Israeli soldiers.

Are you trying to make a point of moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel??


Most of them are terrorists? Prove it.

As for "moral equivalency", I think you're talking about something called "moral relativism". And no.



Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

26 Jul 2006, 4:11 am

Scrapheap wrote:
Just what is your point here?? you post a bunch of half-truths caliming them as "Facts". This is little more tha a propoganda piece.

Fact- If Hezbollah lays down it's arms, you have peace in the region. (or at least one less instigator)

Fact- If Israel lays down it's arms you have a second Holocaust.


Hezbollah arose as a resistance movement when southern Lebanon was invaded and occupied by Israel in 1982. Thus "no Hezbollah" does not mean "No war".

As for your holocaust claims: pure BS.



ladakh
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 98
Location: Pennsylvania

26 Jul 2006, 1:10 pm

>>Fact- If Hezbollah lays down it's arms, you have peace in the region. (or at least one less instigator)
>>Fact- If Israel lays down it's arms you have a second Holocaust.

I like the logic to that and have to agree.

All the terrorists want is to keep shooting missiles into Isreal until they are all killed. As messed up as it is to say, the way to stop them is to kill them. Slippery slope...



Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

26 Jul 2006, 7:33 pm

Scaramouche wrote:
Hezbollah arose as a resistance movement when southern Lebanon was invaded and occupied by Israel in 1982. Thus "no Hezbollah" does not mean "No war".

As for your holocaust claims: pure BS.


Then why did'nt Hezbollah disban when Israel pulled out??

Holocaust calims are based on what Hezbollah teaches, that Jews are subhuman. When Hitler publishe "Mein Kampf" no one realy took him seriously about the "Jewish Problem". Those who dont learn from history....


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Scrapheap
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,678
Location: Animal Farm

26 Jul 2006, 7:36 pm

Scaramouche wrote:

Scrapheap wrote:
Maybe you should try reading the sources you quote. It says in the article that the area is under dispute. (Last occupied by Israel). Besides, it's an area scarcely a mile wide.


I have read it, and many more besides. Fact remains, it's not in Israel.


Do you have trouble understanding English?? What part of "Under Dispute" did you fail to comprehend?? Read the article AGAIN!!


_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!! !


Scaramouche
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 247

28 Jul 2006, 9:55 am

Scrapheap wrote:
Scaramouche wrote:

Scrapheap wrote:
Maybe you should try reading the sources you quote. It says in the article that the area is under dispute. (Last occupied by Israel). Besides, it's an area scarcely a mile wide.


I have read it, and many more besides. Fact remains, it's not in Israel.


Do you have trouble understanding English?? What part of "Under Dispute" did you fail to comprehend?? Read the article AGAIN!!


I know it's under dispute. It's under dispute between Lebanon and Syria. It's still not in Israel. Let me quote Forbes

"The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."



manalitwist
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105

09 Aug 2006, 10:11 pm

Hizbollah is NOT a terrorist organization. It was started by the people of Lebanon as a national resistance movement to fight the illegal Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was Israel that was and is the terrorist.

Hizbollah is a legitimate resistance movement in the same way as the French resistance was in France during the Nazi occupation. Of course we can see that Hizbollah is much more effective.

Why should Hizbollah disband when it has an aggresive thieving and fanaticaly racist country on their borders?

As was pointed out, the disputed land is most certainly NOT disputed by Israel as they have no legal claim whatsoever. I do not doubt that like the comonn thief that they will try to STEAL it.



V111
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 375
Location: Iam V001 as well

11 Aug 2006, 2:34 pm

Fact humans are killing and being killed for the ideas of Nations, theology, and other insane ideas. Were's the common human bond here i see very little on the part of both warring factions, who are acting like spoiled little chidren fighting over cookies. Time for a parent to smack both factions disarm them and keep them apart to protect the humans who do not think this way.


_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick


kevv729
That is My Pearls of Wisdom.
That is My Pearls of Wisdom.

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

11 Aug 2006, 2:48 pm

Aren't the Moslems just as racist against Israel too.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


manalitwist
Banned
Banned

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105

12 Aug 2006, 10:41 am

V111 wrote:
Fact humans are killing and being killed for the ideas of Nations, theology, and other insane ideas. Were's the common human bond here i see very little on the part of both warring factions, who are acting like spoiled little chidren fighting over cookies. Time for a parent to smack both factions disarm them and keep them apart to protect the humans who do not think this way.


One "child" is fighting over another "child's" "cookies". If "Mummy" or "Daddy" wants to go smackies then we all know which naughty "child" deserves smacky red bottom, dont we now?



Last edited by manalitwist on 14 Aug 2006, 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.